Fantasy GM Thread | Part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,068
4,467
Vancouver
Olli is not good enough to play against top-sixers and Schmidt would be wasted playing down the lineup. It's the natural order of things that most young guys start lower in the lineup playing along side other lower-level players. If they're good enough, they eventually rise above that. And Myers is not a problem on the third pair so it's not as though Olli is being dragged down by a weak partner.

I said ideally. Juolevi's been refreshing, but he's not leapfrogging Hughes or taking over for Edler, I'm talking about covering defensively for Myers, and...well ask around, I'm a bit of a Myers apologist.

I just don't want Juolevi hammered into a defensive role, that's what I feel is a waste of what we have in someone that could still be a solid top four option in all areas for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HockeyWooot

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
schmidt and juolevi might be a fun combo for pp2 if we could get pp1 to get off the ice after 60 seconds. also a decent pairing to weather any post pp push.
Agreed. Smart coaches (depending on game circumstances of course) have two D out for the back half of the PP. OJ with Schmidt makes perfect sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NomadicCanadian

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,099
10,546
If the Canucks' season is a failure (looks to be that way now but too early to tell), what tradeable assets do we have? I'm hoping any of the following combination like:

Edler for a 3rd.
Sutter (50% retained) for a 3rd/4th
Hamonic to a western Canadian team for a 3rd/4th
Benn for a 4th/5th
Pearson for a 2nd/3rd
 

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
If the Canucks' season is a failure (looks to be that way now but too early to tell), what tradeable assets do we have? I'm hoping any of the following combination like:

Edler for a 3rd.
Sutter (50% retained) for a 3rd/4th
Hamonic to a western Canadian team for a 3rd/4th
Benn for a 4th/5th
Pearson for a 2nd/3rd
Will Aquilini allow Benning/Brod to make such trades? Would Benning/Brod be able to accomplish this?
Getting these draft picks should allow a competent GM to sweeten deals to dump Loui and (one of) Rooster or Beagle too.
If Gaud could return a second I’d do that too.
Guys on 650 talking about buying out Jake. They say, because Jake is under 25 the buyout leaves very little on the cap.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,068
4,467
Vancouver
If the Canucks' season is a failure (looks to be that way now but too early to tell), what tradeable assets do we have? I'm hoping any of the following combination like:

Edler for a 3rd.
Sutter (50% retained) for a 3rd/4th
Hamonic to a western Canadian team for a 3rd/4th
Benn for a 4th/5th
Pearson for a 2nd/3rd

Roussel is getting some interest (and I'm sure in a "late pick" kind of way).
Schmidt.
Myers.
Virtanen for a 2nd? 3rd?
Gaudette for a 3rd.
I'm sure any one not named Eriksson could be moved for futures to certain teams.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
If the Canucks' season is a failure (looks to be that way now but too early to tell), what tradeable assets do we have? I'm hoping any of the following combination like:

Edler for a 3rd.
Sutter (50% retained) for a 3rd/4th
Hamonic to a western Canadian team for a 3rd/4th
Benn for a 4th/5th
Pearson for a 2nd/3rd
It would be silly not to make these moves even if 4th is within sniffing distance but who are we kidding. They’ll buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NomadicCanadian

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Roussel is getting some interest (and I'm sure in a "late pick" kind of way).
Schmidt.
Myers.
Virtanen for a 2nd? 3rd?
Gaudette for a 3rd.
I'm sure any one not named Eriksson could be moved for futures to certain teams.
Fans showing interest on the trade board is not actual interest. Just thought I’d remind you.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
Dumping a dead 2021-22 contract like Roussel, Beagle, or Virtanen should be the priority and somewhat realistic.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
No ones opinion, including yours and mine then, has any value what so ever. Gotcha.
I’m just saying it’s not interest in the normal sense like media reports. It’s like saying I’m interested in McDavid. Who cares right?
 

Bankerguy

Registered User
Apr 28, 2013
3,789
1,925
I was thinking about it, with the bottom six being so bad, maybe next year it would make sense to spread the top6 skill out over three lines.
Let's assume the Canucks sign a top6 winger like Tatar or Palmieri.
Then, assume Podkozlin comes over and pays as good as Hoglander.

In that situation, maybe you give Jt. Miller his own line and run three scoring lines. Something like
xxx // Pettersson // Boeser
Podkolzin // Horvat // Hoglander
Tatar // Jt Miller // xxx

That would put two top six caliber players on the 1st and 3rd line and assuming Podkolzin / Hoglander play like top6ers or close to it, then the second line would generate enough offense to be a threat.

If they could do something like this... then MOST of the time, the Canuck would actually have a decent line out there...
You take the best of the rest and form whatever you can with the 4th line with PK in mind. Roussell / Motte // Beagle.

I'd like to see something like this...i'm tired of seeing Sutter or Beagles line out there 40% of the time :(
 

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,014
3,834
Vancouver
For a long time I wasn't keen on bringing back Pearson but I think he'd be effective as the 3rd line LW, depending on the price. Run something like this next season:

Miller - Petterson - Boeser
Hoglander - Horvat - Gaudette
Pearson - Laughton - Podkolzin
 

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
For a long time I wasn't keen on bringing back Pearson but I think he'd be effective as the 3rd line LW, depending on the price. Run something like this next season:

Miller - Petterson - Boeser
Hoglander - Horvat - Gaudette
Pearson - Laughton - Podkolzin
How do we get Laughton? MAYBe Podzilla, Jasek, or Lind plays 3C
 

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
Guys on 650 talking about buying out Jake. They say, because Jake is under 25 the buyout leaves very little on the cap.

Correct. Canucks would only have to spend $1M to save $2M in cap hit. He'd only count as 50k toward the cap next season and 500k in the following season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luckylarry

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
My dream is they use JV to get rid of Roussel.
Yup. This is definitely a “fantasy”.
Sadly Jake, with his new contract, has joined the large group of Benning/Brod signings that have negative vale.
 

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
He's one of a few 3rd line offseason targets - he's pending unrestricted free agent. Maybe Philly re-signs him, we'll see. Pearson, a defensively sound 3rd line C and Podkolzin will really transform the top 9 imo.
If Pearson truly wants to stay here, I wonder what kind of contract it would take? 3 years at 3/yr? Too much?
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Yup. This is definitely a “fantasy”.
Sadly Jake, with his new contract, has joined the large group of Benning/Brod signings that have negative vale.
I don’t think he has negative value. There’s a difference in little value and negative.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
For a long time I wasn't keen on bringing back Pearson but I think he'd be effective as the 3rd line LW, depending on the price. Run something like this next season:

Miller - Petterson - Boeser
Hoglander - Horvat - Gaudette
Pearson - Laughton - Podkolzin
Isn’t Laughton a winger now?

These are the guys first crack at UFA. I can’t imagine we can afford those two.

To me you can’t go signing term this summer. Wait for the real window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HockeyWooot

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
I don’t think he has negative value. There’s a difference in little value and negative.
Imo the best way to judge trade value is in draft capital. I think Jake has no draft value; he wouldn’t even return a late round pick.
Maybe he did before this contract, but not now.
His value is another team’s problem coming back. I guess we could get lucky and return a Pearson for Gudbranson, but likely it’s just another Jake.
 

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
Isn’t Laughton a winger now?

These are the guys first crack at UFA. I can’t imagine we can afford those two.

To me you can’t go signing term this summer. Wait for the real window.
If we could get ?Sam Bennett for Jake, could he fill the third line centre spot?
What do we add to Jake?
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Imo the best way to judge trade value is in draft capital. I think Jake has no draft value; he wouldn’t even return a late round pick.
Maybe he did before this contract, but not now.
His value is another team’s problem coming back. I guess we could get lucky and return a Pearson for Gudbranson, but likely it’s just another Jake.
Yeah I just disagree with a lot of your opinions. No biggie. But negative value is requiring assets to move. Jake isn’t there imo.

His contract and performance aren’t pluses but nhl GM’s pay for Jake’s measurements and draft stock. It’s just how it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burke's Evil Spirit
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->