Rumor: Farhan Lalji: "Internal Belief" Canucks can do something with Sutter and/or Eriksson

[Pinkfloyd]

They also haven’t had a need to dump salary until potentially this off-season depending on what moves they’re going to make. Maybe they don’t want to re-sign injury prone players in Markstrom and Tanev to big, long term deals?



Well swapping it out for an even longer contract in Jones’ doesn’t seem beneficial to me. The cap savings for one season don’t offset the added cap hit for two down the line IMO.



Well if their best chance to win is next season by your estimation that would lead one to believe that after that the window would be getting smaller and not larger, right?

Maybe they don't but if they want to compete for a Cup, they need to maximize their cap space regardless of what their options are.

The second bit is you purposely omitting pretty key factors to what I'm suggesting. I'm not just suggesting Eriksson for Jones so why are you isolating the two pretending like I didn't also suggest guys like Beagle and also noted in another post guys like Roussel or Myers or possibly Ferland. All those players would free up more dollars for the time you're focusing on.

To your question in the third part of your quote, that isn't what is being said. Their best shot is next season. Their window doesn't close after next season nor is it in the process of closing. It's not an either/or situation. There is a third option for it being roughly the same but it depends on what moves are made. It's hard to see their odds improving further by having to invest greatly into two elite talents.

 

[Cogburn]

SJS taking back Eriksson and Sutter in return? I would take a flyer on Jones and him working with Ian Clark. Expose him to Seattle next off season

Yeah, if we get Jones at half, maybe. His contract isn't a fit here just to move those two. We have our big 5 all needing new contracts before Jones's contract is up.

 

[Cogburn]

Maybe they don't but if they want to compete for a Cup, they need to maximize their cap space regardless of what their options are.

By adding almost 6 million in dead cap space for the next 4 years? In the dead cap era? When we already have one goalie we're looking to move out of our two NHL goalies, with another in the minors rapidly improving?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

This thread has to do with a report that Vancouver is looking to move our cap dumps, not take on your teams cap dumps. So yes, taking on 4 years of Jones is a non-starter for a team looking to create cap space now, and in the future. We are happy dumping one (1) short term contract, placing Ferland on the LTIR and all the sudden we're good to go this year. Moving Eriksson, Sutter, Baertschi and who ever else to take back 4 years of Jones isn't being creative, it's creating a massive, massive problem for us down the road when our key pieces (Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Horvat, Miller) all need a new contract.

More like the thread has to do with a report that Vancouver can get something done. So yes, getting rid of more cap dollars for a longer deal that does create cap space now and in the future is a possibility. You're certainly capable of running with the option you laid out but it doesn't create some massive problem down the road. That's a load of crap. It's 5.75 mil possibly for some other contracts that are also down the road like Beagle, Roussel, Ferland, and Myers.

 

[Cogburn]

More like the thread has to do with a report that Vancouver can get something done. So yes, getting rid of more cap dollars for a longer deal that does create cap space now and in the future is a possibility. You're certainly capable of running with the option you laid out but it doesn't create some massive problem down the road. That's a load of crap. It's 5.75 mil possibly for some other contracts that are also down the road like Beagle, Roussel, Ferland, and Myers.

Ferland is going to be on the LTIR. He simply can't shake the symptoms yet.

Roussel and Beagle are not players I am worried about yet. Their contracts are shorter and half the cost of Jones.

Myers is fine for now, and even if he drops in value like a stone, he is no worse then Jones is for us.

We can buy out Sutter and not take Jones to get some cap money, if nothing comes up in a trade for other assets.

We can attach Demko to Eriksson if we need the money, Detroit fans are even willing to send an asset our way for that package.

We can move Eriksson for Schneider, and buy out Schneider.

Goalies are not especially valuable players, and taking on a 30 year old project making 5.75 million for 4 years in cap space, when we have one 30 year old goalie doing much, much better then Jones, another 25 year old that just made a statement against the top team in the West (letting in 2 goals in a flurry of shots) is already going to be playing ahead of Jones, and we have DiPietro in the minors looking great. Where is the incentive here? Besides the big warm fuzzy we get from helping the Sharks out?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

By adding almost 6 million in dead cap space for the next 4 years? In the dead cap era? When we already have one goalie we're looking to move out of our two NHL goalies, with another in the minors rapidly improving?

While in the process removing potentially 12.5 mil of cap space including potentially 9.5 million that directly involves a timeline that helps you make space for the players you're talking about keeping. If the deal was something like Eriksson, Beagle, and Baertschi, that's 3.25 mil in savings at the time of re-signing Hughes and Pettersson while clearing a lot for next season. That and there's no guarantee that you'd have to keep Jones for the rest of his deal. A trade or an expansion selection are also on the table as a way to move him. And buying Jones out is more advantageous in the short term than even Eriksson in year one.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Maybe they don't but if they want to compete for a Cup, they need to maximize their cap space regardless of what their options are.

I don’t see this team as a cup contender for next season short of signing someone like Alex Pietrangelo so I’ll have to disagree with you there.

The second bit is you purposely omitting pretty key factors to what I'm suggesting. I'm not just suggesting Eriksson for Jones so why are you isolating the two pretending like I didn't also suggest guys like Beagle and also noted in another post guys like Roussel or Myers or possibly Ferland. All those players would free up more dollars for the time you're focusing on.

Other than Myers, who I’d be shocked if he was actually being considered as a piece to move, none of those players overlap with the final two years of Jones’ contract. Ferland’s does but the guy can barely skate without getting a concussion, his contract will be LTIR’ed from here on out. Forgive me if I’m not interested in adding almost $6M in dead cap for two years when EP and Hughes will be in their primes in exchange for extra capspace the next two seasons. I don’t like that tradeoff.

To your question in the third part of your quote, that isn't what is being said. Their best shot is next season. Their window doesn't close after next season nor is it in the process of closing. It's not an either/or situation. There is a third option for it being roughly the same but it depends on what moves are made. It's hard to see their odds improving further by having to invest greatly into two elite talents.

The Canucks have two more years of truly awful deals, maybe less. I’d rather not extend that another two years into EP and Hughes’ prime.

 

[Cogburn]

While in the process removing potentially 12.5 mil of cap space including potentially 9.5 million that directly involves a timeline that helps you make space for the players you're talking about keeping. If the deal was something like Eriksson, Beagle, and Baertschi, that's 3.25 mil in savings at the time of re-signing Hughes and Pettersson while clearing a lot for next season. That and there's no guarantee that you'd have to keep Jones for the rest of his deal. A trade or an expansion selection are also on the table as a way to move him. And buying Jones out is more advantageous in the short term than even Eriksson in year one.

Again, this math doesn't work out. We remove 12.5 for one year, and add 5.75 for 4 years. It is still creating a massive problem for us.

We "gain" 3.25 if we do it your way next year, or we can lose 8.6ish in losing Benn, Baertschi and Sutter as free agents if we do nothing. Already your offer is beginning to fizzle.

And then 2 more years of Jones, when in year 3 of this whole thing, Miller, Boeser and Horvat are all due for new contracts, with a 5.75 yoke around our teams neck, while we are still in a flat cap.

That and there is no guarentee we keep Eriksson for his two years, or Beagle/Roussel for their remaining two years, or Myers for his remaining 4 years, as a trade or expansion selection (seriously, you think Seattle is taking Jones from us?) are on the table to move them.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Ferland is going to be on the LTIR. He simply can't shake the symptoms yet.

Roussel and Beagle are not players I am worried about yet. Their contracts are shorter and half the cost of Jones.

Myers is fine for now, and even if he drops in value like a stone, he is no worse then Jones is for us.

We can buy out Sutter and not take Jones to get some cap money, if nothing comes up in a trade for other assets.

We can attach Demko to Eriksson if we need the money, Detroit fans are even willing to send an asset our way for that package.

We can move Eriksson for Schneider, and buy out Schneider.

Goalies are not especially valuable players, and taking on a 30 year old project making 5.75 million for 4 years in cap space, when we have one 30 year old goalie doing much, much better then Jones, another 25 year old that just made a statement against the top team in the West (letting in 2 goals in a flurry of shots) is already going to be playing ahead of Jones, and we have DiPietro in the minors looking great. Where is the incentive here? Besides the big warm fuzzy we get from helping the Sharks out?

The assumption for this scenario is the likelihood that one of the goalies is gone before next season which is likely. I have a hard time buying that Yzerman is willing to take on Eriksson to get Demko. There's the possibility that neither Schneider nor Eriksson would be willing to waive their NTC or have the acquiring team on their list.

I've laid out a pretty decent incentive. I don't know why you're pretending like it's not there. Trading say Sutter, Eriksson, and Baertschi for Jones is an immediate relief of about 6 mil in cap savings. If the interest is more in having more cap savings after next season to re-sign Hughes and Pettersson, you can swap Sutter and even Baertschi for Beagle and Roussel. The immediate relief is 6.25 mil. The down-the-road savings is the same for Hughes and Pettersson while giving your team the opportunity to reinvest those savings into better players to help you win now when it is likely their best opportunity to do so. I also think you're exaggerating how DiPietro looks in the minors but I don't think that actually matters to this conversation. When DiPietro is actually ready for NHL time, Jones can be moved.

 

[Peter Griffin]

If the deal was something like Eriksson, Beagle, and Baertschi, that's 3.25 mil in savings at the time of re-signing Hughes and Pettersson while clearing a lot for next season.

And if they just buy Eriksson out and don’t acquire Jones they’ll have $2.333M in savings and no additional long term cap dump.

That and there's no guarantee that you'd have to keep Jones for the rest of his deal. A trade or an expansion selection are also on the table as a way to move him. And buying Jones out is more advantageous in the short term than even Eriksson in year one.

Why doesn’t San Jose just do this? Why so eager to ‘help’ Vancouver out?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don’t see this team as a cup contender for next season short of signing someone like Alex Pietrangelo so I’ll have to disagree with you there.



Other than Myers, who I’d be shocked if he was actually being considered as a piece to move, none of those players overlap with the final two years of Jones’ contract. Ferland’s does but the guy can barely skate without getting a concussion, his contract will be LTIR’ed from here on out. Forgive me if I’m not interested in adding almost $6M in dead cap for two years when EP and Hughes will be in their primes in exchange for extra capspace the next two seasons. I don’t like that tradeoff.



The Canucks have two more years of truly awful deals, maybe less. I’d rather not extend that another two years into EP and Hughes’ prime.

I would think Pietrangelo would at least be financially on the table if he has interest in going to Vancouver. As for Ferland, that can be a little tricky. You can't just LTIR him forever if he is trying to get back on the ice. If he feels healthy enough to try, you have to activate him. There's no sense in even bothering with it if you don't have to. I'm not blaming you or anything for not being interested. I'm merely countering the points made. Teams will often trade off short term cap savings if they feel like they have an opportunity to compete. Vancouver was one game away from the final four. A lot of GM's in that spot think they can take shots to win when that sort of run happens.

Again, this math doesn't work out. We remove 12.5 for one year, and add 5.75 for 4 years. It is still creating a massive problem for us.

We "gain" 3.25 if we do it your way next year, or we can lose 8.6ish in losing Benn, Baertschi and Sutter as free agents if we do nothing. Already your offer is beginning to fizzle.

And then 2 more years of Jones, when in year 3 of this whole thing, Miller, Boeser and Horvat are all due for new contracts, with a 5.75 yoke around our teams neck, while we are still in a flat cap.

That and there is no guarentee we keep Eriksson for his two years, or Beagle/Roussel for their remaining two years, or Myers for his remaining 4 years, as a trade or expansion selection (seriously, you think Seattle is taking Jones from us?) are on the table to move them.

Except that math does work out. It's not just for one year. Eriksson has two more years and no that 5.75 mil is not a massive problem when there's still an expansion draft and his buyout option is better than Eriksson's in the time that Vancouver wants the space for new contracts. I've also suggested things without Baertschi or Sutter involved with having Beagle and Roussel that would address that. The idea that you're worried about Miller, Boeser, and Horvat's contracts when Jones would have one year left is absurd. That's an easy contract at that point to get rid of even if a trade isn't an option. A buyout puts that deal at a 2.75 mil cap hit to save 3 mil. Hardly an issue by then especially when you consider the many options available for Vancouver by then. You treating it like it's some massive doomsday thing when it isn't doesn't help things.

And yes, Jones to Seattle is an option for any team that has him if they put forth the right incentive. If it's the Sharks, I'd happily trade them Kevin Labanc to make that happen. If it's the Canucks, I think Jake Virtanen could be enough to make that happen. There are other options, I'm sure.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And if they just buy Eriksson out and don’t acquire Jones they’ll have $2.333M in savings and no additional long term cap dump.



Why doesn’t San Jose just do this? Why so eager to ‘help’ Vancouver out?

How do you come up with 2.333 in savings? For 2021-22? So 2.333 in savings over the 3.25 mil as that specific proposal laid out that includes a 5.666 cap hit for next season? You think that's a real option for Vancouver?

San Jose is likely trying to do this or will try to do it when the expansion comes along if nothing materializes. I'm literally trying to talk about a deal that would be helpful to both sides and sometimes you do cap dumps for cap dumps.

 

[Bankerguy]

At the end of the day the ultimate goal has to include clearing cap space in 2021 to sign the cornerstones.

so if you move Sutter are you really going to spend all of his cap hit on his replacement and for term?

you can move Sutter if the goal is to change up the bottom 6. I think with covid teams want short term deals at the bottom on the roster.

so Sutter at $2.2-$3 makes sense for some teams. But for the Canucks they can’t go around spending cap space long term until they lock their cornerstones.

If a family wants to pay down their mortgage on a yearly basis they know it’s coming up. Maybe that means you sacrifice a fancy vacation to do it. Petey and Hughes are your mortgage, the cornerstone. Everything else is a vacation or car or electronics. You can do without.

No. moving Sutter would allow resigning Tanev and or possibly Toffoli.

 

[Peter Griffin]

How do you come up with 2.333 in savings? For 2021-22? So 2.333 in savings over the 3.25 mil as that specific proposal laid out that includes a 5.666 cap hit for next season? You think that's a real option for Vancouver?

I think it’s more realistic than taking on two additional years of Jones at $5.75M. They could also bury Eriksson next season and buy him out in the offseason and still save $2M against the cap for 21/22. Sutter and Baertschi are also moveable contracts this offseason. They can also look at a buyout of Roussel/Beagle the following year if needed.

Mortgaging future cap space in order to gain loads this offseason is not the prudent move.

San Jose is likely trying to do this or will try to do it when the expansion comes along if nothing materializes. I'm literally trying to talk about a deal that would be helpful to both sides and sometimes you do cap dumps for cap dumps.

But why take on Vancouver’s cap dumps for the next two seasons if it will be easy to just dump Jones in two years or at expansion? Why not just go that route?

 

[Bankerguy]

actually serious here, wouldn't be surprised if some kind of deal for seabrook works out here with vancouver.

seabrook a BC native and Hawks/nucks discussed trading seabrook to Vancouver during the 2019 draft

I don't know about that. Three more season at like 7 million.... that would literally destroy the Canuck organization. Hughes/Petey will need contracts soon...

 

[Cogburn]

The assumption for this scenario is the likelihood that one of the goalies is gone before next season which is likely. I have a hard time buying that Yzerman is willing to take on Eriksson to get Demko. There's the possibility that neither Schneider nor Eriksson would be willing to waive their NTC or have the acquiring team on their list.

I've laid out a pretty decent incentive. I don't know why you're pretending like it's not there. Trading say Sutter, Eriksson, and Baertschi for Jones is an immediate relief of about 6 mil in cap savings. If the interest is more in having more cap savings after next season to re-sign Hughes and Pettersson, you can swap Sutter and even Baertschi for Beagle and Roussel. The immediate relief is 6.25 mil. The down-the-road savings is the same for Hughes and Pettersson while giving your team the opportunity to reinvest those savings into better players to help you win now when it is likely their best opportunity to do so. I also think you're exaggerating how DiPietro looks in the minors but I don't think that actually matters to this conversation. When DiPietro is actually ready for NHL time, Jones can be moved.

3-1 is still 2, regardless of how you view DiPietro, we view him as a future NHL asset. We still have absolutely no need for Jones as a player, full stop.

That incentive you've laid out, a single year of cap savings, isn't sufficient. It's not just one year we are worried about. We are having a garage sale in this thread, as we aren't expecting to get rich on the returns, but have to sell off our junk. We are moving into a smaller place, which is why we want to unload some unwieldy furniture. You've rolled by and unloaded a massive entertainment center, with termites, if we're to be honest, saying you'll take our current, smaller TV stand and a couple of end tables, that we are prepared to throw out anyway. No matter how much you talk up what a good deal it is, we still have no room for that entertainment system.

You are offering nothing of interest to us in this deal. One year of cap savings, then your answer is to "do what ever you can to dump Jones on someone else, it's easy!". I offered one by one asset assessments for ways we can get rid of our junk without taking Jones, if need be, and your answer is still that we get one year cap savings.

There is no sale here. Jones to Vancouver would take more assets coming our way then San Jose owns. He is playing like garbage the last two years, and his contract has to be one of the worst in the league, now that that 2016 UFA season group is set to have some of their contracts expire. We have paid our dues when it comes to short sighted, over payed players on bad contracts, we don't want to be the Sharks scapegoat as well.

 

[Cogburn]

Except that math does work out. It's not just for one year. Eriksson has two more years and no that 5.75 mil is not a massive problem when there's still an expansion draft and his buyout option is better than Eriksson's in the time that Vancouver wants the space for new contracts. I've also suggested things without Baertschi or Sutter involved with having Beagle and Roussel that would address that. The idea that you're worried about Miller, Boeser, and Horvat's contracts when Jones would have one year left is absurd. That's an easy contract at that point to get rid of even if a trade isn't an option. A buyout puts that deal at a 2.75 mil cap hit to save 3 mil. Hardly an issue by then especially when you consider the many options available for Vancouver by then. You treating it like it's some massive doomsday thing when it isn't doesn't help things.

And yes, Jones to Seattle is an option for any team that has him if they put forth the right incentive. If it's the Sharks, I'd happily trade them Kevin Labanc to make that happen. If it's the Canucks, I think Jake Virtanen could be enough to make that happen. There are other options, I'm sure.

25 k difference between Eriksson and Jones, woo hoo!

It doesn't matter which single year cap dumps you include, Jones is still such an atrocious contract that it doesn't interest us, there are better options and trade partners out there. Even the longer Roussel/Beagle contracts actually provide some kind of play, where are best hope is to bench Jones.

If Jones to Seattle is such a viable option, then please keep him. I think you be unpleasantly surprise when you expose him and an actual asset, and Seattle selects the actual asset. Moving Virtanen to make your delusion happen isn't a selling point either.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think it’s more realistic than taking on two additional years of Jones at $5.75M. They could also bury Eriksson next season and buy him out in the offseason and still save $2M against the cap for 21/22.



But why take on Vancouver’s cap dumps for the next two seasons if it will be easy to just dump Jones in two years or at expansion? Why not just go that route?

I don't think it's more realistic. Burying Eriksson seems more realistic but it's not the only component in such a scenario.

I also never said it would be easy to just dump Jones. The idea is for the Sharks to take on a heavier burden in the short term for a lesser long term burden. Trades of that nature have happened enough to say that it's at least a possibility. Sharks dealt Heatley for Havlat when Heatley had three years at a 7.5 mil cap hit for Havlat's four years at a 5 mil cap hit. This would be considerably different considering the potential players involved but the idea behind it is pretty normal.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

3-1 is still 2, regardless of how you view DiPietro, we view him as a future NHL asset. We still have absolutely no need for Jones as a player, full stop.

That incentive you've laid out, a single year of cap savings, isn't sufficient. It's not just one year we are worried about. We are having a garage sale in this thread, as we aren't expecting to get rich on the returns, but have to sell off our junk. We are moving into a smaller place, which is why we want to unload some unwieldy furniture. You've rolled by and unloaded a massive entertainment center, with termites, if we're to be honest, saying you'll take our current, smaller TV stand and a couple of end tables, that we are prepared to throw out anyway. No matter how much you talk up what a good deal it is, we still have no room for that entertainment system.

You are offering nothing of interest to us in this deal. One year of cap savings, then your answer is to "do what ever you can to dump Jones on someone else, it's easy!". I offered one by one asset assessments for ways we can get rid of our junk without taking Jones, if need be, and your answer is still that we get one year cap savings.

There is no sale here. Jones to Vancouver would take more assets coming our way then San Jose owns. He is playing like garbage the last two years, and his contract has to be one of the worst in the league, now that that 2016 UFA season group is set to have some of their contracts expire. We have paid our dues when it comes to short sighted, over payed players on bad contracts, we don't want to be the Sharks scapegoat as well.

DiPietro may be a future NHL asset but it's not next year. If he puts up impressive numbers in the AHL next year, you can maybe make room for him. I get that that there's no need for Jones as a player. I'm not making such an argument so no such point needs to be said. Nobody needs Eriksson, nor Sutter, nor Beagle, nor Roussel, nor Baertschi as a player either. That doesn't mean trades of a cap dollars of unneeded players don't happen. See Lucic for Neal.

I get that there's a garage sale but that doesn't mean that anyone is interested in taking your junk without taking some junk back. You are consistently leaving out parts to the deal that directly address your concern. The idea that what I'm offering is just one year of cap savings is factually incorrect. Consistently ignoring that doesn't change that.

25 k difference between Eriksson and Jones, woo hoo!

It doesn't matter which single year cap dumps you include, Jones is still such an atrocious contract that it doesn't interest us, there are better options and trade partners out there. Even the longer Roussel/Beagle contracts actually provide some kind of play, where are best hope is to bench Jones.

If Jones to Seattle is such a viable option, then please keep him. I think you be unpleasantly surprise when you expose him and an actual asset, and Seattle selects the actual asset.

The idea that Roussel/Beagle provide some kind of play in comparison to Jones is debateable to say the least. And your take on how the expansion draft is not how it actually works. You come to an agreement before the actual draft and it binds them to make the pick between the agreed upon available talent. It either happens or it doesn't. It may end up that the Sharks have to exhaust that option but Seattle wouldn't get a player like Labanc on expansion day without taking on someone like Jones. The Sharks don't have to expose anyone of that caliber. Maybe it's worth it to them and maybe it isn't. I get that Vancouver wants savings down the road which is why I offered other possible scenarios. But it's ridiculous to continue to misrepresent what the offer is like you're doing.

 

[JesusNPucks]

Both in exchange for Jamie Benn in the off-season.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I also never said it would be easy to just dump Jones. The idea is for the Sharks to take on a heavier burden in the short term for a lesser long term burden. Trades of that nature have happened enough to say that it's at least a possibility. Sharks dealt Heatley for Havlat when Heatley had three years at a 7.5 mil cap hit for Havlat's four years at a 5 mil cap hit. This would be considerably different considering the potential players involved but the idea behind it is pretty normal.

But this sort of move is often made by a team that has a quickly closing window, sacrificing the future, in this instance future capspace, to load up in the present. While gaining $12M in capspace for next season may seem nice, it's not something the Canucks should be considering when the tradeoff is a nearly $6M capdump for two seasons when they'll need the capspace the most.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

This thread has to do with a report that Vancouver is looking to move our cap dumps, not take on your teams cap dumps. So yes, taking on 4 years of Jones is a non-starter for a team looking to create cap space now, and in the future. We are happy dumping one (1) short term contract, placing Ferland on the LTIR and all the sudden we're good to go this year. Moving Eriksson, Sutter, Baertschi and who ever else to take back 4 years of Jones isn't being creative, it's creating a massive, massive problem for us down the road when our key pieces (Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Horvat, Miller) all need a new contract.

Not necessarily. Jones' contract is structured in such a way, we could easily buy him out either a year or two from now and it not be that big a deal. This assumes Seattle doesn't just take him during the expansion draft. If the Sharks were willing to take Eriksson and another big contract we want out of (Roussel comes to mind), I'd definitely consider trying to make things work. At the very least, it'd be an option to explore.

 

[Cogburn]

DiPietro may be a future NHL asset but it's not next year. If he puts up impressive numbers in the AHL next year, you can maybe make room for him. I get that that there's no need for Jones as a player. I'm not making such an argument so no such point needs to be said. Nobody needs Eriksson, nor Sutter, nor Beagle, nor Roussel, nor Baertschi as a player either. That doesn't mean trades of a cap dollars of unneeded players don't happen. See Lucic for Neal.

I get that there's a garage sale but that doesn't mean that anyone is interested in taking your junk without taking some junk back. You are consistently leaving out parts to the deal that directly address your concern. The idea that what I'm offering is just one year of cap savings is factually incorrect. Consistently ignoring that doesn't change that.

The idea that Roussel/Beagle provide some kind of play in comparison to Jones is debateable to say the least. And your take on how the expansion draft is not how it actually works. You come to an agreement before the actual draft and it binds them to make the pick between the agreed upon available talent. It either happens or it doesn't. It may end up that the Sharks have to exhaust that option but Seattle wouldn't get a player like Labanc on expansion day without taking on someone like Jones. The Sharks don't have to expose anyone of that caliber. Maybe it's worth it to them and maybe it isn't. I get that Vancouver wants savings down the road which is why I offered other possible scenarios. But it's ridiculous to continue to misrepresent what the offer is like you're doing.

We'd rather run with DP as a back up then Jones and his awful contract though.

Those kinds of trades do happen, we're looking to dump them on a team with a use for them, not consolidate them all into one worse, longer contract with a player with less of a role on this team, possibly costing us one of our star players when we need to resign them.

That is the opposite of a garage sale. Are you thinking of a swap meet?

The only thing being ignored here is the needs of the Canucks. Your deal, and I stress this does nothing to address the needs of the Canucks. This year is gravy, if we can resign our UFAs and RFAs. Next year and the year after are what matters. You are the only person that is willfully ignoring the situation around you here. The Canucks can't afford to take such an awful contract to resign Toffoli, or Tanev, or Markstrom, at the expense of Pettersson, Hughes, Miller, Horvat or Boeser by taking the steaming pile of Jones you're trying mentally will us to take.

Roussel and Beagle versus Jones isn't debatable. A third line left winger and a bottom line center are worth more to us then a third stringer goaltender.

If Jones can/will be taken by Seattle, then go that route and leave Vancouver out of this. Making the deal capdumps+Virtanen for Jones to unload that contract is even less appealing.

Your scenarios are the only thing that are ridiculous about this. We don't want your worse cap dump, get over yourself, go sell your snake oil elsewhere.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

But this sort of move is often made by a team that has a quickly closing window, sacrificing the future, in this instance future capspace, to load up in the present. While gaining $12M in capspace for next season may seem nice, it's not something the Canucks should be considering when the tradeoff is a nearly $6M capdump for two seasons when they'll need the capspace the most.

Maybe but that doesn't mean that applies to Vancouver in this scenario. You're talking about balking at freeing up another 6 mil now because you don't like the idea of at worst having to pay a 2.35 or 2.75 buyout cap hit later when you want to re-sign either Boeser and Demko in 2022 or Horvat and Miller in 2023 when other contracts will expire in that time and the team will have plenty of dollars to use in various ways.

 

[Cogburn]

Not necessarily. Jones' contract is structured in such a way, we could easily buy him out either a year or two from now and it not be that big a deal. This assumes Seattle doesn't just take him during the expansion draft. If the Sharks were willing to take Eriksson and another big contract we want out of (Roussel comes to mind), I'd definitely consider trying to make things work. At the very least, it'd be an option to explore.

That's still an awful lot of crap to deal with when there are much easier options out there. He's on the books for 8 years, and it fluctuates between 2.8 and 1.6. We gain 3.2 million, then 4.1 next year. There are easier ways to do that.

Eriksson for Schneider is much easier, and his buy out will be a lot less (2 million over 4 years). His buyout is half of what Jones' is.

Eriksson to Detroit with Demko is much easier to deal with. No fall out here. Simply 7 million off the books.

If nothing is "realistic", we can just buy out Sutter and get 2.4 million in cap space, when combined with Ferland, gets us almost the whole 6 million Eriksson stuck us with off the books.

As I've told him, we've paid our dues when it comes to bad contracts.