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

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

Except that deal would not at all cost your team a star player and it is silly to even suggest it. No, you've consistently ignored that I've addressed the year twos and threes of this sort of deal and made suggestions to alter them to account for that but you consistently ignore that. I'm not trying to mentally will you to take it. I'm trying to get you to move off the nonsensical response of it being a non-starter when it can be altered to your advantage when you'd prefer it to be but you can't have it both ways when you're asking other teams to take on your dumps. You're going to take a dump in order to move that salary. You're not going to trade any of the people suggested for a draft pick and free up their cap hit entirely. You're being completely unreasonable in how you're approaching this and you disingenuously make responses littered with fallacies then get decidedly personal in your responses which is actually just projection.

 

[Peter Griffin]

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.

I'd still rather look into options of having that capspace come off the books sooner rather than later.

 

[Fatass]

Demko as sweetener to dump Loui, and Virtanen as sweetener to dump Sutter.

 

[Cogburn]

Except that deal would not at all cost your team a star player and it is silly to even suggest it. No, you've consistently ignored that I've addressed the year twos and threes of this sort of deal and made suggestions to alter them to account for that but you consistently ignore that. I'm not trying to mentally will you to take it. I'm trying to get you to move off the nonsensical response of it being a non-starter when it can be altered to your advantage when you'd prefer it to be but you can't have it both ways when you're asking other teams to take on your dumps. You're going to take a dump in order to move that salary. You're not going to trade any of the people suggested for a draft pick and free up their cap hit entirely. You're being completely unreasonable in how you're approaching this and you disingenuously make responses littered with fallacies then get decidedly personal in your responses which is actually just projection.

The ramifications of this deal could. The same way we could move Jones to another team. The same way Seattle could take him in the entry draft. The same way Jones could retire or be LTIRed.

Those same suggestions have better options if we just don't acquire Jones and either let the contracts expire, or pay to move them elsewhere, or take the steps you want us to take after acquiring Jones.

I never said it was a non-starter, I replied to your reply, you're thinking of Peter Griffin, who also disagrees with your idea. I said San Jose doesn't have the assets to get me interested in extending our contract dumps into 2024.

I have also listed a number of deal suggested by fans of those teams that make far more sense for Vancouver to do. This isn't just me riffing of other Canucks fans for cap dumps on what teams want in our minds, after sessions in our echo chamber. These are from the horses mouth. The bolded is untrue. Check any of the other Canucks threads in here. There are a large number of dump for dump offers, and still a fair few options for cap dumps for picks/prospects from teams other than Vancouver.

You repeat the same points over and over again, and I'm being unreasonable? You keep pushing the issue with the same points, claiming I can't or won't understand what you're saying when I disagree, calling me stupid or ignorant, also claiming my position is ridiculous and I'm making things personal? There is no projection here, just someone that can't take reading "no" on a message board. You're making false and misleading claims as well, saying they will solve issues for the Canucks, but only if they take the same steps they'd have to take to dump their current cap dumps anyway. I said snake oil, would you prefer diet pill?

 

[HoseEmDown]

Why not Eriksson to Detroit for Nielsen? Both players are terrible these days. For Detroit they take on a little more cap but save 3M in cash over the two years. For Vancouver they save 750k on the cap which isn't much but still something. Next offseason Nielsen after his bonus is paid would be owed just 1.5M so could be traded to a floor team. Buyouts for each are kinda similar too.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The ramifications of this deal could. The same way we could move Jones to another team. The same way Seattle could take him in the entry draft. The same way Jones could retire or be LTIRed.

Those same suggestions have better options if we just don't acquire Jones and either let the contracts expire, or pay to move them elsewhere, or take the steps you want us to take after acquiring Jones.

I never said it was a non-starter, I replied to your reply, you're thinking of Peter Griffin, who also disagrees with your idea. I said San Jose doesn't have the assets to get me interested in extending our contract dumps into 2024.

I have also listed a number of deal suggested by fans of those teams that make far more sense for Vancouver to do. This isn't just me riffing of other Canucks fans for cap dumps on what teams want in our minds, after sessions in our echo chamber. These are from the horses mouth. The bolded is untrue. Check any of the other Canucks threads in here. There are a large number of dump for dump offers, and still a fair few options for cap dumps for picks/prospects from teams other than Vancouver.

You repeat the same points over and over again, and I'm being unreasonable? You keep pushing the issue with the same points, claiming I can't or won't understand what you're saying when I disagree, calling me stupid or ignorant, also claiming my position is ridiculous and I'm making things personal? There is no projection here, just someone that can't take reading "no" on a message board. You're making false and misleading claims as well, saying they will solve issues for the Canucks, but only if they take the same steps they'd have to take to dump their current cap dumps anyway. I said snake oil, would you prefer diet pill?

No, the ramifications couldn't do that. That's baseless exaggeration. What you use to support saying the bolded is untrue doesn't actually make it untrue. You're referencing dump for dump which is what I'm talking about and maybes from fans about a pick for a player.

If I repeat the same points, it's because you consistently fail to understand because you oversimplify and misrepresent the position I'm taking. I didn't call you stupid nor ignorant. The ridiculous stuff isn't personal on either side. Telling me to get over myself and sell your snake oil elsewhere is absolutely personal and that came from you. I never said that the trade would solve issues. Where did you read that? I said they would help in certain ways depending on the structure of the deal. I mean, it's clear you're not even trying to have an honest conversation here because you're not even trying to respond to what I've actually said. Just some bastardized straw man version of it because it makes you feel better.

 

[Cogburn]

No, the ramifications couldn't do that. That's baseless exaggeration. What you use to support saying the bolded is untrue doesn't actually make it untrue. You're referencing dump for dump which is what I'm talking about and maybes from fans about a pick for a player.

6 million in cap space being needless spend on a goalie we don't need can't have cap ramifications when we have, at minimum, 14 players to sign by 2022? And 6 million being difference between resigning our stars or having to let one of them walk? I don't consider that an exaggeration in the flat cap era. Markstrom/Demko, Myers, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle and Ferland (depending on his recovery) are our signed players at that point, and we have 41 million to resign 14 players for a full roster. 6 million is a big enough deal to fret over, whether it is Eriksson, Roussel/Beagle or Jones. The difference is, the former three will fill out our roster, Jones will be, at absolute best, a back up. Eriksson at that point has a single year left on his deal, and Beagle and Roussel fill two spots, presumably on the bottom line. Then it goes down to Miller, Horvat, Myers and maybe Ferland.

For being true or untrue:

Sharks would probably be interested in Demko but it’d have to be a pretty big trade as I doubt Vancouver has much interest in trading him in division unless it really blows their socks off. I’d be interested in a big deal that maybe addresses their need by dangling Burns out there but they may not like what would be tagged with him to make a deal. Something around Burns and Jones for Demko and cap dumps. I don’t know.

Track down this old quote of yours, back when you tried to ram Burns+Jones for Demko down my throat, and even on that page there are a few. Funny, how it's about Jones to Vancouver too.

Like 4 posts beneath your own, which you posted afterwards:

Rumor: - Demko available? Value?

You made the false claim, and I found a post of yours in the same thread one of the first Eriksson+Demko to Detroit proposals was made by a Red Wings fans. There have been dozens of similar or better offers that have been made since then, across multiple threads.

And you later go on to say I'm making strawmen arguments. There are other alternatives to our cap situation to taking Jones.

If I repeat the same points, it's because you consistently fail to understand because you oversimplify and misrepresent the position I'm taking. I didn't call you stupid nor ignorant. The ridiculous stuff isn't personal on either side. Telling me to get over myself and sell your snake oil elsewhere is absolutely personal and that came from you. I never said that the trade would solve issues. Where did you read that? I said they would help in certain ways depending on the structure of the deal. I mean, it's clear you're not even trying to have an honest conversation here because you're not even trying to respond to what I've actually said. Just some bastardized straw man version of it because it makes you feel better.

Once again with the personal attacks. If you're so offended by my remarks, watch your own words. You're saying if you keep repeating things, its my fault you can't make a cohesive argument or point. You didn't state the words, but continuously claiming I don't understand (I do) or I have ignored your point (I haven't) is really narrowing down what you can possibly mean.

The entire point of moving cap dumps, from our end, is to ensure we have enough space to keep our team together. If a trade doesn't solve an issue we have, I ask the million dollar question: Why does Vancouver make a trade that doesn't help or solve an issue they have? There isn't a conversation to be had, because you've justified this trade to yourself, and everything else is a hasty after thought. We don't need a goalie. Adding years to our cap struggle at the expense of this year or next, no matter how you've framed it slightly differently each time, isn't a benefit with an uncertain cap future. All of the maintenance you offer as ways to mitigate the cap situation(expansion draft trades, other trades, buy outs, burying contracts, LTIR, retirement, etc) can be done with out acquiring Jones, and therefore are of benefit to us as being a lesser cap hit, shorter term, or both. What other points can you possibly hope to catch our ear with?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

6 million in cap space being needless spend on a goalie we don't need can't have cap ramifications when we have, at minimum, 14 players to sign by 2022? And 6 million being difference between resigning our stars or having to let one of them walk? I don't consider that an exaggeration in the flat cap era. Markstrom/Demko, Myers, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle and Ferland (depending on his recovery) are our signed players at that point, and we have 41 million to resign 14 players for a full roster. 6 million is a big enough deal to fret over, whether it is Eriksson, Roussel/Beagle or Jones. The difference is, the former three will fill out our roster, Jones will be, at absolute best, a back up. Eriksson at that point has a single year left on his deal, and Beagle and Roussel fill two spots, presumably on the bottom line. Then it goes down to Miller, Horvat, Myers and maybe Ferland.

For being true or untrue:



Track down this old quote of yours, back when you tried to ram Burns+Jones for Demko down my throat, and even on that page there are a few. Funny, how it's about Jones to Vancouver too.

Like 4 posts beneath your own, which you posted afterwards:

Rumor: - Demko available? Value?

You made the false claim, and I found a post of yours in the same thread one of the first Eriksson+Demko to Detroit proposals was made by a Red Wings fans. There have been dozens of similar or better offers that have been made since then, across multiple threads.

And you later go on to say I'm making strawmen arguments. There are other alternatives to our cap situation to taking Jones.



Once again with the personal attacks. If you're so offended by my remarks, watch your own words. You're saying if you keep repeating things, its my fault you can't make a cohesive argument or point. You didn't state the words, but continuously claiming I don't understand (I do) or I have ignored your point (I haven't) is really narrowing down what you can possibly mean.

The entire point of moving cap dumps, from our end, is to ensure we have enough space to keep our team together. If a trade doesn't solve an issue we have, I ask the million dollar question: Why does Vancouver make a trade that doesn't help or solve an issue they have? There isn't a conversation to be had, because you've justified this trade to yourself, and everything else is a hasty after thought. We don't need a goalie. Adding years to our cap struggle at the expense of this year or next, no matter how you've framed it slightly differently each time, isn't a benefit with an uncertain cap future. All of the maintenance you offer as ways to mitigate the cap situation(expansion draft trades, other trades, buy outs, burying contracts, LTIR, retirement, etc) can be done with out acquiring Jones, and therefore are of benefit to us as being a lesser cap hit, shorter term, or both. What other points can you possibly hope to catch our ear with?

A lot of fallacies and inaccuracies in this response. You're not even making any sense with how you respond with most of this. You didn't prove a false claim of mine. Your problem is that any time something is not to your liking, you then describe the whole thing as not addressing anything you need when that is clearly not the case. And yes, you are still making straw man arguments and you're still making personal attacks when you're flat wrong on this back and forth about understanding. The bottom line is you are either not understanding (given how you respond by dismissing components of deals and oversimplifying things) or you're responding in bad faith. It doesn't matter which it is. You're doing it and if you don't like that I'm calling it out then feel free to ignore me entirely instead of just the parts of my statements that don't suit your narrative. No trade is going to entirely solve your issues but you can put yourself in a better position to go for it now and have an out later for the pill you may have to swallow to move the pieces you're looking to move now.

 

[Cogburn]

A lot of fallacies and inaccuracies in this response. You're not even making any sense with how you respond with most of this. You didn't prove a false claim of mine. Your problem is that any time something is not to your liking, you then describe the whole thing as not addressing anything you need when that is clearly not the case. And yes, you are still making straw man arguments and you're still making personal attacks when you're flat wrong on this back and forth about understanding. The bottom line is you are either not understanding (given how you respond by dismissing components of deals and oversimplifying things) or you're responding in bad faith. It doesn't matter which it is. You're doing it and if you don't like that I'm calling it out then feel free to ignore me entirely instead of just the parts of my statements that don't suit your narrative. No trade is going to entirely solve your issues but you can put yourself in a better position to go for it now and have an out later for the pill you may have to swallow to move the pieces you're looking to move now.

I hope you enjoy Jones leading your team in net. You've lost. it's better for both of us if you're just ignored.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I hope you enjoy Jones leading your team in net. You've lost. it's better for both of us if you're just ignored.

It's not about winning or losing but good luck on ignoring.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Bottom line is most Canucks fans are saying we’d rather deal with our cap issues now and be done with them by the time we need to start re-signing our key RFA’s rather than delay the inevitable and have to deal with it later on.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Bottom line is most Canucks fans are saying we’d rather deal with our cap issues now and be done with them by the time we need to start re-signing our key RFA’s rather than delay the inevitable and have to deal with it later on.

That's what every fan base wants out of their cap issues but it doesn't always play out that way. I'm sure a lot of teams will be eating their cap issues during the flat cap time including the Sharks.

 

[Peter Griffin]

That's what every fan base wants out of their cap issues but it doesn't always play out that way. I'm sure a lot of teams will be eating their cap issues during the flat cap time including the Sharks.

I really don’t get how this statement pertains to the situation in this thread. We’d rather accept our current cap situation than to trade it for a current better situation but worse situation in the future that involves Jones. That’s entirely doable for us.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I really don’t get how this statement pertains to the situation in this thread. We’d rather accept our current cap situation than to trade it for a current better situation but worse situation in the future that involves Jones. That’s entirely doable for us.

Because fans aren't GM's and they make their own decisions and evaluations of players, cap situations, and where the team is at and how to move forward.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

Why not Eriksson to Detroit for Nielsen? Both players are terrible these days. For Detroit they take on a little more cap but save 3M in cash over the two years. For Vancouver they save 750k on the cap which isn't much but still something. Next offseason Nielsen after his bonus is paid would be owed just 1.5M so could be traded to a floor team. Buyouts for each are kinda similar too.

It’s not the worst option... I mean Canucks would like to save more than $750k. But maybe as a last resort option I could be convinced. Would red wings move filppula or helm (for something involving eriksson)?

 

[Peter Griffin]

Because fans aren't GM's and they make their own decisions and evaluations of players, cap situations, and where the team is at and how to move forward.

Well obviously none of us are GM’s, I don’t see how that changes the discussion.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Bottom line is most Canucks fans are saying we’d rather deal with our cap issues now and be done with them by the time we need to start re-signing our key RFA’s rather than delay the inevitable and have to deal with it later on.

Your cap issues will not be over with by the time that you need to re-sign your key RFAs...

 

[Peter Griffin]

Your cap issues will not be over with by the time that you need to re-sign your key RFAs...

Maybe not but they’ll be a lot more manageable.

 

[dbaz]

sutter is tradeable with retention only, prob about 20 to 25 percent. would be a 6th or 7th coming back. theres enough gms who would take a fly on him.

loui is difficult. benning not going to give up picks. leaves prospects like lind, woo, dipietro, rafferty plus rfas like virtanen, stecher, tryamkin as sweetners.
thats a hard sell. prob have to take some salary back at very least, like a retained ryan. only other thing i can think of is if hes a cap dump going back in a deal for a burns/karlsson etc

 

[HoseEmDown]

It’s not the worst option... I mean Canucks would like to save more than $750k. But maybe as a last resort option I could be convinced. Would red wings move filppula or helm (for something involving eriksson)?

I'm not a wings or canucks fan just someone who likes to try to make deals. But I can't see the wings taking on Eriksson just for Helm, not with that 2nd year and the higher cap hit. Maybe something like Sutter for Helm where you save around 700k in that deal as well.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

I'm not a wings or canucks fan just someone who likes to try to make deals. But I can't see the wings taking on Eriksson just for Helm, not with that 2nd year and the higher cap hit. Maybe something like Sutter for Helm where you save around 700k in that deal as well.

Fair enough... I mean any bit of cap would help. Some options worth exploring. For some reason I thought helm had 2 more years (overlooked that).

 

[PhoenyX]

Ducks will take Sutter for a 1st round pick or two 2nd round picks.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Sutter shouldn't really cost much to deal. He's still useful and doesn't cost a lot and I believe he's done after next season.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well obviously none of us are GM’s, I don’t see how that changes the discussion.

Because changing the discussion to what you guys want isn’t exactly relevant to the discussion.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

Ducks will take Sutter for a 1st round pick or two 2nd round picks.

No thanks. Benning has stated he won’t be trading 1st or 2nd picks to get rid of contracts. Sutter only has 1yr @ $4.3M.