Roster & Fantasy GM Thread VIIII

[y2kcanucks]

If we somehow land Ericksson + Lucic, find some sort of offense on the blue line, AND draft Dubois I'll be impressed. I find everything except PLD dropping to 5OA very unlikely.

Had we acquired Barrie, or even gone after Goligoski instead of Gudbranson (and kept McCann and the 33rd pick in this scenario) we would have started much better off than we are at right now.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Of the eight quoted, three (4, 6, 7) don't mention anything resembling intangibles, two (1, 2) are clearly not basing their opposition on intangibles, and the others are not "advanced stats" posters.

I am sure posters make up their mind about Gudbranson and Sutter based on advanced stats (I certainly do), but not everyone does.

I can't speak for others, but I am guessing most people don't mention Lucic's advanced stats because there is broad agreement he is a very good player right now - in particular an excellent even strength player that isn't much of an asset on the PP and has discipline issues. Stats and the eye test line up in that regard. The problems with Lucic is strategic - the team is not in the right place to be sacrificing future years for an improvement now, which there is a considerable risk of doing on a long term deal with a 28 year old forward.

I'm not going to split hairs over to what degree they are basing their opposition on intangibles. You can take out the three if you wish, which still leaves 5. That was a very quick search through the last few pages, I am sure I can find more if that satisfies you. The point is they are, at least in part, opposed to this player based on intangibles. Which again seems odd - it seems somewhat inconsistent to be against targetting a player due to perceived positive intangibles, but then on the other hand, to be for avoiding a player based on perceived negative intangibles. Because it's not consistent.

Out of the posters I'm familiar with, I've certainly seen them use advanced stats in arguments before so I'm not sure how you are defining 'advanced stats posters'. Sure, some posters are also against this player due to concerns regarding the durability or likelihood that this player will decline with age. Which is a fair and reasonable hypothesis. But this is true of the majority of UFA forwards - will Eriksson be as good as he is at 35? Okposo at 34? It seems as though this is a concern for all unrestricted free agents, not sure what makes Lucic unique in this regard to the point that it excludes the positive elements of his game. No one is commenting remotely to the same extent on how Eriksson will finish a potential contract, despite being to 2 years older, or Okposo, despite also playing a rugged power forward game.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

I think you need to come to terms with this. There is what you want have happen, and what is very likely to happen. They are going to do what they want to do.

I don't mind the targets. It could be a lot worse. They could sign even worse forwards for larger salary. It's all relative. That said, this is Benning's "all in" off-season -- it will have ramifications for Benning in the near future.

Agreed
Benning is doing what got him this job. He is trying to field a competitive team now while building for the future. You can argue whether this is the right path. However the owners are judging Benning based on improvement now with one eye on future. It is a difficult path more likely to fail but it is possible to have success as well. Ufa's is the only way to fill aging talent without using draft picks or prospects to acquire talent. So I consider it the best way to try and accomplish the owners objectives.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Had we acquired Barrie, or even gone after Goligoski instead of Gudbranson (and kept McCann and the 33rd pick in this scenario) we would have started much better off than we are at right now.

So if we acquired better players while giving up nothing we would be better off?

 

[Nuckles]

Oh please just use Vancouver/Benning to jack up the price so Edmonton gives him a horrendous contract.

 

[Bleach Clean]

We have like 9.5 million in cap space how are we going to sign both of them?

Isn't it 10.5m? 61.5m committed to next year and the cap is 73m and an extra 1m going to Baertschi.

 

[GetFocht]

There's more cap space available if you buyout Burrows/Higgins

 

[GetFocht]

Oh please just use Vancouver/Benning to jack up the price so Edmonton gives him a horrendous contract.

I just don't see his wife agreeing to move to Edmonton

 

[Bleach Clean]

I've come to terms with the fact they're going to do something stupid. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it. Doesn't mean I can't hope it falls a part and Benning is left holding his **** in his hand on July 1st with everyone signed elsewhere. Whatever will contribute to his firing with the least amount of long-term anchors is what I want to happen.

I have a slightly varied look on this: It will take "long-term anchors" to oust Benning. This is a necessary action if he is to be gone. Without big money committed, his 'plan' cannot be viewed as a monumental mistake. These signings have to happen.

Agreed
Benning is doing what got him this job. He is trying to field a competitive team now while building for the future. You can argue whether this is the right path. However the owners are judging Benning based on improvement now with one eye on future. It is a difficult path more likely to faill but it is possible to have success as well. Ufa's is the only way to fill aging talent without using draft picks or prospects to acquire talent. So I consider it the best way to try and accomplish the owners objectives.

The objectives of the owner and the GM align. It's been that way from the beginning to now.

I think you misunderstand me though: Benning is _attempting_ to do "what got him the job". So far, he has fallen woefully short in his execution. This is his last ditch effort. This is when he has to execute, with whatever signings. If he doesn't, it will reflect very poorly on his ability and it could cost him his job.

 

[Verviticus]

I have a slightly varied look on this: It will take "long-term anchors" to oust Benning. This is a necessary action if he is to be gone. Without big money committed, his 'plan' cannot be viewed as a monumental mistake. These signings have to happen.

This is when he has to execute, with whatever signings. If he doesn't, it will reflect very poorly on his ability and it could cost him his job.

i feel like if he fails to sign anyone, thats equally a failure of execution

 

[PM]

The Canucks have $9,287,083 in projected cap space. If we buyout Burrows and Higgins (I don't want to, especially Burrows) we get $3,666,667 in cap savings leaving us with $12,953,750 to sign Lucic, Eriksson and at least one more forward (probably Etem), ideally two. It will still be really tight and replacing Burrows with Lucic feels like a kick to the nuts.

Would also give us dead cap next year and long term deals to Lucic or Eriksson could really hurt us down the line.

 

[y2kcanucks]

i feel like if he fails to sign anyone, thats equally a failure of execution

That's my perspective too. Benning strikes out in free agency, the team completely flops in the regular season again. He would be ousted.

 

[GetFocht]

The Canucks have $9,287,083 in projected cap space. If we buyout Burrows and Higgins (I don't want to, especially Burrows) we get $3,666,667 in cap savings leaving us with $12,953,750 to sign Lucic, Eriksson and at least one more forward (probably Etem), ideally two. It will still be really tight and replacing Burrows with Lucic feels like a kick to the nuts.

Would also give us dead cap next year and long term deals to Lucic or Eriksson could really hurt us down the line.

Gaunce would be sent down plus with Higgins + Burrows bought out =

$13,817,085 in cap space.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Gaunce would be sent down plus with Higgins + Burrows bought out =

$13,817,085 in cap space.

Higgins and Burrows should not be bought out.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i feel like if he fails to sign anyone, thats equally a failure of execution

That's my perspective too. Benning strikes out in free agency, the team completely flops in the regular season again. He would be ousted.

I think he would get more leeway if that were to happen. As in, he tried to make the team competitive, but the FAs didn't want to come here to 'save' the team. Where as if he succeeded in bringing the FAs here, and his plan failed, then there's no excuse.

 

[Fuimus]

That's fine. I would prefer the team not carry two bad contracts though.

If we can get Lucic for $4.5M for 3 years fine. Or Eriksson for $5M for 2 years I can stomach it. Longer term and/or larger cap hit (or both based on the reality that they want more and other teams will offer more) is unacceptable for the state of this franchise.

The five forwards tied and directly below Lucic in points last year were:
Vorachek @ 8,250,000
Plekanec @ 6,000,000
Parise @ 7,500,000
Kesler @ 6,875,000
Stepan @ 6,500,000

This is just to give some perspective. Also all of these contracts were signed when there was a lower salary cap and as we all know contacts keep going up and up therefore if they were signed this year they would likely be higher than the amounts above. Personally I would like to sign Lucic to a 5 year deal at 6.5 million max.

 

[MS]

If Benning gives Loui Eriksson a 6-year contract, he should be fired on the spot. I mean, he should be anyway ... but dear God, that would be terrible.

 

[Bad News Benning]

If Benning gives Loui Eriksson a 6-year contract, he should be fired on the spot. I mean, he should be anyway ... but dear God, that would be terrible.

he should've been fired after the Sbisa/Dorsett contracts

Sweeney isn't even willing to go beyond 4 years for Eriksson. Any Gm stupid enough to go 6 years on Eriksson given his age/concussion risks should be run out of town with pitchforks. That would be David Clarkson/Nathan Horton bad...unfortunately Benning isn't patient and will overpay to get what he wants. Pretty much a recipe for disaster.

 

[Saturated Fats]

Beyond the obvious problem of signing Lucic and Eriksson, there's the titanic cluster**** we'd find ourselves in contract-wise next off-season.

At that point, we have to resign Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, Gudbranson and Tryamkin. And there's no way that Miller's 6 Mil coming off the books covers that.

I guess Benning would be banking on losing an albatross like Sbisa or Dorsett in the expansion draft?

 

[rypper]

Beyond the obvious problem of signing Lucic and Eriksson, there's the titanic cluster**** we'd find ourselves in contract-wise next off-season.

At that point, we have to resign Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, Gudbranson and Tryamkin. And there's no way that Miller's 6 Mil coming off the books covers that.

I guess Benning would be banking on losing an albatross like Sbisa or Dorsett in the expansion draft?

I'd venture a guess that he isn't even thinking that far ahead.

 

[timw33]

Beyond the obvious problem of signing Lucic and Eriksson, there's the titanic cluster**** we'd find ourselves in contract-wise next off-season.

At that point, we have to resign Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, Gudbranson and Tryamkin. And there's no way that Miller's 6 Mil coming off the books covers that.

I guess Benning would be banking on losing an albatross like Sbisa or Dorsett in the expansion draft?

There's $2.5M in Higgins, $4.5MM in Burrows, and $6M in Miller. So that's $13MM available for raises on the 5 players mentioned above. I think we'd be ok—not in great position, but also not the worst position possible.

Horvat is probably $2.5MM range, so actually not dissimilar to his cap hit with his rookie bonuses.

Hutton is probably like $1.5MM-2.0MM range bridge unless he puts up like a 30 point season.

Markstrom, #1A goalie range seems to be $3MM, and again, this assumes that he plays like 30-40 games and plays like a 1A.

Tryamkin is likely not going to garner more than $1.5MM-2MM, and that's assuming he has a sturdy reliable season.

Gudbranson is already at 3.5MM, and the market seems set in the $4MM range for players of his ilk, let's assume $4.5MM for simplicities sake.

Horvat: $1MM raise (in terms of cap hit)
Hutton: $1MM raise
Markstrom: $2MM raise.
Tryamkin: $1MM raise
Gudbranson: $1MM Raise

So that's $6MM in raises on those players all covered by Miller.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

If Benning gives Loui Eriksson a 6-year contract, he should be fired on the spot. I mean, he should be anyway ... but dear God, that would be terrible.

My god, we're a week away from the very real possibility of Benning signing his David Clarkson contract. It's terrifying.

Dark days.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

If Horvat and Hutton build on their success at all next season, the Canucks should look to signing them to the longest term possible. A bridge deal on those two would just be a waste.

 

[y2kcanucks]

There's $2.5M in Higgins, $4.5MM in Burrows, and $6M in Miller. So that's $13MM available for raises on the 5 players mentioned above. I think we'd be ok—not in great position, but also not the worst position possible.

Horvat is probably $2.5MM range, so actually not dissimilar to his cap hit with his rookie bonuses.

Hutton is probably like $1.5MM-2.0MM range bridge unless he puts up like a 30 point season.

Markstrom, #1A goalie range seems to be $3MM, and again, this assumes that he plays like 30-40 games and plays like a 1A.

Tryamkin is likely not going to garner more than $1.5MM-2MM, and that's assuming he has a sturdy reliable season.

Gudbranson is already at 3.5MM, and the market seems set in the $4MM range for players of his ilk, let's assume $4.5MM for simplicities sake.

Horvat: $1MM raise (in terms of cap hit)
Hutton: $1MM raise
Markstrom: $2MM raise.
Tryamkin: $1MM raise
Gudbranson: $1MM Raise

So that's $6MM in raises on those players all covered by Miller.

I think you're grossly underrating what Horvat's cap hit will be. Ditto with Hutton and possibly even Markstrom.

More likely:

Horvat signs for $4.5M
Hutton signs for $2.5M
Markstrom signs for $4M
Tryamkin signs for $2M
Gudbranson signs for $5M

 

[VanillaCoke]

I'm not so sure about those numbers Y2k. The 1st and 3rd in particular.