Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CHI] Canucks acquire 5th Round Pick for F Anthony Beauvillier

[MS]

He seems to be premising this take on the Canucks thinking Beuvillier had value at the time of the Horvat trade which is a dubious premise.

Yeah, exactly.

If you believe that management badly wanted Beauvillier and unnecessarily took a bad-value contract back in the Horvat trade and hung onto him for a year ... yes, that's bad.

But pretty obviously there had to be a turd coming back to us to even out salaries and we probably negotiated for Beauvillier over Bailey/Palmieiri because he was the youngest and most likely to be flippable or play himself back to positive value. So they took the bad asset, hoped they could redeem it, and then waited it out and got a small positive return. Or that's my take, at least ... but I'd be pretty comfortable it's pretty close to what actually happened.

 

[TruGr1t]

This should have be done ages ago, but at least they finally got around to it. Obviously option “B” to trading Garland, but it was always doable.

 

[Josepho]

Perhaps Chicago was asking for too much of a sweetener in the summer when they had the option to overpay for free agents instead of helping another team out with their cap situation.

I'm sure management knew what the cost was to dump Beau in the summer and weighed that against what options they had to spend that potential freed up cap on. Ultimately they decided it wasn't worth it. Without knowing all those details and permutations it's hard to judge.

That said, open cap space in general is a valuable asset even if you don't have a plan for it right away. However, in the end, I'm just happy with getting rid of a negative value asset with the pick being the cherry on top.

Yeah, my entire post was based on the assumption that Chicago would actually bite on that kinda move, but I ultimately don't know, and I admit it's also plausible that the Blackhawks would prefer Perry/Hall/Foligno (cup champ, former MVP, former captain) as their "mentor" guys over someone like Beauvillier.

 

[m9]

The word that I mostly would be against in what Drance wrote is "mammoth". Yeah, there was an opportunity cost for carrying Beau. Do I think it's really huge or anything? No.

I do find it strange that they couldn't swing this deal for Chicago in the summer, though. Chicago was obviously looking for wingers and liked Beau enough. If anything, his value has gone down with his poor play early on. So if Drance is just saying Beau & a 5th for nothing in July is better than Beau for a 5th in November then I probably agree. That's where the "mammoth" part is pretty hyperbolic, though.

 

[pitseleh]

In the cap era, teams basically don't trade big dollar cap hits without taking back cap, and that's what the Canucks did with Beauvillier. Obviously you hope the player doesn't have a huge negative trade value or anything, but its basically a requirement of making a big deal. Drance is being a bit of an idiot by not recognizing this reality.

Frankly, it looks like the Canucks did really well with identifying Beauvillier as a cap dump since they were ultimately able to get rid of him without penalty.

That’s not really true though. Hronek, Dubois, Debrincat x 2, Chychrun, etc. all moved without contracts going the other way in the last couple years. And other examples at least had expiring contracts attached.

Retention is much more common on expiring deals like Horvat and that would have been preferable to taking on Beauvillier.

It only really matters for evaluating the Horvat deal, and I think his overarching point that this was a negative value asset they took on that offsets the return they got is a valid one.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Drance often does this thing where he is like… Here is a different way of looking at this thing. A problem he runs into is that when it is pared with a hint of criticism, like in this case, he looks like he is also saying… Here is why Im smarter then everyone else.

But his job is to have takes. And his job would be redundant if he just said the same thing as everyone else.

And at the end of the day, everyone here that has a different take thinks they are smarter then everyone else.

See I just did it myself.

 

[VanJack]

So the Horvat trade tree, currently works out as Horvat, a first round draft pick and a second round daft pick for Hronek, Raty, a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder.

That's a heavy price to pay, even with Hronek exceeding all expectations in Vancouver. The key is Raty. If he can become a legit second line center in the NHL, then the trade looks better. But as of right now, it's more than a bit underwhelming.

 

[God]

So the Horvat trade tree, currently works out as Horvat, a first round draft pick and a second round daft pick for Hronek, Raty, a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder.

That's a heavy price to pay, even with Hronek exceeding all expectations in Vancouver. The key is Raty. If he can become a legit second line center in the NHL, then the trade looks better. But as of right now, it's more than a bit underwhelming.

yeah it's a heavy price to pay if you double count the first round pick lol

 

[andora]

yeah it's a heavy price to pay if you double count the first round pick lol

Horvat and a 2nd
For
Hronek, Raty, Lafferty and a 4th and several slots in the 5th round potentially

Umm duh..

 

[Oliewud]

So the Horvat trade tree, currently works out as Horvat, a first round draft pick and a second round daft pick for Hronek, Raty, a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder.

That's a heavy price to pay, even with Hronek exceeding all expectations in Vancouver. The key is Raty. If he can become a legit second line center in the NHL, then the trade looks better. But as of right now, it's more than a bit underwhelming.

what?

 

[TruGr1t]

The word that I mostly would be against in what Drance wrote is "mammoth". Yeah, there was an opportunity cost for carrying Beau. Do I think it's really huge or anything? No.

I do find it strange that they couldn't swing this deal for Chicago in the summer, though. Chicago was obviously looking for wingers and liked Beau enough. If anything, his value has gone down with his poor play early on. So if Drance is just saying Beau & a 5th for nothing in July is better than Beau for a 5th in November then I probably agree. That's where the "mammoth" part is pretty hyperbolic, though.

They held onto Beauvillier willfully and tried to move Garland for 6-8 months, and then when the runway ran out on cap space they traded Beauvillier because it’s the only option they have to move salary.

This move should really always have been available in some capacity on an expiring contract.

 

[m9]

They held onto Beauvillier willfully and tried to move Garland for 6-8 months, and then when the runway ran out on cap space they traded Beauvillier because it’s the only option they have to move salary.

This move should really always have been available in some capacity on an expiring contract.

I do wonder about the deals they're passing on that we don't hear about. But I do generally like the deals they end up making so I'm not too put off by it.

 

[andora]

getting this far into the grey area is useless, while intriguing, useless unless there is a specific set of standards that measures value of things to compare (like ratings !!!) - or there are legit reports that player X would have signed but couldn't because Y.

 

[arttk]

what did he mean by this. was there a team that was going to take beauvilier in the summer?

He thinks we shouldn’t have taken on Beau and that was a mistake while ignoring that was the price we paid to get Raty.

 

[arttk]

They held onto Beauvillier willfully and tried to move Garland for 6-8 months, and then when the runway ran out on cap space they traded Beauvillier because it’s the only option they have to move salary.

This move should really always have been available in some capacity on an expiring contract.

They are probably still trying to get rid of Garland.
The only reason they acted on Beau first is because Bear will need to be signed before dec1st.

 

[credulous]

i definitely think moving beauvillier now is going to limit what they can do with the cap space especially since they're still in ltir (and probably won't get out of it this year unless a miracle garland trade comes along) but it's tough to say what they could have done earlier. if they thought beauvillier was an actually useful piece and held onto him until he showed nothing through 20 games that's really bad but if they tried to move him earlier and just didn't like what it would cost then it depends what the price was

 

[Knight53]

Good move, would have liked a 3rd round pick but can’t complain with zero retention. Now stay patient with Garland and a team will be desperate. Love the way Allvin is patient and then opportunistic.

Would like to see:

Kuzmenko - Pettersson - Mikheyev
Hoglander - Miller - Boeser
Bains - Suter - Podkolzin
PDG - Blueger - Lafferty
Aman

 

[ProviesGhost]

Even though Jim Benning doesn’t work in the front office anymore, I bet this cap space is burning a hole in his pocket.

 

[Diversification]

He thinks we shouldn’t have taken on Beau and that was a mistake while ignoring that was the price we paid to get Raty.

That was the price we paid to enact the trade period. Horvat's 5.25M going means salary coming back.

The only way Drance's position is valid is if he knows that management held onto Beau even though there were deals to be had to deal Beau without salary coming back and we therefore incurred an opportunity cost by not dealing him. But given the precious commodity that cap space is league wide, such a deal is likely a figment of Thomas Drance's imagination.

 

[arttk]

That was the price we paid to enact the trade period. Horvat's 5.25M going means salary coming back.

The only way Drance's position is valid is if he knows that management held onto Beau even though there were deals to be had to deal Beau without salary coming back and we therefore incurred an opportunity cost by not dealing him. But given the precious commodity that cap space is league wide, such a deal is likely a figment of Thomas Drance's imagination.

Probably both? We need to take back salary to make the trade works and maybe it was either Raty or the 1st if we took back a player with an expiring contract and we get both if we take on an additional year.

Yeah management has been open about the fact everyone on the roster minus the core core piece are available to trade. If we got an offer for Beau we would’ve traded him already.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Was just a cap dump when we acquired him. Much like when Kesler was dealt, we had to take a minor cap dump in Pizza Pizza. Only thing was, Jethro Bodine not only re-signed him but gave him a bit of a raise despite playing like dogshit. Difference between these two managements.

i don't think benning saw sbisa as a cap dump incoming. he was part of the trade value they wanted and was supposed to be a top 4 dman. that's why they let hamhuis walk and signed him to that stupid contract.

 

[Peen]

I kind of get Drance's point the more I think about it?

I think that VAN management just saw the cost of facilitating that deal as getting Beauv back. I think their mistake was not churning more value in that deal as a cost for taking two years of Beauvillier. I believed that strongly at the time.

Now, I do think they expected Beauvillier to be better here than he has been.

Anyways, I guarantee you that if they had paid to dump Beauvillier at the draft in June, he would have said that it's a short sighted move from a team that can't afford to be spending more draft picks. Like I have zero doubt in my mind about that.

But I don't think his point is overly dissimilar to one I made - they did not do enough before the season to shift another big salary to create space for another target. He is right that it is harder to weaponize and leverage space now.

Regardless, this is a good move. And I think his criticism should be separate to Beauvillier. Beauvillier is just one of many examples of the Pearson, Beauvillier, Myers, Garland, group. But then again, I would have put Boeser in there prior to the start of the season and now Boeser is scoring a ton and also on the line that's providing the biggest matchup problems for opposition. So, maybe there was a hope with Beauvillier that he would return to the form he showed during that stupid heater post-trade.

TLDR: Trade was still a massive win. The mistake happened in the original trade where they did not receive value for taking on that contract. Beauvillier isn't the only one; rather, they needed to do more to add a few more pieces before the season started and Beauvillier was just one of a group that they should have accelerated moving out.

 

[andora]

I kind of get Drance's point the more I think about it?

I think that VAN management just saw the cost of facilitating that deal as getting Beauv back. I think their mistake was not churning more value in that deal as a cost for taking two years of Beauvillier. I believed that strongly at the time.

Now, I do think they expected Beauvillier to be better here than he has been.

Anyways, I guarantee you that if they had paid to dump Beauvillier at the draft in June, he would have said that it's a short sighted move from a team that can't afford to be spending more draft picks. Like I have zero doubt in my mind about that.

But I don't think his point is overly dissimilar to one I made - they did not do enough before the season to shift another big salary to create space for another target. He is right that it is harder to weaponize and leverage space now.

Regardless, this is a good move. And I think his criticism should be separate to Beauvillier. Beauvillier is just one of many examples of the Pearson, Beauvillier, Myers, Garland, group. But then again, I would have put Boeser in there prior to the start of the season and now Boeser is scoring a ton and also on the line that's providing the biggest matchup problems for opposition. So, maybe there was a hope with Beauvillier that he would return to the form he showed during that stupid heater post-trade.

TLDR: Trade was still a massive win. The mistake happened in the original trade where they did not receive value for taking on that contract. Beauvillier isn't the only one; rather, they needed to do more to add a few more pieces before the season started and Beauvillier was just one of a group that they should have accelerated moving out.

I just dont think it was out there to make, atleast with who they may be targeting

 

[Ernie]

I don't think it's that hard to understand what Drance is saying. Holding Beauvillier over the summer limited their ability to use that cap space efficiently.

It's also classic Drance - the Canucks make a good trade and he immediately has to find a problem with it.

When the Canucks acquired Lafferty for a 5th, his big complaint that the Canucks keep sending out assets. Now that they've got a 5th back, he should be over the moon, right?

This is the behaviour of a man who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and therefore needs to have a contrarian "smart" take on everything. It's so boring.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

cap for Ethan Bear?

Nah use it on someone good, Bear sucks.