Rumor: Vancouver actively looking to retain salary for draft picks on rentals as 3rd party

[Boeser Fan]

It really isn’t. $2.3M isn’t that much, especially for a bottom feeder like the Canucks

Low hockey IQ comment.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

LOL spare me
You still haven’t grasped that this is notoriously cheap owner who spent a 2nd round pick to save save $1.2 million to start the season.

Pretty simple to see for some why if you wanted to “lightly” go into retention and not break the bank that it was can be had at a cheap cost to the owner.

It’s not that difficult to grasp

Florida retained hundreds of thousands of dollars on domi for a 6th round pick last deadline

Hell even Friedman was complimenting how this is one of the lower cost retentions he has seen in terms of picks for real money owed.

Start considering things from a real money perspective and not like a video game.

Simply suggesting a single year retention that is insanely cheap to the owner to dip his toe into the idea, is a good way to work him up to other retentions further down the line.

Ah, you saw @MS refer to tankheads as being lost in a video game and wanted to try it out for yourself but couldn't wait for a scenario where it actually made sense?

What I said is not 'video game' fantastical thinking. We are retaining on Horvat. We have two slots left and trades to make. Why would be blow our wad for a 4th round pick 2 weeks before the deadline? It's just silly thinking.

And then doing the 'it's not that difficult to grasp' as if the reason I disagree with you is because I'm too simple to understand your big brained idea (which is defended by 'have you seen our owner?', and 'lol canucks sux').

This is just depressing. I see you jump on people over and over and this exchange makes it clear that you have very little substance behind many of your assertions.

I guess we leave it here since you're clearly not into real discourse.

 

[Jumptheshark]

From what I read from vancouver media. They are willing only to retain on contracts with a max of 1 year after this one. EK has 4

 

[Breakers]

Ah, you saw @MS refer to tankheads as being lost in a video game and wanted to try it out for yourself but couldn't wait for a scenario where it actually made sense?

What I said is not 'video game' fantastical thinking. We are retaining on Horvat. We have two slots left and trades to make. Why would be blow our wad for a 4th round pick 2 weeks before the deadline? It's just silly thinking.

And then doing the 'it's not that difficult to grasp' as if the reason I disagree with you is because I'm too simple to understand your big brained idea (which is defended by 'have you seen our owner?', and 'lol canucks sux').

This is just depressing. I see you jump on people over and over and this exchange makes it clear that you have very little substance behind many of your assertions.

I guess we leave it here since you're clearly not into real discourse.

You replied to me not the other way around

For simply suggesting a baby step for something they haven’t done in the past.

Yawn

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

You replied to me not the other way around

For simply suggesting a baby step for something they haven’t done in the past.

Yawn

I replied with the reason that it's not prudent to do what you said.

Would have loved to have an earnest conversation about it.

But you've resorted to the cool, 'yawn' type of dismissals which is a great way of saying you have nothing to back it up.

It's fine. It's a laudable thing when people can admit they haven't considered something, or that perhaps they weren't entirely correct on something. But just because it's laudable, doesn't mean it's for everyone.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Breakers]

I replied with the reason that it's not prudent to do what you said.

Would have loved to have an earnest conversation about it.

But you've resorted to the cool, 'yawn' type of dismissals which is a great way of saying you have nothing to back it up.

It's fine. It's a laudable thing when people can admit they haven't considered something, or that perhaps they weren't entirely correct on something. But just because it's laudable, doesn't mean it's for everyone.

Keep on keepin' on.

Like yourself not considering real money to an owner who it notoriously cheap

Don’t worry you’ll get there.

 

[jackjohnson]

If they retain another 20 % on karllson, they get at least a 1st?

Lol that 2 million for 4 years of dead cap space requires a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd

 

[jackjohnson]

It really isn’t. $2.3M isn’t that much, especially for a bottom feeder like the Canucks

2.3 mil per is a lot because it's dead cap space. We have up Dickenson which an actual player and also a 2nd which was an expiring contract

 

[jackjohnson]

They got some value back in the young defenseman. Without him in the deal, maybe they only give up a 3rd or 4th.

What? That trash D called Stillman?? That looks more like negative value lol

 

[jackjohnson]

Why has he played in 30+ games then?

Because they are paying him money, duh....you really think Stillman is some young phenom??? If you think that, then I question your hockey IQ

 

[Nucker42]

So there’s lots of moving pieces. Is it a Schenn for asset deal, do the Canucks take a bad contract for an additional asset? Is it a 3 team deal?

The Canucks overpaid to dump Dickinson so I’m not expecting a 2nd….

If it’s the Bruins, really it’s just Reilly and Smith that make sense.

I would suggest that Schenn value sits somewhere between a 2nd and a 4th. I think if the Canucks take Smith it would
Be worth a 3rd or 4th. Probably more for
Reilly.

Would something like a 2nd and 4th and Smith for Schenn make sense?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Like yourself not considering real money to an owner who it notoriously cheap

Don’t worry you’ll get there.

Cheap at times on the non hockey side (fired a bunch of staff during Covid).

But we have been capped out year after year, it hasn't been about being cheap. The problem isn't that he wouldn't spend money, it's that he refused to accept reality and sign off on future based moves.

I'm sure I'll understand your incredible wisdom some day.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

I highly doubt Vancouver ownership would entertain paying 8+M for a player that doesn't even play on their team.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I said people talk without considering the cost. I would not pay $400k for Monahan and get a fourth. An example is people offering retention for Karralson. The economics don’t work and never wil. I am offering my opinion. Cap retention and salary associated with retention are two different issues. Risk and reward and it is not free as some posters state.

I agree with you I was just confused about your comment about $1M in actual cash only returning a 4th as I don’t think that’s ever been the case or even suggested by anyone. $1M in cash at the deadline is equivalent to roughly $4M in salary or for arguments sake, retaining 50% of an $8M contract at the deadline. Nobody has suggested doing that for only a measly 4th round pick.

I agree with you though that many people don’t consider the actual cash component of these transactions which for the team retaining is often the most crucial part. They’re effectively buying draft picks with actual cash.

 

[Dr Quincy]

So there’s lots of moving pieces. Is it a Schenn for asset deal, do the Canucks take a bad contract for an additional asset? Is it a 3 team deal?

The Canucks overpaid to dump Dickinson so I’m not expecting a 2nd….

If it’s the Bruins, really it’s just Reilly and Smith that make sense.

I would suggest that Schenn value sits somewhere between a 2nd and a 4th. I think if the Canucks take Smith it would
Be worth a 3rd or 4th. Probably more for
Reilly.

Would something like a 2nd and 4th and Smith for Schenn make sense?

B's don't have 2nds for quite awhile.

 

[Raistlin]

I highly suspect Aqua will sign off retaining anything for 4 years. he has no patience for one, the retool in his mind will be over in 3 years. TBH I fail to see any team willing to retain an amount over 1 million for 4, in that span of time anything can happen, why hamstring your op by that significant amount if the plan is to spend to the cap? Its more likely Karlsson will be moved in 2 years time.

 

[DeltaSwede]

I highly doubt Vancouver ownership would entertain paying 8+M for a player that doesn't even play on their team.

Canucks ownership, rightly or wrongly, has been crapped on profusely for the past 10 years or so.

One thing you can't criticize them for is opening their wallets. They are paying like 2m+ to 3 different head coaches right now for example. Been fine with buyouts, spent to the cap every single year etc.

Hockey first, bottom line second, gotta give them respect for that.