Speculation: Will the 11th Overall Pick be traded ?

[elitepete]

I had a couple Flames fans accept 11 for 16 and Tanev on the main board.

I would go a step further and look to do the same thing with the 16th to add an upgrade on wing or another Dman.

There is zero need to upgrade the wingers.

We need to have a first round selection this year.

 

[F A N]

Refer to my first comment. The relationship is soured from how it ended, despite a management change. I don't think he wants to come back.

Wanting to stay in Calgary is different from listing the Vancouver Canucks as on of the 10 teams he refuses to pay for. Not wanting to come back is different from being one of the 10 teams he refuses to play for.

 

[rypper]

Not wanting to come back is different from being one of the 10 teams he refuses to play for.

Um not really?

 

[racerjoe]

Players are smart. It might be a 10 team no trade list, but they probably know another 10 teams won't/can't want them, and maybe a few their team won't trade them to. so this leave very few teams.

 

[F A N]

That's a good point. Point B of my analogy was actually in reference to the fact that more teams were trying to dump dead cap than teams trying to acquiring dead cap. Of course position would be factor in determining whether Myers' is "dead cap", but I think even taking into consideration this, he still is.
...
I think this is true but its also more focusing on "buyer side" factors, and my whole point is that I think people are too focused on this. Don't get me wrong, you can come up with several logical reasons why a team may have interest in Myers, but ultimately, I am not sure if these would ever lead a team to actually give up value for Myers given the general market dynamics which was the point of my analogy.

It's all perception isn't it? Supply and demand isn't perfect. Let's say we look at a seller's standpoint using your car analogy. @Vector doesn't mind keeping his Aztec. It's almost fully paid for. He is motivated to sell it since he's going to live in a nudist colony and doesn't need it but then again if he sells it he might need to buy another car and might need to take out another car loan. In this situation, if @Vector is receiving plenty of interest he might be more motivated to wait and see if a better offer comes along than in a situation where he has listed his car for months and received little to no interest right? So even though technically supply may outstrip demand, there is still plenty of demand.

Of course if one of the conditions for being allowed into the nudist colony is to free himself of worldly possessions like car and nobody really wants an Aztec, then @Vector might need to offer something for someone to take the Aztec off his hands (perhaps paying to fully disinfect the seats).

In the Canucks' case, management has chosen to keep Myers last summer and was basically of the attitude that if you're not willing to pay a good asset for him then don't bother inquiring Now the evaluation might have changed, but unless there is a replacement that they absolutely need the cap room for, I can see the Canucks simply hanging onto Myers.

 

[racerjoe]

I really like the fact we have decided to keep tagging @Vector. Especially if we tag @Vector multiple times in one post. @Vector really should be tagged in all posts posted here... just cause.

 

[F A N]

Players are smart. It might be a 10 team no trade list, but they probably know another 10 teams won't/can't want them, and maybe a few their team won't trade them to. so this leave very few teams.

That is easier to do near the trade deadline. It's more difficult to do in the off season. Tanev, if healthy, is worth a significant asset at the deadline and plays a position that is highly valued.

 

[Vector]

I'm pretty sure I can ban all of you for mod abuse. Where will you all go then? Talk your friends? Family? HA!

 

[racerjoe]

I'm pretty sure I can ban all of you for mod abuse. Where will you all go then? Talk your friends? Family? HA!

Friends?

 

[F A N]

Just saw a mock draft that had Moore, Danielson, ASP, Willander and Wood available at 12 or lower. If on draft day do you trade 11oa and Garland for 19 and a 2nd...roll thw dice one of them is there?

I don't understand the desire to package an asset for Garland. I think Garland is an asset. Garland's even strength production is consistently up there with Petey and Miller. You know there will be a year where our PP production drives up and we'll be looking for players who can produce at even strength.

Garland is also the poster child for player development under Tocchet. If you're talking about wanting to change the culture, you keep a guy like Garland who never quits, consistently wins puck battles, and is good at moving the puck up ice.

 

[Hodgy]

It's all perception isn't it? Supply and demand isn't perfect. Let's say we look at a seller's standpoint using your car analogy. @Vector doesn't mind keeping his Aztec. It's almost fully paid for. He is motivated to sell it since he's going to live in a nudist colony and doesn't need it but then again if he sells it he might need to buy another car and might need to take out another car loan. In this situation, if @Vector is receiving plenty of interest he might be more motivated to wait and see if a better offer comes along than in a situation where he has listed his car for months and received little to no interest right?

But this is just a bad analogy. The Canucks do mind keeping Myers, they want to trade him because he sucks relative to his cap hit. And they don't want to wait because they want to make the playoffs next year.

So even though technically supply may outstrip demand, there is still plenty of demand.

There likely isn't plenty of demand for Myers at $6 million. If there was, I think he would already have been traded.

In the Canucks' case, management has chosen to keep Myers last summer and was basically of the attitude that if you're not willing to pay a good asset for him then don't bother inquiring Now the evaluation might have changed, but unless there is a replacement that they absolutely need the cap room for, I can see the Canucks simply hanging onto Myers.

I can see them hanging onto Myers as well. It really comes down to 1) what player they could acquire, whether through trade or free agency, to replace Myers and 2) the cost, if anything, to move Myers.

The problem is though, and its why this attempted retool is so difficult and faltering at this point, whenever you are trying to move out a player that is underperforming his cap hit you really need to "win" two separate transactions and the extent of the "wins" required are relative how underperforming such player is.
-first, you need to "win" the trade that dumps the player; and
-second, you need to "win" the trade or free agent signing for the new replacement player.

And its very difficult to win either, let alone both. So if you lose even one, then there is a good chance that you are not actually coming out ahead. And that's why this retool has been so difficult for this management and why we haven't seen more trades.

Oh, also, @Vector , @Vector and @Vector .

 

[F A N]

But this is just a bad analogy. The Canucks do mind keeping Myers, they want to trade him because he sucks relative to his cap hit. And they don't want to wait because they want to make the playoffs next year.

I should clarify and say that when I say "don't mind" I mean they aren't desperate to get rid of him. I'm only judging from summer + the various reports along the way of the Canucks treating Myers as an asset rather than a cap dump.

There likely isn't plenty of demand for Myers at $6 million. If there was, I think he would already have been traded.

Or they set price and didn't get the offer that they want. Again, I'm just going back to last summer where they weren't trying to get rid of Myers but trying to get a significant asset for him. The Canucks could maintain the view that there will be interest, if not now then near the trade deadline so I can see management continuing the view that there's no reason to move him for less than a significant asset.

I can see them hanging onto Myers as well. It really comes down to 1) what player they could acquire, whether through trade or free agency, to replace Myers and 2) the cost, if anything, to move Myers.

The problem is though, and its why this attempted retool is so difficult and faltering at this point, whenever you are trying to move out a player that is underperforming his cap hit you really need to "win" two separate transactions and the extent of the "wins" required are relative how underperforming such player is.
-first, you need to "win" the trade that dumps the player; and
-second, you need to "win" the trade or free agent signing for the new replacement player.

And its very difficult to win either, let alone both. So if you lose even one, then there is a good chance that you are not actually coming out ahead. And that's why this retool has been so difficult for this management and why we haven't seen more trades.

I don't disagree. I'm hoping Myers can be moved without the Canucks giving up an asset and without retaining salary. I just don't know if management would do the deal just to dump his salary. There may be some UFA options out I can see the Canucks targeting so there's that.

Oh, also, @Vector , @Vector and @Vector .

@Vector, @Vector, @Vector?

 

[Lindgren]

I'm pretty sure I can ban all of you for mod abuse. Where will you all go then? Talk your friends? Family? HA!

Source?

 

[EverTheCynic]

Move the pick to offload OEL?

Maybe not the worst thing in the world. We gotta get out of that contract. Thoughts?

 

[Vector]

Move the pick to offload OEL?

Maybe not the worst thing in the world. We gotta get out of that contract. Thoughts?

I think it would take far more than the 11th to offload OEL.

 

[mriswith]

I don't like moving the 11th to dump OEL because a medium-sized hit on the pick plus an OEL buyout is more cap efficient than moving them both and this is a loaded draft.

It reminds me of when the rumour about 10th for 3+Seabrook was floated in 2019. I was 100% on board with wanting the trade and then taking Byram because I realized that cap savings from Byram's ELC mitigated almost the entire downside of Seabrooks contract, except when it ends you've still got Byram

 

[timw33]

I think it would take far more than the 11th to offload OEL.

Patrick Nemeth 2 years 2.5MM cost NYR two second round picks to unload. Same cost to dump 2 years 3.9M of Ghost from PHI to ARI. And we're talking 2-3 times the amount of AAV and 2 times the total commitment.

Yeah, easily the 11 + more

 

[Vector]

Spurned on by @SelltheTeamFrancesco .

Would anyone be interested in the following:

Canucks Trade:
1st (11th) & Boeser/Garland

Blackhawks Trade:
1st (19th), 2nd (35th), & 3rd (93rd)

Now this all depends on the Blackhawks having a strong desire to move up.

It’s about the only situation where the Canucks have leverage over another team. Moving down 8 spots should garner a second in this strong draft. Blackhawks have 4 seconds in this draft before the trade. The Canucks gain full cap space from Boeser/Garland while also getting the weaker of the Blackhawks thirds.

Blackhawks move back up at the cost of one of their many 2nds, cap space, and a late 3rd. They also gain a good, fairly young player, to play with Bedard.

 

[racerjoe]

Spurned on by @SelltheTeamFrancesco .

Would anyone be interested in the following:

Canucks Trade:
1st (11th) & Boeser/Garland

Blackhawks Trade:
1st (19th), 2nd (35th), & 3rd (93rd)

Now this all depends on the Blackhawks having a strong desire to move up.

It’s about the only situation where the Canucks have leverage over another team. Moving down 8 spots should garner a second in this strong draft. Blackhawks have 4 seconds in this draft before the trade. The Canucks gain full cap space from Boeser/Garland while also getting the weaker of the Blackhawks thirds.

Blackhawks move back up at the cost of one of their many 2nds, cap space, and a late 3rd. They also gain a good, fairly young player, to play with Bedard.

No.

Would rather retain on Boeser and sell for an asset.

@Vector I think MS put it best, its to valuable to trade for the most likely dumps we have, Boeser, Garland or Myers, and not nearly enough to dump OEL. So I wouldn't want to move that far back. That is too big of a drop.

 

[me2]

No.

Would rather retain on Boeser and sell for an asset.

@Vector I think MS put it best, its to valuable to trade for the most likely dumps we have, Boeser, Garland or Myers, and not nearly enough to dump OEL. So I wouldn't want to move that far back. That is too big of a drop.

I wouldn't say that moving from 11 to 19+2nd is a big fall. Objectively the performance of pick packages isn't overwhelming. Names like Willander will be on the board in that range, and if they are gone then another excellent player will have fallen. You do the deal on draft day to see who is at at 11.

 

[racerjoe]

I wouldn't say that moving from 11 to 19+2nd is a big fall. Objectively the performance of pick packages isn't overwhelming. Names like Willander will be on the board in that range, and if they are gone then another excellent player will have fallen. You do the deal on draft day to see who is at at 11.

Maybe last year it is a fair deal, but not this year. The player you are picking up at 11 is going to very good. 19 is at pretty much the big drop of this draft. I think its around 17. Willander probably goes before 19.

 

[jd22]

It's all perception isn't it? Supply and demand isn't perfect. Let's say we look at a seller's standpoint using your car analogy. @Vector doesn't mind keeping his Aztec. It's almost fully paid for. He is motivated to sell it since he's going to live in a nudist colony and doesn't need it but then again if he sells it he might need to buy another car and might need to take out another car loan. In this situation, if @Vector is receiving plenty of interest he might be more motivated to wait and see if a better offer comes along than in a situation where he has listed his car for months and received little to no interest right? So even though technically supply may outstrip demand, there is still plenty of demand.
....

Not entirely on topic, but I loved my Aztek. My favourite car I've owned. So practical, reasonably capable, not too expensive to run.

And had the greatest anti-theft protection known to man. Being an Aztek and all.

 

[Hodgy]

I wouldn't say that moving from 11 to 19+2nd is a big fall. Objectively the performance of pick packages isn't overwhelming. Names like Willander will be on the board in that range, and if they are gone then another excellent player will have fallen. You do the deal on draft day to see who is at at 11.

I think this is true but I can see this management making this trade if they feel they cannot otherwise create cap space since they have all but announced that we will be a playoff team this year. It wouldn't be a good trade but this management have painted themselves into a corner where they need to execute this summer. They've run out of runway IMO.

 

[tradervik]

Spurned on by @SelltheTeamFrancesco .

Would anyone be interested in the following:

Canucks Trade:
1st (11th) & Boeser/Garland

Blackhawks Trade:
1st (19th), 2nd (35th), & 3rd (93rd)

Now this all depends on the Blackhawks having a strong desire to move up.

It’s about the only situation where the Canucks have leverage over another team. Moving down 8 spots should garner a second in this strong draft. Blackhawks have 4 seconds in this draft before the trade. The Canucks gain full cap space from Boeser/Garland while also getting the weaker of the Blackhawks thirds.

Blackhawks move back up at the cost of one of their many 2nds, cap space, and a late 3rd. They also gain a good, fairly young player, to play with Bedard.

That deal seems way to easy for Chicago. If the Canucks have the leverage, they have to make it hurt a little bit.

 

[Vector]

That deal seems way to easy for Chicago. If the Canucks have the leverage, they have to make it hurt a little bit.

I don’t disagree. I’m coming at it from the perspective that the Canucks have got to June 28th and have been unsuccessful at shedding salary in any other way so that’s a bit of a factor.

What’s a realistic trade that you would consider?