Do you want the Canucks to pursue Tyler Myers in a trade?

[Island Nucklehead]

If you project where the cap is headed and how inferior defenceman like Orpik are getting 5.5M AAV as UFA, it's not that hard to suggest that Tanev is going to get north of 4M+ on a long term deal that includes UFA years. Orpick's 5.5M AAV, makes Myer's AAV look good. LOL.

You do know the difference between RFA and UFA, right?

Uh, you do know if you sign a player that is an RFA with a long-term contract extension includes years that would have been his UFA years, that bumps the AAV, right?

Sure, but it's still not the same as bidding against 29 other teams. Your Orpik example is therefore junk.

[Hockey Widow]

I think with Benning proclaiming Edler to be gawd and Sbisa to be top 4 this deal gives him a year to evaluate Tanev more. If Tanev impresses this season and moving forward to 2015-2016 when both Bieksa and Hamhuis will be entering the final year of their respective contracts, there will be more money and more clarity for Benning with respect to who he wants to move forward with.

Could back fire if Tanev proves to be top 4 and wants a huge deal. He may only be willing to do another one year deal then and go to FA after that, or it could take big bucks to extend him.

But again, both Hamhuis and Bieksa's deal will be up by the time Tanev hits UFA.

[Island Nucklehead]

I think with Benning proclaiming Edler to be gawd and Sbisa to be top 4 this deal gives him a year to evaluate Tanev more. If Tanev impresses this season and moving forward to 2015-2016 when both Bieksa and Hamhuis will be entering the final year of their respective contracts, there will be more money and more clarity for Benning with respect to who he wants to move forward with.

Could back fire if Tanev proves to be top 4 and wants a huge deal. He may only be willing to do another one year deal then and go to FA after that, or it could take big bucks to extend him.

But again, both Hamhuis and Bieksa's deal will be up by the time Tanev hits UFA.

I don't have high expectations for Sbisa, so if he can crack the top-4 great, but as far as I can tell he's been a highly hyped player that's never quite hit his stride. He should get that opportunity here, we'll see.

I can definitely see Tanev being considered as a replacement for Hamhuis moving forward, as their games are quite similar in that they are both non-physical, "brainy" type dmen that try to play the smart game vs. a physical one and aren't the most dynamic offensively. Hamhuis would be Tanev's ceiling , imo. So that's not bad, but if Tanev is thinking he's a $6M defender I think he should be dealt, he just doesn't bring enough at this point. We've got at least 2 years to figure that out, and I'd wager Benning would maximize his value by trading him after this season if he does want the big payday.

You mention the timing of Bieksa and Hamhuis' contracts, and that's an excellent point. Benning can start negotiating extensions with them next summer, while Tanev maintains his RFA status. Should give us a real good idea of where the franchise is going, and allow for flexibility against the cap if Vancouver wants to retain all three. Given that Hamhuis will be 33, and Bieksa 35, it will be an interesting negotiation re: 35+ contracts. Do we want to buy up a few of Hamhuis' years, and how many are we willing to give Bieksa? On the plus side, it's unlikely those guys (Bieksa especially) will be looking for raises at that stage of their careers. Given the relatively poor state of the Canucks Defensive prospects, it might make sense to keep those two around into their twilight years, if their salary demands aren't too high.


Oh yeah. No thanks to Tyler Myers.

[Hockey Widow]

Stanton and Corrado will also be RFA next year and Weber of course is only on a one year deal. Benning will have a pretty good idea after this season who he wants and he will have some flexibility to get there. Perhaps an ideal situation in a time of a rebuild. He only has Edler with a lot of term to contemplate and can make his mark moving forward.

He has also created a very similar situation up front as we have a lot of players with 1-2 year contracts. Great opportunity to evaluate what we have, let the kids develop more, see what the older players still have left in the tank.

As it stands right now I can see him standing pat with the roster we have and keeping Horvat on the big club. Let Jensen and others have a year in a Utica together. I can see him trading or simply waiving Markstrom.

[Betamax]

If you project where the cap is headed and how inferior defenceman like Orpik are getting 5.5M AAV as UFA, it's not that hard to suggest that Tanev is going to get north of 4M+ on a long term deal that includes UFA years. Orpick's 5.5M AAV, makes Myer's AAV look good. LOL.

You do know the difference between RFA and UFA, right?

Uh, you do know if you sign a player that is an RFA with a long-term contract extension includes years that would have been his UFA years, that bumps the AAV, right?

Sure, but it's still not the same as bidding against 29 other teams. Your Orpik example is therefore junk.

Uh, no ........ because if the Canucks and Tanev are going to negotiate a long term deal, say 6 years, that includes several of his UFA years, they will use an Orpik example as one of the comparable to drive the overall dollar figures on what he would have projected to receive in those years. Furthermore, Tanev is still 24, so he's still not at the peak of his prime athletic years. A contract for him is given for what you've done but also what you're expected to do.

[Betamax]

via: http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/06/27 ... es-anyway/

Trader Jim has taken over Philly and he’s not done yet (he hopes anyway)
The White Towel / Province
June 27, 2014. 2:18 pm

The Tyler Myers-to -Canucks talk is all over the draft floor. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, but there is a lot of buzz.

The Canucks have tabled an offer to the Buffalo Sabres for Myers, and it includes the No. 24 overall pick.

At the time of that alleged offer, the Sabres didn't know if McCann would be available. Maybe the 24 overall pick, manifested as one Mr. McCann could be the main piece coming back with a roster player like Higgins or Hansen for salary cap purposes and an additional high pick/prospect and/or Sbisia.

If you look at their depth chart, they are projected to draft one of McDavid/Eichel (as their 1C), The Son of Paul as their 2C, The Cody converted to a top 6 winger and McCann could possibly be their 3C of the future, if they rated him highly in their draft charts.

[Hockey Widow]

Canucks could still get Myers but if Buffalo is still waiting for a home run it won't come from the Canucks. The Sabres are stock piling 1st for next year and trader Jim isn't letting that pick go. I can see him parting with 2016 and other parts. Who knows.

[Strangelove]

The Cody converted to a top 6 winger

[Betamax]

Canucks could still get Myers but if Buffalo is still waiting for a home run it won't come from the Canucks. The Sabres are stock piling 1st for next year and trader Jim isn't letting that pick go. I can see him parting with 2016 and other parts. Who knows.

The only way I could see him letting the 2015 1st pick go as the main piece in a trade for Myers is if GMJB is convinced that the Canucks' have a better than a coin flip chance to be a Playoffs team next season.

Right now, you can't say that.

But with Myers here and retaining Tanev (or not losing any other important roster player in a trade for Myers), I say I like their chances to be a Playoffs team.

[Island Nucklehead]

But with Myers here and retaining Tanev (or not losing any other important roster player in a trade for Myers), I say I like their chances to be a Playoffs team.

With the cap the way it is now, it has to be nearly dollars in, dollars out. You can bet your testicle that none of our NTC's would want to go there. Would you trade Tanev, 2015 1st, Matthias? I wouldn't. Would Buffalo go for that? Probably not.

Don't really see us having the assets Buffalo wants off our roster (that would waive to go there), nor do I want to gut our prospect pool for a guy that hasn't shown himself to be an elite d-man.

Between him and Edler, you'd have two of the most promising, yet consistently frustrating d-men in the NHL. Both of them have all the tools to succeed, but apparently lack the right tool crib to keep them organized.

NO to Myers because the cost-benefit isn't good enough.

[Betamax]

But with Myers here and retaining Tanev (or not losing any other important roster player in a trade for Myers), I say I like their chances to be a Playoffs team.

With the cap the way it is now, it has to be nearly dollars in, dollars out. You can bet your testicle that none of our NTC's would want to go there. Would you trade Tanev, 2015 1st, Matthias? I wouldn't. Would Buffalo go for that? Probably not.

Well, IMO, it woud be Tanev *OR* THE 2015 1st as the main piece. If it's both, I'd pass on any Myers type deal. If they like the McCann kid, he could be the main piece but the Sabres seem to want to corner the market on 2015 1st rounders. Only their own pick and the NYI has a chance at the No. 1 pick. The Blues is a virtual lock to make it to the Playoffs. The Canucks' pick, it's a coin flip right now, add Myers (without subtracting Tanev) they have a very good chance at making, IMO.

Anyway, it sounds like the Red Wings are the team that is aggressively pursuing the deal.

Don't really see us having the assets Buffalo wants off our roster (that would waive to go there), nor do I want to gut our prospect pool for a guy that hasn't shown himself to be an elite d-man.

Between him and Edler, you'd have two of the most promising, yet consistently frustrating d-men in the NHL. Both of them have all the tools to succeed, but apparently lack the right tool crib to keep them organized.

NO to Myers because the cost-benefit isn't good enough.

read this piece: http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2014/06/30 ... cam-neely/

Tools, results, and why Jake Virtanen isn’t the next Cam Neely
by Daniel Wagner, on June 30, 2014

GMJB mindset when it came to selecting Virtanen in this year's draft seems to explain to me why they would have significant interest in Myers.

[Island Nucklehead]

read this piece: http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2014/06/30 ... cam-neely/

Tools, results, and why Jake Virtanen isn’t the next Cam Neely
by Daniel Wagner, on June 30, 2014

GMJB mindset when it came to selecting Virtanen in this year's draft seems to explain to me why they would have significant interest in Myers.

lol. wow. When did anyone from the Canucks suggest Virtanen was the next Neely? They're BC boys drafted by the Canucks. THAT was what the Canucks.com article "Backyard Boys" was about. Here's a quote:

Is it fair to say that Virtanen is the next Neely? Not a chance.

Then they admit the real reason they wrote the article:

Both Jim Benning and Trevor Linden competed against Neely in the NHL, and Benning has spent the past few years working closely alongside him within the Bruins front office. Linden also leaned on Neely for advice during his first few days and weeks on the job.

So, connect the dots. Benning/Neely combo in Boston, Neely/Virtanen both BC boys drafted high by Vancouver. Must mean Benning feels Virtanen=Neely.

Yeah. Let's go out and get Myers.

[dbr]

Is there an example of a player who was coerced into waiving for the worst team in the league because the alternative was BEING waived?

The Boyle example was the behaviour of a laughingstock franchise as you mentioned, Boyle was a fairly marketable asset at that point and went to a better team.

Forcing a player onto the worst team in the league against their will would be unprecedented, and as I said hardly desirable for Buffalo - particularly given we're likely talking about a two-way veteran forward with limited upside nearing or past age 30..

dave, when a player without a NTC is traded, they are "forced" to move to to the new team if they want to collect the pay that's in their contract.

AFAIK, putting a player on waivers for the reasons I described previously is not against the rules of the CBA. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please present it via documented links.

Similarly, a player is "forced" to play for the team that drafts them, most typically, if they want to be part of the NHL. Lindros is the only example that comes to my mind that had the leverage to "force" a trade from his drafted team to a more desirable team in his opinion.

So trading a player with no movement clause, or drafting a player and then entering into a contract with them is the same thing as extracting value from Buffalo in exchange for subsequently waiving a player who negotiated a movement clause and is using it to attempt to avoid going there. Gotcha.

Oh and thanks for letting me know it is not prohibited in the CBA, that is helpful to me because I was definitely claiming at some point that it is.

[Betamax]

Is there an example of a player who was coerced into waiving for the worst team in the league because the alternative was BEING waived?

The Boyle example was the behaviour of a laughingstock franchise as you mentioned, Boyle was a fairly marketable asset at that point and went to a better team.

Forcing a player onto the worst team in the league against their will would be unprecedented, and as I said hardly desirable for Buffalo - particularly given we're likely talking about a two-way veteran forward with limited upside nearing or past age 30..

dave, when a player without a NTC is traded, they are "forced" to move to to the new team if they want to collect the pay that's in their contract.

AFAIK, putting a player on waivers for the reasons I described previously is not against the rules of the CBA. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please present it via documented links.

Similarly, a player is "forced" to play for the team that drafts them, most typically, if they want to be part of the NHL. Lindros is the only example that comes to my mind that had the leverage to "force" a trade from his drafted team to a more desirable team in his opinion.

So trading a player with no movement clause, or drafting a player and then entering into a contract with them is the same thing as extracting value from Buffalo in exchange for subsequently waiving a player who negotiated a movement clause and is using it to attempt to avoid going there. Gotcha.

Oh and thanks for letting me know it is not prohibited in the CBA, that is helpful to me because I was definitely claiming at some point that it is.

Uh, Know the difference between a NMC and NTC. Players are moved to places they don't initially want to go and are still professional enough to get on with their career.

Do you think either a Hansen and/or Higgins would be a malcontent if the Canucks' suggested to said player they could do things the" hard way" if the "easy way" didn't occur i.e. they agree to waive?

[dbr]

My point is that it's hardly desirable for Buffalo.

Yes you can get some guys to waive to go somewhere, but to coerce a player into waiving for he worst team in the league - and expecting that team to pay a premium to get a player that is arriving as a guy who is enough of a professional to play out his contract (and likely no more)..?