I'm not flushing him for cap space. I would want value back.Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 8:56 amI'm all for bringing Lindholm back. Dude was a beast
I would also be open to entertaining offers on Pettersson to free up capital to rearrange the deck chairs. I don't just flush him for cap space alone either (Mëds....). He definitely has trade value, even with that $$$$
2024 Offseason - moving forward
Moderators: donlever, Referees
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
The assumption I was making is that the Canucks would go right up to the cap in order to use the LTIR.Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2024 4:05 pmThe notion that LTIR creates "extra" cap room is a common fallacy.Aaronp18 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:42 pm We get one more year of Poolmans LTIR which essentially offsets OELs buyout hit next season.
The 25/26 season OELs buyout hit is much more and we don’t get Poolman’s relief anymore either. However, the hope is with Arizona gone the cap will increase much more substantially for that season enabling a bit of flexibility.
Sure... if you are right up to the cap... you can spend over the cap by the amount of the LTIR player's AAV.
But first you must count the player's AAV under the cap.
Example...
You are right at the (say) $88M cap limit counting Poolman's $2.5M.
You place Poolman on LTIR... now your cap is essentially $90.5M, counting Poolman's $2.5M.
If LTIR Poolman disappeared off the face of the Earth, your cap limit would be $88M, but you wouldn't have to count his $2.5M.
So if we are tight to the $88m with OELs buyout it gives us the $2.5m from the LTIR during the season.
- Strangelove
- Moderator & MVP

- Posts: 15909
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
- Location: Someday
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
Canucks will pretty much go right to the cap regardless though no?
Dumping Poolman's contract wouldn't give us more cap space, but it would make life easier for Allvin & Co.
____
Try to focus on someday.
Try to focus on someday.
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
Far away inside…
I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together….
And we are all together….
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
I was asking more because I don’t think Necas is a playmaker, and Lindholm was definitely better with a playmaker like Gaudreau on his wing. While I don’t think Petey has the footwork to create space and then distribute, he does have the playmaker’s IQ. If we are shipping the playmaking component out for a RHD, then I’d Necas the right return for Hronek?
Condescending prick.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
Doc tends to rub off…..
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
- Strangelove
- Moderator & MVP

- Posts: 15909
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
- Location: Someday
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
And here I thought I was way more humble than I should be...
____
Try to focus on someday.
Try to focus on someday.
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
There are a few users here, yourself, Topper, present company included (for instance)...that humble doesn't even reside in the same Postal Code.
rats.....on the other hand.
rats.....on the other hand.
DeLevering since 1999.
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
I humbly disagree.
Ya cunt.
Ya cunt.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Re: 2024 Offseason - moving forward
Yeah, if Hronek is gonna be signed long term, I have a tough time going over $7. His value to the club is obvious, but the body of success is short.
The problem with ditching Hronek for a winger like Necas is it creates a massive hole on the back end, and now you’ve limited the amount of $$ you can spend on reaquiring another top 4.
No, I think moving a top 4 RHD for a winger is poor asset mgmt and weakens the team.
I’m all for having the size and toughness and D acumen of Souc, Zed and Myers, but after Quinn the offensive wave from the blueline falls off a cliff, with little to no help coming up from the farm.
If Hronek does in fact want to stay in Van, I think you find a way to get him signed, even if it’s for just 2-3 years.
The problem with ditching Hronek for a winger like Necas is it creates a massive hole on the back end, and now you’ve limited the amount of $$ you can spend on reaquiring another top 4.
No, I think moving a top 4 RHD for a winger is poor asset mgmt and weakens the team.
I’m all for having the size and toughness and D acumen of Souc, Zed and Myers, but after Quinn the offensive wave from the blueline falls off a cliff, with little to no help coming up from the farm.
If Hronek does in fact want to stay in Van, I think you find a way to get him signed, even if it’s for just 2-3 years.
