Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Post Reply
User avatar
herb
CC Legend
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by herb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:17 pm

Well, we are only six games in (lest we forget the Canucks went 4-3-2 and 5-5-1 in October to start the 2011 and 2012 seasons). The Canucks were also 3-2-2 in January 2013 to start the shortened 2013 campaign.

Perhaps this team just played above its head all these past years and it regressing to the mean so to speak, but I don’t read too much into these first few games. This group is a notoriously slow starter, plus we are integrating a few new players and of course the coaching staff change has had a big impact.

One notable change is that several key contributors from the past several seasons like Ehrhoff, Malhotra, and Hodgson have not been fully replaced.

Anyway, trading away one of our top four is not the answer to any of our problems right now. Tanev and/or Corrado simply are not ready to step in.

I know I am in the minority around here, but I’m excited to see Schroeder play. He is a very smart player, which our hard working but somewhat uncreative second and third lines could use an injection of. I think it was HW who suggested a Booth-Schroeder-Kassian line, which is an idea I could get behind.

Honestly though, if we don’t see a massive improvement from Kassian and a large and sustained increase in productivity from Booth and Schroeder, we will not have the depth to hang with San Jose and LA. I have liked what I have seen from Booth so far, but the bottom line is that we need somebody not named Sedin to start showing up on the score sheet.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by dbr » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:37 pm

Mondi wrote:The issue isn't the finishes per se, it's as you say...the team isn't exactly primed to return to form.

The idea that a team should be in the top 4 each season is not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is shepparding assets to keep the team in the conversation. No one was questioning whether the Hawks, Wings or Pens could win the cup or say, qualify for the playoffs from day one of the season.

What's wrong with wondering how a team that looked as good as it did in 2011 (and even 2012) could be so average last season and thus far this season? Surely it can't be that collectively the key players have declined into mediocrity. Perhaps it is more likely that former key players have been replaced by guys who aren't as good.
Well it is pretty clear to me.

The 2010-11 team was constructed in a marketplace behaving as though there was a $59m salary cap ceiling, yet the Canucks managed to spend nearly $63m in cap dollars by exploiting LTIR which of course gave them an extremely strong roster at the time.

Since then the ceiling has risen all the way up to $70m and taken the marketplace with it, and thanks to the new CBA we are still in a position where the team we will field this year will add up to about $300 000 more against the cap than the 2010-11 edition. That's three seasons later, and we're spending one half of one percent more than we did.

Since then we've seen contracts for guys like Alex Burrows, Kevin Bieksa, Alex Edler, Chris Tanev, Chris Higgens and Jannik Hansen all expire, just retaining those guys has cost us what, $7-8m (15% of the cap)?

Combine that in with a franchise that was already just a little bit older, that is right now missing a crop of 23-27 year olds (look at the 2005-2008 drafts, we dealt two players and one bust and had a fourth get himself killed, other than that we had one player contribute anything to this team and he's declined to the point of not being worth a contract this year) contributing which is what successful franchises in this league live on, and you have a team that has fallen just a bit further than other contenders did when the salary cap finally caught up with them.

Look what happened to Chicago when they had a cap crunch after winning. They had to dump a guy like Campbell for less than nothing but they consistently moved other players for futures (Barker for Leddy; Ladd for a prospect and a 2nd; Bfugly, Sopel and Eager for two prospects and 24th and 38th overall picks; Versteeg for Staalberg and a couple of prospects; Brouwer for a 1st; am I missing anything?) because they were all guys who were young and contributing at a high level. Boston had a cap crunch of sorts and dealt Tyler Seguin for a high end first liner in Loui Eriksson.

Has every move Mike Gillis made since then worked out, or even seemed brilliant before we had the benefit of hindsight? Not even close. And it's just further exacerbated the reality of the situation which is teams which ascend as the result of specific outstanding contracts, are going to fall back to reality eventually. We've fallen a little further than some, but nowhere near as far as others by the looks of things to this point.

And this is all ignoring the fact that the team's tactics largely did not change until this offseason despite marked changes both in play across the league and in the Canucks opponents anticipating their specific strategies..
I like the deceit and dishonesty allegations, after all this board needs some counter to the homer vibe.
Oh they aren't allegations, like I said if I didn't already know better I'd think that might be the case.

But I do know better than to think there is more than meets the eye here than a simple hastily considered evaluation of how other teams do after making a run at the cup leading to a mistaken conclusion that no other team ever has to retool.

User avatar
herb
CC Legend
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by herb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:10 pm

dbr wrote:Since then we've seen contracts for guys like Alex Burrows, Kevin Bieksa, Alex Edler, Chris Tanev, Chris Higgens and Jannik Hansen all expire, just retaining those guys has cost us what, $7-8m (15% of the cap)?
Interesting point – It’s actually an increase of $10,375,000 from 2011 to 2014 if you factor in:

Bieksa: $3,750,000 to $4,600,000 ($850,000 increase)
Booth/Samuelsson: $2,500,000 to $4,250,000 ($1,750,000 increase)
Burrows: $2,000,000 to $4,500,000 ($2,500,000 increase)
Edler: $3,250,000 to $5,000,000 ($1,750,000 increase)
Garrison/Ehrhoff: $3,100,000 to $4,600,000 ($1,500,000 increase)
Hansen: $825,000 to $1,350,000 ($525,000 increase)
Higgins: $1,600,000 to $2,500,000 ($900,000 increase)
Tanev: $900,000 to $1,500,000 ($600,000 increase)

Looking at this list, there were some excellent contract values in 2011 that just couldn’t be maintained.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17128
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Strangelove » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:48 pm

Nice conversation, especially awesome posting by young Dave. :thumbs:

(the Great Strangelove taught him everything he knows)

Did Mondi just admit to being a troll though? :eh:

Wish I had more time, hectic day....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Shinkaruk and Booth for Erhoff?

Post by The Brown Knight » Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:00 am

Shinkaruk and Booth for Erhoff?

With rumors swirling that the Sabres are pretty close to sending Ryan Miller to Edmonton for Nail Yakupov, I can't help but wonder about Erhoff.

I think an argument can be made that Erhoff would mean (or meant) as much to the Canucks almost as much as Miller would mean to Edmonton.

Would you be willing to move Gaunce, or even one of Horvat or Shinkaruk for Erhoff?

I'm guessing that if we really wanted Erhoff, it would cost us Shinkaruk and Booth (Booth so that it allows us to fit in Erhoff's salary......they take Booth off our hands since they'd be getting Shinkaruk).

I'd much rather hold onto Shinkaruk and Horvat and give away Gaunce or Jensen instead, but would Buffalo go for it? Given what Erhoff meant to this Canucks team would it be worth giving up Shinkaruk?
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 9260
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by SKYO » Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:50 pm

Sounds like the Florida Panthers will be having a fire sale for their vet's.

Versteeg, Flash, Goc, Matthias, Boyes, Upshall.

Canucks need a 3rd line center....get in there MG!
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
herb
CC Legend
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by herb » Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:59 pm

With the coming out party of Jason Garrison (good job Gillis), I don't think there is much urgency at all to adding another top four type guy.

User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by The Brown Knight » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:09 pm

herb wrote:With the coming out party of Jason Garrison (good job Gillis), I don't think there is much urgency at all to adding another top four type guy.
Garrison is great, no doubt, but keep in mind that our power play is still ranked almost dead last......and keep in mind as to where it was when Christian Erhoff was here, and the role he played on our power play. I'd like to think of Garrison being a replacement for Salo......while Erhoff is.......well....Erhoff.

I think a good argument can certainly be made that the Canucks are one powerplay quarterback/puck moving defenseman away from being a cup contender again.

In an ideal world, I'd offer Gaunce or Jensen (along with Booth....Sabres would have to eat some salary) in return for Erhoff, but my best guess is that it would most likely cost us Shinkaruk (along with Booth).

I really dislike the idea of moving Shinkaruk, but if bringing back Erhoff gets us back to our 2011 or even 2012 level and keeps us at that level for atleast another 2-3 years, then fuck it.......I'm in.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises

User avatar
herb
CC Legend
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by herb » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:27 pm

The Brown Knight wrote:Garrison is great, no doubt, but keep in mind that our power play is still ranked almost dead last......and keep in mind as to where it was when Christian Erhoff was here, and the role he played on our power play. I'd like to think of Garrison being a replacement for Salo......while Erhoff is.......well....Erhoff.
Keep in mind our PP has been getting a ton of shots on net and quality scoring chances. Sooner or later the flood gates will open.

This isn't the same PP from last year which was stationary and barely had any shots directed towards the net.

Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. The kid has sick skills and may be on the Canucks roster next year. He is about as untouchable as prospects get.

User avatar
herb
CC Legend
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by herb » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:29 pm

Oh, and we couldn't even fit Ehrhoff under the salary cap without losing a defenseman who is better defensively or a forward when we are thin on forward depth already. Dumb idea.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11495
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by RoyalDude » Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:17 pm

herb wrote:

Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. The kid has sick skills and may be on the Canucks roster next year. He is about as untouchable as prospects get.
Whoa, whoa, whoa easy there big fella. The kid is light as a feather, he has an up hill battle. I like the kid too, but keep it real
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by The Brown Knight » Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:43 pm

herb wrote:Oh, and we couldn't even fit Ehrhoff under the salary cap without losing a defenseman who is better defensively or a forward when we are thin on forward depth already. Dumb idea.
Hence - my notion that the Sabres be forced to take on Booth and his contract, if they were to acquire Shinkaruk.....who could be a star in the making.

Losing Booth, from what I see, wouldn't really equate to all that much.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises

User avatar
Jovocop
CC Legend
Posts: 3207
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Jovocop » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:26 am

RoyalDude wrote:
herb wrote:

Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. The kid has sick skills and may be on the Canucks roster next year. He is about as untouchable as prospects get.
Whoa, whoa, whoa easy there big fella. The kid is light as a feather, he has an up hill battle. I like the kid too, but keep it real
Weight could be added but skills and hockey IQ cannot be taught. Herb is right. Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. Can you name another prospect that has as much skills as Shinkaruk, besides Bure and the Sedins?? Unfortunately, I can think of any...

User avatar
BurningBeard
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by BurningBeard » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:40 am

Jovocop wrote:Herb is right. Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. Can you name another prospect that has as much skills as Shinkaruk, besides Bure and the Sedins?? Unfortunately, I can think of any...
Mason Raymond?
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.

User avatar
herb
CC Legend
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by herb » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:45 am

RoyalDude wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa easy there big fella. The kid is light as a feather, he has an up hill battle. I like the kid too, but keep it real
He’s not huge, that’s for sure, but that’s really about the only downside. He’ll end up at least 5’11” and 195 when he fill in, which will be sufficient.

Shinkaruk absolutely has elite puck skills and is an excellent skater. We haven’t had a prospect that oozes that kind of pure talent since Bure, or at least I can't think of any. He has first line, goal scoring, fan favourite sniper written all over him, which is why I would absolutely hate to trade him (and why he won’t be traded) as those types of players are nearly impossible to get.

Kassian and Gaunce have 2nd/3rd liner written all over them. Horvat is a nice looking player who will slot into the top six one day. Shinkaruk has the potential to be something special IMO. I just don't think you trade those kinds of prospects for what would amount to a depth move (albeit a significant one).

Post Reply