IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract.......

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

Moderator: Referees

IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract.......

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:38 pm

IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract.......

Lets say the following situation is true and/or will play out:

1) Although they aren't saying it publicly, the Canucks are DEAD set against the idea of moving Corey Schneider. Luongo is the guy that will be moving.

2) Teams will only accept Luongo's contract provided that we take on an undesirable contract ourselves (please note - I am NOT saying that this will be the case........for the purpose of this thread, I am just assuming that it will be).

Assuming that Schneider is untouchable, and Luongo is the only goalie being shopped...........and that opposing teams will want the Canucks to take on an undesirable contract themselves, who would you target?

I personally, have openly speculated about Vincent Lecavlier........but I won't be going down that road again. ;)

For me - the one guy I'd love to see here, if Florida is interested, is Brian Campbell.

Again - Campbell's contract isn't exactly desirable, but he'd definitely fill the void that Christian Erhoff left.


Second Question:

Here's another question that was on my mind: Is it ever acceptable to trade TWO "crap" contracts, for one MASSIVE "crap" contract?

For example - trading Ballard and Raymond for someone that is grossly overpaid at $6-$8 million?

Here's my line of thought - if a guy that is being paid $4 million a year is playing like a $2 million dollar player, then he's basically a fringe player (i.e. Mason Raymond.......maybe even Keith Ballard).

However - if a $6-$7 million dollar guy is playing like a $4 million dollar guy, then that guy.......despite being grossly overpaid.......is probably still a pretty damned good hockey player.

In our case - I'm just wondering if it would be in the Canucks' best interests to try and package off Raymond and Ballard for an absolutely shitty contract that is well north of $6 million (not sure who fits that description?).

We take on said shitty contract, but atleast the guy would play like a $3.5-$4 million dollar guy and would be an impact player. At the same time, we get rid of multiple shitty contracts........perhaps to a team that is desperate for depth.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby SKYO » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:55 pm

4 shits&gigs
1) for Toronto I'd take on Komisarek's bad contract if we got Gardiner & 5th overall.
From TB kinda doubt they'd move Lecavalier, but he'd make our offense uber high octane.

2) Ballard/Ray/Manny for Gomez!
Thing is for him to be successful he needs a Mogilny clone.
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:58 pm

For example -

To Calgary:
-Keith Ballard
-Mason Raymond

To Vancouver:
Jay Bouwmeester.

Absolutely terrible contracts to take on for both teams, but in a weird sort of way......it could benefit both teams.

The Flames get a little more depth, while the Canucks get a guy that is capable of playing Top 4. Bouwmeester easily ranks as one of the most overpaid players in the game, but in the right environment, could still be a decent and impactful player that could help a contending team.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:04 pm

SKYO wrote:From TB kinda doubt they'd move Lecavalier, but he'd make our offense uber high octane.


I was thinking that as well at one point (apparently though - Vinnie has no interest in leaving the Tampa Bay area).

Even if Lecavlier was a 3rd liner here, he would've absolutely dominated in that role going up against other teams' 3rd and 4th line pluggers. Up and coming players in our system such as Kassian, Schroeder, and Jensen would have also benefited from playing alongside a solid playmaker..........which probably would have expedited their development.

As washed up as Lecavlier supposedly is, the guy produced 19 points in 18 games during the 2011 playoffs. The guy still flat out "brings in" when it matters most, and he also has great size, leadership ability, and grit.

Lecavlier's presence alone would have taken tons of pressure off the twins and Kesler..........while also allowing the Canucks to consistently roll 3-4 lines.

Anyway - Lecavlier won't be coming here anyways and so there's no point speculating.

p.s.____________________I wonder what Wade Redden is up to these days? And if he's still capable of being a decent top 4 calibre defenseman?
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Meds » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:06 pm

SKYO wrote:4 shits&gigs
1) for Toronto I'd take on Komisarek's bad contract if we got Gardiner & 5th overall.
From TB kinda doubt they'd move Lecavalier, but he'd make our offense uber high octane.

2) Ballard/Ray/Manny for Gomez!
Thing is for him to be successful he needs a Mogilny clone.


You did not just say Gomez..... :?:

Tell me you did not just say Gomez! :shock:

Shit. You did. :(

Did you not pay attention to the season at all? Gomez isn't a "bad" contract, Gomez is a downright fucking HORRIBLE contract. The guy put up 11 points this year. He's paid $7.3M and he put up 11 points. Sure he only played 38 games, but this is a guy who has had one 80+ point season, and 4 seasons where he put up more than 60 points.....for the rest of his career he has been a 50 point guy at best. His career average puts him at a 62 point per 82 game season pace. Those totals are rather inflated by 3 of his 12 seasons. Why the Rags EVER paid him the money they paid him is beyond me. Why Montreal EVER considered trading for him is a mystery.

Gomez would be the contract that Gillis takes on, then sends a private jet to pick him up, and that Jet mysteriously crashes and the pilot's bodies are never recovered. The Canucks then lament their misfortune and go forward with $7.3M of available cap space.....cap space that is FAR more valuable than Gomez would be on the ice.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Potatoe1 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:06 pm

*NOT* Komasarik...

He has a NMC so you cant even send him down.

4.5 mill for a guy who cant even make the Leafs team...
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:09 pm

Agreed with Meds.

I guess my "logic" (if you can call it that) for taking on a horrendous contract, is that a $6-$8 million dollar guy is capable of playing like a $3.5-$4.5 million dollar guy. Grossly overpaid.......but still a pretty damned good player that can be an impact player in the right environment.

Unfortunately - Gomez is a 7 million dollar guy that plays like a 2 million dollar guy. I'm not sure if that fact would change even with an environment change.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Potatoe1 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:20 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
Unfortunately - Gomez is a 7 million dollar guy that plays like a 2 million dollar guy. I'm not sure if that fact would change even with an environment change.


Gomez only has 9 mill left on his deal so if you are taking him back you do so with the intention of sticking his ass in the AHL.

It would basically be akin to a 9 mill buy out of Lu's contract.

We would never have him on the roster eating 7+ mill of our cap space
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby SKYO » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:34 pm

haha nope never watched Gomez play at all last season(s), just a wing and prayer he'd ever make a 2nd line scoring comeback, with less pressure to be the #1C. Luckily MG will never trade for Gomez tho' :lol:

Komi I just remember him going into beast mode with his tower of power strength in Montreal for the playoffs, which is all we'd need him for on the 3rd pairing with Tanev, as we have no one who can man handle anyone/everyone in the NHL in front of the net.
Gardiner and 5th overall? Hard to beat that package if all we had to do was take on Komi's contract for two years and hope he's healthy for the playoffs.
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:46 pm

Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla

Given their age and salary, perhaps Thornton and Iginla can be classified as players having less-than-desirable contracts.

Calgary is definitely in rebuild mode and from what I hear, they are open to the idea of trading Iginla. Although Iginla is NOT the player that he was in 2004 when the Flames made the Cinderella-like run, Iginla is still the type of guy that would "bring it" come playoff time........which is why I personally wouldn't mind seeing him in a Nucks' uni.

Inter-division trades are extremely rare (especially between what Calgary perceives as a 'rivalry' with Vancouver), but it's not impossible. Case in point - a few years back, Calgary and Colorado made a draft day deal that saw Jordan Leopold go to Colorado for Alex Tanguay. In 2006, the Wild traded Dwayne Roloson to Edmonton for a 1st round pick.

Calgary needs youth. Why would it be out of question for the two teams to make a deal that would mutually benefit both teams? If the Canucks offered the Flames Chris Tanev and a 1st for Iginla, wouldn't a deal like that be good for both teams?

Joe Thornton:

If Calgary trading Iginla to Vancouver is impossible, then why not consider the Sharks? Not sure if the Sharks are ready to blow up their core, but Thornton would look good in a Canucks uniform. If there ever was a guy that could get guys like Higgins, Booth, and Raymond going, it's Joe Thornton. By simply adding a player like Joe, the Canucks go from having limited depth up front......to a LOT of depth up front. In this case - adding 1 player could be like adding 3 or 4 players if someone like Thornton gets Higgins, Booth, Raymond, etc. going.

Again - I'm not sure if either of those teams would be willing to deal with Vancouver............or if Vancouver would even have a package that could entice them........but I think both players would be a heck of a lot cheaper (easier?) to acquire than someone like Rick Nash or Shea Weber.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: IF the Canucks are DESTINED to take on a BAD contract...

Postby Vpete » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:27 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:*NOT* Komasarik...

He has a NMC so you cant even send him down.

4.5 mill for a guy who cant even make the Leafs team...


Ironically Komisarek's deal allows him to designate 15 teams on June 15th. Those are the teams he will be traded too.
Brick Top: Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
Vpete
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla

Postby Potatoe1 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:43 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:Joe Thornton:


I would take Joe Thornton in a second.

Don't think he's over paid at all.

To be honest I have never really gotten the "Thornton hate" I have seen the Sharks quite a bit the past few years and he always seems to dominate.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:54 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote:Joe Thornton:


I would take Joe Thornton in a second.

Don't think he's over paid at all.

To be honest I have never really gotten the "Thornton hate" I have seen the Sharks quite a bit the past few years and he always seems to dominate.


I like Thornton as well. A lot of people seem to think that once a guy hits 31-33, that he's automatically "too old" and is not worth the investment. This kind of thinking pisses me off seeing as how I'm now 31 myself, lol.

I don't know what San Jose plans to do........but I have heard some rumblings that they may attempt to blow up the core and rebuild (i.e. sell off their top stars while they can still fetch some incredible value).

If that's the case, then I think we should atleast inquire about Thornton. Higgins and Booth automatically become significantly better if you have a wizard play-maker like Thornton centering them.

A 3 headed demon of Hank-Thornton-Kess at center would be deadly.
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla

Postby Meds » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote:Joe Thornton:


I would take Joe Thornton in a second.

Don't think he's over paid at all.

To be honest I have never really gotten the "Thornton hate" I have seen the Sharks quite a bit the past few years and he always seems to dominate.


Up until 2 years ago, Thornton would all but disappear in the playoffs. Hence the "hate".

He is a whiner, and he plays cheap hockey at times. His antics with the Sedins over the last few seasons, and a few of his late game hits have been questionable. Hence the "hate".

It's not because he's overpaid.....although when he was pulling his post-season disappearing acts I thought he was overpaid.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Joe Thornton or Jarome Iginla

Postby Meds » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:59 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:A 3 headed demon of Hank-Thornton-Kess at center would be deadly.


Indeed. And utilizing him in the 2nd line role where defense is pretty much secondary, because you rarely see the other team's top line and they rarely burn their best checking line on you, is perfect for Jumbo because if there has ever been a component of his game that seemed to be lacking, it was in his own end.

I don't think teams would have a clue what to do against a Canucks team that put those 3 guys down the middle and added wingers like Higgins, Dank, Bur, Booth, Hansen, and Raymond.....yes even I will say that a guy like Thornton would really make Raymond a $2.5M steal.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigTuna, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Raile and 2 guests