Canucks News N Notes 24-25

[Madcombinepilot]

At the tdd, trade an ass load of picks and prospects for the next rental, crippling us in the future. Or, no tdd trade, and we waste the Hogs trade. Both suck donkey balls


That would be 2 years in a row. Do it a 3rd time, and we get a leaf iron on patch for the jerseys.

We have a solid core. But we are still not in our prime, and it is was tooo sooooon to blow cap and picks/prospects for a chance.

Isn't that what this management group routinely did in Pittsburgh?

Is this not what you are proposing to do?

[UWSaint]

If Hoglander produces another 25 goal season he will look for something in the 3 range.

I think he'll be looking for a lot more than $3M under your hypothetical scenario. $4.5-$5M, multi year, banking on an arbitration award as leverage with a $4M floor.

If he scores 25 next year, he's going to have a resume that looks closer to Garland's when he signed for $4.95M, better than Labanc's when he signed for $4.73M -- contracts signed by RFAs with arbitration rights (and when the cap was lower) and extended somewhat into UFA years. Of course there are differences between these players, but the point is that arb-potential influenced contracts significantly increase contract values as compared to Group 2 post-ELC RFA contracts where the only market force is a rare but potential offer sheet and the only leverage is holding out. Stats, experience (length of service), and games played (service not injured) are critical pieces of arbitration evaluations (and identifying player comparables). Hoglander will go into arbitration with 4.5 years of NHL experience, about 300 games played if he's not injured, no significant injury history, back to back 25 goal seasons (under your hypothetical) and a 20 goal/per 82 game season rate over his whole career. That's a good resume to take into arbitration. That's more service time, games, and goals than Garland had (though Garland's "rate" stats were a bit better). The Group 2 (post-ELC) contract may be considered at arbitration, I think, but Garland was coming off a contract with a $775K AAV and Labanc's was $1M. There's a reason that teams often walk away from good-but-not critical players when they have arb rights. Because the middle sixers and 4-6Ds tend to get something approximating what's available on the UFA market.

Tciso is right that having value contracts on the roster is important in a cap world, but Hoglander as a relatively bankable substantial "value" is good for this year only. That's certainly not nothing -- the Canucks are trying to ice a Cup competitive team next year -- but I also think they see Sprong as a value contract -- a guy whose offensive numbers project for a much larger salary, but who didn't get that salary because of concerns (defense, possibly attitude) that the Canucks must feel they are well-positioned to address and because anyone not signed in the first couple days of free agency finds themselves in a team-friendly buyer's market. And they probably know that next year's value for Hoglander is the thing that will make his attractive on the trade market -- to teams needing secondary wing scoring -- especially if those teams have room for him in future years (and believe in him) at his expected salary demands/arb award if he turns in another 25 goal season.

[Topper]

At the tdd, trade an ass load of picks and prospects for the next rental, crippling us in the future. Or, no tdd trade, and we waste the Hogs trade. Both suck donkey balls


That would be 2 years in a row. Do it a 3rd time, and we get a leaf iron on patch for the jerseys.

We have a solid core. But we are still not in our prime, and it is was tooo sooooon to blow cap and picks/prospects for a chance.

Isn't that what this management group routinely did in Pittsburgh?

Is this not what you are proposing to do?

No

[Madcombinepilot]

At the tdd, trade an ass load of picks and prospects for the next rental, crippling us in the future. Or, no tdd trade, and we waste the Hogs trade. Both suck donkey balls


That would be 2 years in a row. Do it a 3rd time, and we get a leaf iron on patch for the jerseys.

We have a solid core. But we are still not in our prime, and it is was tooo sooooon to blow cap and picks/prospects for a chance.

Isn't that what this management group routinely did in Pittsburgh?

Is this not what you are proposing to do?

No

Oh sorry. I though you were proposing to trade Hoglander.

[Topper]

At the tdd, trade an ass load of picks and prospects for the next rental, crippling us in the future. Or, no tdd trade, and we waste the Hogs trade. Both suck donkey balls


That would be 2 years in a row. Do it a 3rd time, and we get a leaf iron on patch for the jerseys.

We have a solid core. But we are still not in our prime, and it is was tooo sooooon to blow cap and picks/prospects for a chance.

Isn't that what this management group routinely did in Pittsburgh?

Is this not what you are proposing to do?

No

Oh sorry. I though you were proposing to trade Hoglander.

Hell yes. Sell high on him. Do you see a higher ceiling for him? I don't. He over achieved last season.

[Strangelove]

(2) There is a roster pressure now. It isn’t bursting, but as it stands, the Canucks are likely waiving Aman and Karlsson out of camp. While Aman isn’t much and probably gets through waivers (Karlson may have a better chance of getting taken), losing Aman is a problem because the Canucks organizational center depth isn’t much. Trading Hog for pick, prospect, or both means another player doesn’t have to get waived.

Actually, Karlsson is waiver exempt for one more year.

That's good. Nice to have a tweener that can be moved up and down without exposure.

Where are you finding waiver eligibility now that cap friendly is gone? Is it on Puckpedia? I couldn't find it.

Hey there Honourary Canadian.

I'm still using CapFriendly via the wayback machine as long as it's relevant.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240609210 ... s-karlsson

I just now glanced at Puckpedia and you're right, they don't post his waiver eligibility on his page.

I did notice they have an Ask a Question feature though, to which they seem to respond fairly quickly.

BTW, I prefer keeping Hog this season and then thinking about trading him.

Even if he repeats last season's numbers, I don't think he gets a Garland contract.

I'm thinking $3M x 2? (if he repeats)

Garland drives his line... Hog not.

And I think you said Garland's numbers are better.

One should go though, I'm not a fan of having both these teensy guys in the top 9.

[5thhorseman]

Doesn't the NHL have a system for tracking cap, or do they calculate it on paper every time there's a trade to ensure teams stay within the rules? Or they were using Capfriendly themselves and now they're fucked (or the Caps are charging them a fee to use it).

[Topper]

I'm thinking $3M x 2? (if he repeats)

Garland drives his line... Hog not.

I can think of 11.6 million reasons why your logic is wrong

[Strangelove]

I'm thinking $3M x 2? (if he repeats)

Garland drives his line... Hog not.

I can think of 11.6 million reasons why your logic is wrong

Are you implying Pinky and the Brain are incompetent?

[Topper]

I'm thinking $3M x 2? (if he repeats)

Garland drives his line... Hog not.

I can think of 11.6 million reasons why your logic is wrong

Are you implying Pinky and the Brain are incompetent?

and likely incontinent

[Strangelove]

[Tciso]

Oh sorry. I though you were proposing to trade Hoglander.

Hell yes. Sell high on him. Do you see a higher ceiling for him? I don't. He over achieved last season.

Selling high is good (buying high is bad, especially using Uber Eats), but what return would we get? A 2nd? Or, a top 4 D that fits into our current cap? Selling high makes sense only if we are using it to fill a hole. But, if all we do is sell high for Sellings sakes, we are not making a difference and we are losing a big depth piece.

We were bragging last year about depth, but then traded Pearson and Beauvillier
Luckily, we had Lafferty and a few other cheap guys, but we still had 51 games of PDG and a full year of Mikheyhev. Depth is always an issue, so why fuck it up for a small return? We are a Hoglander trade and 1 Injury away from lacking depth.

Allvin has done pretty good so far. Better than I would have. But this seems like a trade driven by the fans and the media more than being a real hockey trade

[Cousin Strawberry]

As far as I can tell, he is only being discussed in a trade in theory and only because his contract status is about to change right after statistically overachieving (I also don't think he matches those numbers)

It seems the raisin and Smithers won't make a trade unless it's to upgrade so no wuckin furries mayte. Even if he's moved, whatever the return is should address another weakness (toughness that can play)

[donlever]

Team seems in a good spot when our major bone of contention is a mid player like NH.

[Topper]

Team seems in a good spot when our major bone of contention is a mid player like NH.

an optimistic rating of CoHog

Tisco - As UW noted, cap space is the return. How that is spent is an unknown. It is an assumption, though not out of character for the Geriatric and RoboSwede, that it would be spent on a deadline rental.

I keep thinking of a Bill James (the great baseball sabrematrician) essay I read years ago. he demonstrated that successful teams with several player having career years will decline the following year because the same player will not continue on the pace established the year prior. Simply put, those were career years.