Signing Bozak to a 3 year deal would be a poor move unless you're planning on trading Sutter in the next year or two imo.
If Gaudette establishes himself this year and Pettersson proves capable of playing C then all of a sudden you have a logjam with Sutter and Bozak taking up too much space down the middle.
I'd only want to sign Bozak for 1 or 2 years but I doubt he'd want a deal that short.
I agree that new blood is needed for sure rather than the same crappy lineup. That's why I hope our prospects push for jobs this year and make some of those guys redundant rather than us signing old FAs that will be taking up too much space 2 years from now - NorthNuck
Lets just suck next season. Next years draft is way more exciting it's in Van and loaded with talent
Pitts looking to dump Matt Hunwick . His salary is 2.25 @2 yrs . Here is a case where you take their second round pick and bury Hunwick on the Comets making it a 1.25 hit fro two years - VANTEL
If Im JB im looking to add 3 or 4 players like this for picks this year and then stuff them in utica or eat 50% salary and move them again at TDL if possible.
why 2? 1 year at 14.. eat half then flip at deadline. - mauryballstein
The second year is what makes a deal like this attractive enough to all parties to be viable.
Player gets some security with 2 years at $14MM per guaranteed. If he gets seriously injured on a one year deal, then he loses too much off of what he could have signed on a longer term contract to make the risk worthwhile. Not difficult to imagine that a guy might get injured playing for the Canucks.
Team trading for him at the deadline gets two shots at a cup run with him signed for the extra year and basically cap circumvention with the Canucks retaining salary. They can start negotiating an extension a few months after they trade for him but would have his rights for another year. That's worth way more than just a regular rental.
Location: Making the most of the worst situation... Canuck fan 4life , BC Joined: 12.23.2014
May 15 @ 1:54 PM ET
The second year is what makes a deal like this attractive enough to all parties to be viable.
Player gets some security with 2 years at $14MM per guaranteed. If he gets seriously injured on a one year deal, then he loses too much off of what he could have signed on a longer term contract to make the risk worthwhile. Not difficult to imagine that a guy might get injured playing for the Canucks.
Team trading for him at the deadline gets two shots at a cup run with him signed for the extra year and basically cap circumvention with the Canucks retaining salary. They can start negotiating an extension a few months after they trade for him but would have his rights for another year. That's worth way more than just a regular rental. - YeOldTimer
Exactly, plus we shouldn't need the cap for two years and it should allow us to garner extra picks for the extra year. Who wouldn't want teachers for 2years at 7million?
why 2? 1 year at 14.. eat half then flip at deadline. - mauryballstein
I wonder what level of interest a guy like Tavares would have in that. If he's not recommitted to going back to the Isles you could just say hey we'll pay you a ton of cash and we can guarantee that at the TDL you'll be traded to a team that has a chance at the cup.
Exactly, plus we shouldn't need the cap for two years and it should allow us to garner extra picks for the extra year. Who wouldn't want teachers for 2years at 7million? - Pres.cup
You can talk about trying to trade a guy like Tanev for a low first round or high second round pick that may or may not turn into a decent player for you in a few years.
Or you could pursue this bolder path and try to get a huge haul that sets your franchise up for a decade. Might be a situation somewhat similar to the Nordiques trading Lindros.
What would a team like Nashville, Tampa, Washington or San Jose give up in order to add a guy like Tavares for two years at a cap hit of only $7MM per? Probably a couple of very good roster players, a blue chip prospect or two, plus a first rounder and maybe a few other picks.
Nashville could upgrade Turris for only $1MM per year, or keep him and replace Bonino for $3.1MM. If they send the Canucks one of those guys, you could retain salary again and then flip that player as well to collect get even more prospects and picks.
You can talk about trying to trade a guy like Tanev for a low first round or high second round pick that may or may not turn into a decent player for you in a few years.
Or you could pursue this bolder path and try to get a huge haul that sets your franchise up for a decade. Might be a situation somewhat similar to the Nordiques trading Lindros.
What would a team like Nashville, Tampa, Washington or San Jose give up in order to add a guy like Tavares for two years at a cap hit of only $7MM per? Probably a couple of very good roster players, a blue chip prospect or two, plus a first rounder and maybe a few other picks.
Nashville could upgrade Turris for only $1MM per year, or keep him and replace Bonino for $3.1MM. If they send the Canucks one of those guys, you could retain salary again and then flip that player as well to collect get even more prospects and picks. - YeOldTimer
What? do you actually think there is a chance tavares signs here?
Speaking of poor skaters, How do you feel about Tryamkin walking away from Canucks bloggers, at WHC? - Reubenkincade
As badly as the Canucks need someone like him, they could perhaps best express their appreciation for his commitment to the organization by trading his rights to Buffalo.
Oliver Wahlstrom was committed to Harvard. Has now changed and has not committed to another school yet. BC or Michigan are the rumoured schools he is interested in.
As badly as the Canucks need someone like him, they could perhaps best express their appreciation for his commitment to the organization by trading his rights to Buffalo. - YeOldTimer
Ya not sure if i would prefer too see him rot in khl or get something in return!
it's in Van and loaded with talent 
