My recollection is that the league initially stated that they had expanded the playoffs to 24 teams. They also spoke about modifying the lottery system to only be the 7 non playoff teams. This included reduced lottery drawings and restricting how far down a team could move because I remember it assured we could not win first overall.

After some pushback from the 'expanded playoff' teams the league changed it to 16 regular playoff teams with 8 teams added to the post season for play in games and they changed the lottery to the current modified system.

So the league has not only had to make this stuff up, it's changed it as it was being negotiated. Which is fine. It is a difficult situation. I just feel like the breaks are working against us.
- Queenie_5_hole

I just dont see it that way tbh. The only thing i heard about having the lottery being only 7 teams was from the fans of those team, nothing officially from the league about that. They have been saying from the very beginning of the announcement of the 24 team tournament that the qualifying round does not count as the playoffs. It was like that from the very first report. Some people decided to take words out of context from the RTP media file which sparked up the entire debate, thats all it was. It was reported way back in late March or April from LeBrun that the qualifying round is not considered playoffs for conditional picks based on making playoffs. Nothing has changed, theres zero issue here.

For all those that wanted Gallant to be the head coach for the next 7-10 years...He's never coached a team for more than 2.5 seasons. There's got to be a reason for that.

For all those that wanted Gallant to be the head coach for the next 7-10 years...He's never coached a team for more than 2.5 seasons. There's got to be a reason for that.
- gmarz16

It was reported that his exit from Vegas was for similar reasons he was let go from Florida, both because he wanted full autonomy of the on ice decisions with no input from the front office or analytics department. Which just doesnt work in any sport in the current year, and would make sense as to why he didnt want the job here because we wouldnt give him that.

For all those that wanted Gallant to be the head coach for the next 7-10 years...He's never coached a team for more than 2.5 seasons. There's got to be a reason for that.
- gmarz16

Players have always said they love him but he butts heads with management

It was reported that his exit from Vegas was for similar reasons he was let go from Florida, both because he wanted full autonomy of the on ice decisions with no input from the front office or analytics department. Which just doesnt work in any sport in the current year, and would make sense as to why he didnt want the job here because we wouldnt give him that.
- vlongo4419

Exactly

The guy wants to do his job but teams want to have the final say

I'd like to know Todds thoughts on the boeser rumers

I'd like to know Todds thoughts on the boeser rumers
- cu45161

What would we trade them? Hughes and a pick?

What would we trade them? Hughes and a pick?
- shvingter88

Probably Severson and a 1st, depends if we would take the Eriksson contract back and how much that lowers the price

I'm thinking Vancouver will want Palmieri or Gusev + NJ's pick from AZ, in exchange for Boeser + Eriksson. I'd much rather give them Wood, or the 5mil cheaper open than Boeser for the next 2 seasons.. Boqvist, who I think can be a 50pt winger and should be ready to take a step towards that this year. Maybe taking Eriksson's contract back will prevent NJ from giving up Palmieri or Gusev? Both need to be re-signed after next season too.. probably costing around 6mil each. Maybe taking Eriksson back will lead to NJ giving Van back their 17th overall pick instead of AZ's likely 10th overall? would be nice. would set NJ up nicely for the future, and they can draft Sanderson 7th overall.

Probably Severson and a 1st, depends if we would take the Eriksson contract back and how much that lowers the price
- vlongo4419

I would not do that unless they knew they were signing pitrangelo and Dillion. Our defense would be barf

I'm thinking Vancouver will want Palmieri or Gusev + NJ's pick from AZ, in exchange for Boeser + Eriksson. I'd much rather give them Wood, or the 5mil cheaper open than Boeser for the next 2 seasons.. Boqvist, who I think can be a 50pt winger and should be ready to take a step towards that this year. Maybe taking Eriksson's contract back will prevent NJ from giving up Palmieri or Gusev? Both need to be re-signed after next season too.. probably costing around 6mil each. Maybe taking Eriksson back will lead to NJ giving Van back their 17th overall pick instead of AZ's likely 10th overall? would be nice. would set NJ up nicely for the future, and they can draft Sanderson 7th overall.
- MartysBetter88

I wouldn’t give up that 10th pick. A shot at holtz, askarov, or Quinn is too good.

I'm thinking Vancouver will want Palmieri or Gusev + NJ's pick from AZ, in exchange for Boeser + Eriksson. I'd much rather give them Wood, or the 5mil cheaper open than Boeser for the next 2 seasons.. Boqvist, who I think can be a 50pt winger and should be ready to take a step towards that this year. Maybe taking Eriksson's contract back will prevent NJ from giving up Palmieri or Gusev? Both need to be re-signed after next season too.. probably costing around 6mil each. Maybe taking Eriksson back will lead to NJ giving Van back their 17th overall pick instead of AZ's likely 10th overall? would be nice. would set NJ up nicely for the future, and they can draft Sanderson 7th overall.
- MartysBetter88

That would be an overpay in my opinion. The going rate the last few years is you take our dump of a contract we give you our first. So if Eriksson is coming this way with no first pick that means we have already given them a first round pick To add a legitimate scoring threat and another first rounder seems exorbitant. We would be trading 2 first rounders and a very good player for a salary dump and very good (but injury prone) player. Hard pass on that.

If we trade for Boeser we'd probably trade one of Palmieri or Gusev. Doesn't make sense to have 20 million locked up in RWs especially when our D is garbage.

I don't see much Canucks hockey. How bad is Eriksson? oof.. 49gp, 6g, 7a, -2. Injuries or healthy scratches? Last year was 29pts in 81 games, -11. yikes. Maybe he'd be a good playmaker with Zacha for Gusev to snipe? Is he solid defensively or too slow and so a liability on defense? In my fantasy land, the trade will be Wood+Carrick+AZ pick for Boeser+Eriksson? They're losing a 23yr old RW, but gaining an 18yr old who could even surpass Boeser.. PLUS about 7.5mil in cap space for the next 2 years. Looking at their salaries and such, I don't get why they don't find another way to keep Boeser.. it can't be that difficult. Do what you have to do to unload Eriksson, let Tanev or Toffoli go, and the world is gravy again.

Boqvist-Hischier-Palmieri
Bratt-Hughes-Boeser
Eriksson-Zacha-Gusev
Foote-Zajac-McLeod/Merkley

Smith-Severson
Sanderson-Subban
Butcher-someone

there ya go.

If we trade for Boeser we'd probably trade one of Palmieri or Gusev. Doesn't make sense to have 20 million locked up in RWs especially when our D is garbage.
- rmdevil313

maybe move Gusev to the left?

I would not do that unless they knew they were signing pitrangelo and Dillion. Our defense would be barf
- shvingter88

Our defense is gonna be barf either way. But all i know is the Canucks need/want a top 4 RHD and thats the only way they move Boeser. Not saying i'd actually do it but Severson is exactly what they'd looking for. I dont see them moving Boeser for a lesser/older forward or futures(unless its a pure cap dump and attach Eriksson). And if its Severson or bust for us getting Boeser then i'm 100% out, im just hanging the phone up. If we want a Boeser that badly then just take Holtz at 7 and hope he pans out, because Holtz has a higher ceiling than him. If they're actually willing to take a prospect and pick then i'll gladly give them their 1st back plus any prospect not named Smith or Foote.

I don't see much Canucks hockey. How bad is Eriksson? oof.. 49gp, 6g, 7a, -2. Injuries or healthy scratches? Last year was 29pts in 81 games, -11. yikes. Maybe he'd be a good playmaker with Zacha for Gusev to snipe? Is he solid defensively or too slow and so a liability on defense? In my fantasy land, the trade will be Wood+Carrick+AZ pick for Boeser+Eriksson? They're losing a 23yr old RW, but gaining an 18yr old who could even surpass Boeser.. PLUS about 7.5mil in cap space for the next 2 years. Looking at their salaries and such, I don't get why they don't find another way to keep Boeser.. it can't be that difficult. Do what you have to do to unload Eriksson, let Tanev or Toffoli go, and the world is gravy again.

Boqvist-Hischier-Palmieri
Bratt-Hughes-Boeser
Eriksson-Zacha-Gusev
Foote-Zajac-McLeod/Merkley

Smith-Severson
Sanderson-Subban
Butcher-someone

there ya go.
- MartysBetter88

Their thought process is either keep Boeser and let Toffoli walk, or keep Toffoli and trade Boeser for a good young player on an ELC that can grow with the team. They probably will look to unload Eriksson but I can't see it getting done without a 1st round pick. I don't think they would giving up 2 first round picks as a fringe playoff team though.

maybe move Gusev to the left?
- MartysBetter88

Maybe, still feel like we'd need to get rid of someone up front unless we don't draft a forward with our firsts this year.

Their thought process is either keep Boeser and let Toffoli walk, or keep Toffoli and trade Boeser for a good young player on an ELC that can grow with the team. They probably will look to unload Eriksson but I can't see it getting done without a 1st round pick. I don't think they would giving up 2 first round picks as a fringe playoff team though.
- rmdevil313

2 firsts? Why would they have to give 2 firsts? If Boeser is coming with Eriksson, I don't think they need to give anything but would be receiving a 1st instead. I may be misunderstanding.

2 firsts? Why would they have to give 2 firsts? If Boeser is coming with Eriksson, I don't think they need to give anything but would be receiving a 1st instead. I may be misunderstanding.
- MartysBetter88

Two firsts as in the one we have + the one they use to dump Loui.

Benning trying to shut down those trade rumors pretty quickly. Some quotes from him are, "Thats not true, somebody made that up" and that he has had "zero conversations" with teams about a Boeser deal and followed up with "I have no intention of trading Brock Boeser."

I just dont see it that way tbh. The only thing i heard about having the lottery being only 7 teams was from the fans of those team, nothing officially from the league about that. They have been saying from the very beginning of the announcement of the 24 team tournament that the qualifying round does not count as the playoffs. It was like that from the very first report. Some people decided to take words out of context from the RTP media file which sparked up the entire debate, thats all it was. It was reported way back in late March or April from LeBrun that the qualifying round is not considered playoffs for conditional picks based on making playoffs. Nothing has changed, theres zero issue here.
- vlongo4419

Here's an article I found quickly that references when the league was talking about limiting how far a team can move up. Although obviously this includes teams outside the top 7. But there were a lot of things flying around and being floated and pulled back by the league.
https://www.foreverbluesh...nt-mean-much-for-rangers/

Here's an article I found quickly that references when the league was talking about limiting how far a team can move up. Although obviously this includes teams outside the top 7. But there were a lot of things flying around and being floated and pulled back by the league.
https://www.foreverbluesh...nt-mean-much-for-rangers/
- Queenie_5_hole

There were other options for the lottery discussed, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, as that article mentions nothing about conditional picks. I'm saying since the qualifying round became an option, they have said over and over again that the opening round wouldnt be considered playoffs for conditional picks. That never changed from the very beginning. But the fact that people thought it would change at the last minute, because people took certain text out of context, then get frustrated and think the league is screwing us or making up rules because they re-confirmed what was said from the beginning is weird to me

There were other options for the lottery discussed, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, as that article mentions nothing about conditional picks. I'm saying since the qualifying round became an option, they have said over and over again that the opening round wouldnt be considered playoffs for conditional picks. That never changed from the very beginning. But the fact that people thought it would change at the last minute, because people took certain text out of context, then get frustrated and think the league is screwing us or making up rules because they re-confirmed what was said from the beginning is weird to me
- vlongo4419

I trust you

I trust you
- MartysBetter88

I mean LeBrun wrote about it nearly a month and half to 2 months ago here, and this was immediately after the 24 team format was announced:

https://theathletic.com/1...ruling-is-the-right-call/

He, as well as others, also had tweets about it before it was even officially announced with the speculation of how that is how it would work. So i just dont get why people would be frustrated over the NHL re-confirming thats how it works lol