Then take that cap space and take assets back for Zaitsev. 2024 1st please ( doubt their 2023 1st is available)
- Retinalz

I don't think management is interested in taking on a bunch of bad contracts. Never have, I doubt they start.

No value would mean Canucks would be paying a 2nd round pick plus retaining 1M to trade him and getting nothing in return.

The value further increases the more they retain.
- manvanfan

Lets not use logic here, him having value accordimg to a journalist means he doesnt have value.

Lets not use logic here, him having value accordimg to a journalist means he doesnt have value.
- neem55

How is that considered ligic, when than is a classic case of negative value?

Nvm, I guess negative value is still a value.

I don't think management is interested in taking on a bunch of bad contracts. Never have, I doubt they start.
- manvanfan

And this is why they are useless sacs of sh!t. Get some assets and clear cap, use that cap to get more assets (especially expiring)

I don't think management is interested in taking on a bunch of bad contracts. Never have, I doubt they start.
- manvanfan

Eriksson Boeser Roussell Beagle Stillman Dermott Virtanen Holtby OEL

Shall I continue?

Eriksson Boeser Roussell Beagle Stillman Dermott Virtanen Holtby OEL

Shall I continue?

- VANTEL

Taking on and handing out their own are different Vantel

No value would mean Canucks would be paying a 2nd round pick plus retaining 1M to trade him and getting nothing in return.

The value further increases the more they retain.
- manvanfan

I can’t with you.

How is that considered ligic, when than is a classic case of negative value?

Nvm, I guess negative value is still a value.
- Reubenkincade

Negative value vs worse negative value.

Garland and Oel (retained) for Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson, 1st, 2nd.

And this is why they are useless sacs of sh!t. Get some assets and clear cap, use that cap to get more assets (especially expiring)
- Retinalz

This is why ownership are useless sacs of sh!t.

I can’t with you.
- CanuckDon

This is no different than the classic Donna "he's never going to play an NHL game" Or "he is belongs in the AHL".

NHL insider talking to NHL exec says one thing and then you make the most outrageous claim in the opposite direction.

Donny you’re out of your element once again, I was talking chych for Boeser. Keep up!
- neem55

I hear it’s a Brock for Chychrun trade straight up. I feel JR did well
- CanuckDon

This is no different than the classic Donna "he's never going to play an NHL game" Or "he is belongs in the AHL".

NHL insider talking to NHL exec says one thing and then you make the most outrageous claim in the opposite direction.
- manvanfan

You just don’t understand. If we are discussing something simple like the draft or your notebook it’s fine to engage with you. But discussing something with a little more depth is just infuriating because you can’t process what others are saying. Let’s agree to disagree.

- SMP8719

🫠

According to some. I enjoyed the drama
- CanuckDon

I certainly did.

You just don’t understand. If we are discussing something simple like the draft or your notebook it’s fine to engage with you. But discussing something with a little more depth is just infuriating because you can’t process what others are saying. Let’s agree to disagree.
- CanuckDon

It's not that I don't understand it's that you don't understand. You are saying pretty well the complete opposite of the article you quoted.

I really don't think you understand that Van paid a 2nd to clear 1.3M in cap space for Richardy trade but Vancouver is getting a 2nd if they retain on Boeser. Yes, Van gets cap space but Van isn't paying to get that cap space. The other team trading for Boeser is trading a 2nd for 5M of Boeser. Van gets 5M in cap space plus the 2nd. That's not negative value.

It's not that I don't understand it's that you don't understand. You are saying pretty well the complete opposite of the article you quoted.

I really don't think you understand that Van paid a 2nd to clear 1.3M in cap space for Richardy trade but Vancouver is getting a 2nd if they retain on Boeser. Yes, Van gets cap space but Van isn't paying to get that cap space. The other team trading for Boeser is trading a 2nd for 5M of Boeser. Van gets 5M in cap space plus the 2nd. That's not negative value.
- manvanfan

Gotta disagree with a bunch of these statements.

1st a 2nd to only retain 1.6 mill. They may have to retain more for that. Maybe 1.6 only gets a 3rd or worse. If getting rid Richardson cost a second and taking back a contract to move 3+mil. you have to think we have to eat 50% or take a bad contract, to get a second.

2nd If they could have gotten anything for Boeser without retaining, you would have to think the trade would be done. That means zero value, unmovable, unless you pay money to get something.

They have been trying to trade him for a long time, even letting the agent try to get it done. No one is willing to pay him what we are.

OH and trading Boeser for Chychrun that is straight bath salts

Ok genius. So what’s his value if we don’t retain? A 7th? My bad genius 🤮 Brock the key to the rebuild !
- CanuckDon

Hey, don't knock late round picks.
Bure was a 9th rounder, wasn't he?
A 7th could be the lottery ticket that wins is the cup!

Negative value vs worse negative value.

Garland and Oel (retained) for Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson, 1st, 2nd.
- manvanfan

(frank)ing Benning

Negative value vs worse negative value.

Garland and Oel (retained) for Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson, 1st, 2nd.
- manvanfan

Definitely one of the worst trades the Canucks have made. Arguably the worst depending how that first rounder turns out....

Gotta disagree with a bunch of these statements.

1st a 2nd to only retain 1.6 mill. They may have to retain more for that. Maybe 1.6 only gets a 3rd or worse. If getting rid Richardson cost a second and taking back a contract to more 3+mil. you have to think we have to eat 50% or take a bad contract, to get a second.

2nd If they could have gotten anything for Boeser without retaining, you would have to think the trade would be done. That means zero value, unmovable, unless you pay money to get something.

They have been trying to trade him for a long time, even letting the agent try to get it done. No one is willing to pay him what we are.

OH and trading Boeser for Chychrun that is straight bath salts

- SMP8719

Thanks you SMP 🙏

Hey, don't knock late round picks.
Bure was a 9th rounder, wasn't he?
A 7th could be the lottery ticket that wins is the cup!
- Pres.cup

Pat Quinn stealth move, teams didn't think Bure was eligible for the draft.

Gotta disagree with a bunch of these statements.

1st a 2nd to only retain 1.6 mill. They may have to retain more for that. Maybe 1.6 only gets a 3rd or worse. If getting rid Richardson cost a second and taking back a contract to more 3+mil. you have to think we have to eat 50% or take a bad contract, to get a second.

2nd If they could have gotten anything for Boeser without retaining, you would have to think the trade would be done. That means zero value, unmovable, unless you pay money to get something.

They have been trying to trade him for a long time, even letting the agent trying to get it done. No one is willing to pay him what we are.

OH and trading Boeser for Chychrun that is straight bath salts

- SMP8719

Richardinson was a negative asset though. Teams viewed him as replacement level.
Seravalli is saying teams view Boeser as a 5.5M AAV player. So if he was that(Canucks retain 1M), the return as Seravalli said would be somewhere between a 2nd or 3rd round pick. If the Canucks wanted to retain more, the value would go up. Retain half you might get 2-2nds.

If the Canucks chose not to retain salary on Boeser, the value would go down to maybe a 4th or 5th round pick.

I doubt a trade has happened yet because in December, Rutherford wanted to still compete. He wanted a hockey trade for Boeser and most teams had almost no cap space.

Richardinson was a negative asset though. Teams viewed him as replacement level.
Seravalli is saying teams view Boeser as a 5.5M AAV player. So if he was that(Canucks retain 1M), the return as Seravalli said would be somewhere between a 2nd or 3rd round pick. If the Canucks wanted to retain more, the value would go up. Retain half you might get 2-2nds.

If the Canucks chose not to retain salary on Boeser, the value would go down to maybe a 4th or 5th round pick.

I doubt a trade has happened yet because in December, Rutherford wanted to still compete. He wanted a hockey trade for Boeser and most teams had almost no cap space.
- manvanfan

50% on Boeser would be a 1st easily. If 1m could get us a 2nd, 3.xm could get us a 1st.

Richardinson was a negative asset though. Teams viewed him as replacement level.
Seravalli is saying teams view Boeser as a 5.5M AAV player. So if he was that(Canucks retain 1M), the return as Seravalli said would be somewhere between a 2nd or 3rd round pick. If the Canucks wanted to retain more, the value would go up. Retain half you might get 2-2nds.

If the Canucks chose not to retain salary on Boeser, the value would go down to maybe a 4th or 5th round pick.

I doubt a trade has happened yet because in December, Rutherford wanted to still compete. He wanted a hockey trade for Boeser and most teams had almost no cap space.
- manvanfan

I think you are overvaluing Boeser... But i was wrong on Horvat not getting 8.5 per.... so I guess we shall see.