Monday Mailbag: The results of buying out Brandon Sutter, a new partner for Quinn, and a salary cap sphinx

Another week, another mailbag. Let’s see what you wonderful people asked this week!

I mean, knowing the nooks and crannies of the ice, boards, and stanchions of their home rinks hasn’t helped either of these teams much in the past when it comes to playoff success, so it’s tough to say.

In all seriousness, I think the competitive “advantage” these teams will have will be either minimal or non-existent when it comes to the actual playing surface.

Ice is ice, boards are boards. Every team has players who have played enough games at both of these rinks to share information regarding bouncier boards and the odd stanchion with their teammates, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the hub city host teams having much of a competitive advantage.

Goodness, I hope not. I’m pretty sure this would be a legitimate felony in Canada as well, so I really don’t think this is something any team would even dream of doing.

It’s at times like these that I appreciate the fact that the Houston Astros don’t play in the NHL.

I don’t think the Canucks will necessarily “move out” any of their bad contracts. Instead, I think they’ll buy one out.

The best-case scenario here for the Canucks would be Sven Baertschi performing well in any and all games he appears in during the play-in series, so the Canucks can, in turn, try to trade him and his contract this offseason. I’d say he’s the most moveable contract on the Canucks’ books, but even then, it’s not going to be easy.

However, buying out Brandon Sutter’s contract would give the Canucks a little more than $2 million in savings for the 2020-21 season. This is what I see the team doing once the buyout period opens.

Loui Eriksson very well may play his last game as a Canuck in the upcoming play-in series (if he even gets in a game). The organization can bury his contract in the minors next year, which as I mentioned in a previous mailbag, frees up a little over $1 million in cap space.

For those wondering, buying out Eriksson this offseason is not a smart idea as the benefit would be minimal compared to if the organization chose to buy him out next offseason:

This offseason though, it’s Sutter whose contract likely gets bought out.

Here’s a fun hypothetical. I’d shorten Myers’ contract by one year, Loui’s by two, and Antoine Roussel’s by one. To equal it out for the purposes of this bizarre exercise, I’d then shave off two years of Petrus Palmu’s current contract, one of Jonah Gadjovich’s three years left on his ELC, along with one of Jett Woo’s ELC years.

I brought up the name Radko Gudas in a past mailbag as somebody coming off a down year who could potentially have a Luke Schenn type impact on Quinn Hughes — while not breaking the bank.

He’s mean, he’s physical, and he’s relatively responsible defensively.

He’s a step down from Tanev, no doubt, but he’s someone who likely won’t cost any more than $3 million in free agency.

The trouble with Gudas is that he has yet to truly be tested in a top-4 role, so the Canucks would need to be confident that Hughes can mesh well with him.

DeMelo is another option I like, along with Brenden Dillon. There are many avenues the Canucks can take to improve their blueline, but a trade seems most likely.

Vince Dunn and Caleb Jones are two other young d-men who the Canucks would be wise to target, although neither are right-handed.

Dunn would cost significantly more to acquire, but he has legitimate top four upside.

It’s tough to truly improve without breaking the bank, but if they need to, Gudas could be a potential target.

I’ve been very vocal against the idea that the Canucks can simply replace Chris Tanev with Nikita Tryamkin. It’s been well documented that Tryamkin struggled to improve his game since leaving for the KHL after the 2016-17 season.

The Canucks are a better team than they were back then, and their focus needs to be on improving the team — not making it worse. Bringing Tryamkin into the fold with hopes he can play on a third pairing while subsequently moving Troy Stecher up to the second pairing makes the team just that — worse.

However, this question asks if Tryamkin at $1 million for one year is more valuable for the Canucks than having $1 million in cap space. The answer is Tryamkin, hands down.

It would simply be foolish to suggest that walking away from Tryamkin altogether is what the organization must do in this situation. As a depth option or maybe even as a 7th d-man, you 100% want Tryamkin in your organization. If it doesn’t work out, the Canucks can cut bait, but the issue lies in Tryamkin supposed unwillingness to go down to the AHL.

I stand firm in my stance that the Canucks need to find a sufficient replacement for Chris Tanev (or for Troy Stecher for that matter) on the right side this offseason — and that Tryamkin alone isn’t capable of filling that void.

Harman Dayal of The Athletic wrote an excellent piece outlining the strengths and deficiencies in Tryamkin’s game, and I think he hit the nail on the head.

He simply appears to be lacking the tools needed to be successful at the NHL level. His positional play isn’t pretty at either end of the ice, and his decision making with the puck is a second too slow, often resulting in a turnover.

There’s still a chance for Tryamkin to grow into becoming a capable bottom pairing defenceman, but he’s not there yet, hence why the Canucks would be ill-advised to sign him with the intention of putting him directly into their regular defence corps right away.

Thankfully, from what I’ve heard, this is something it appears only fans on Twitter who haven’t watched Tryamkin play for the last three years are suggesting. Those within the organization know full well that Tryamkin is going to need some work before he can make the Canucks better — which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

So in conclusion, do you sign a 6’7 project that you already have the rights to for $1 million? Yes, you do.

Do you then immediately throw that 6’7 project into the deep end and tell him to swim? No, no you do not.

Right now, there is a ton of uncertainty surrounding the AHL and the NCAA. The AHL simply doesn’t possess the financial stability to operate without fans in attendance, and most Universities have moved their classes online for the Fall.

From talking to University athletes, they are being told to train like they’ll be playing on schedule, but to also not get their hopes up.

Rathbone has some time to decide as the offseason won’t truly start till at least September/October. He’s not going to rush to make this decision, but I don’t doubt that playing in Europe is something he’s at least considered.

Sami Salo told me a few weeks ago that his club, TPS Turku, has received countless calls from AHL players calling and getting a feel for what the plan is in the Finnish Liiga.

With Reid Boucher signing in the KHL just recently, one can assume that this is true of almost all the European leagues.

Signing a contract with the Canucks, then being loaned to a European team could be something the organization and the player try to make work, although I’m almost positive  that hasn’t been brought up at this point in time. Neither side is rushing this and they’ll cross that bridge when they get there.

I think re-signing Tanev isn’t a bad idea, but the fact of the matter is, the Canucks aren’t going to get anything from him that they haven’t seen already. I don’t necessarily think the Canucks need Tanev, but I’m not going to suggest that they are in a position to just walk away and not suffer greatly as a result if they don’t find a sufficient replacement.

Tanev will certainly have many suitors gunning for his services, but I think it’s important the Canucks take into account his injury history. He’s steady and reliable when healthy, but the problem has always been his ability to stay healthy.

If the Canucks are going to be shelling out $5+ million on Tanev, they would be wise to at least explore other avenues to replace Tanev with a less injury-prone right shot defenceman.

What I do know is that Tanev is important to this team and he’s important to this blue line. The Canucks can’t afford to take a step backwards and if they plan on not re-signing Tanev, they better have a good replacement plan ready to go.

That wraps up this week’s mailbag! Thanks to everyone who asked questions, and to ask a question in a future mailbag, look out for my weekly Friday tweet on Twitter @QuadreIli.