[MUSIC PLAYING] We're back on Conox Central, Dan Reachow, Satyar Shah here in the KinTech studio. Still to come, Yana Kansen. Of course, you could find all of it available on podcast, the Conox Central podcast feed where you find all of our exclusive interviews, inside info, and during the course of the season, every single post-game show. But it is a Friday. So let's get to it, it's the mailbag. Yes, the mailbag, we have producers fast, Eddie Gregory, and Zach with us here today. Zach Clark. Eddie? Not to be confused with Elon Charke. Yes. Clark, Charke. We could maybe have a little bit of a rhyming producer duo. There's potential there. No need to rhyme. Let's get to the questions. We've got the whole summer to figure it out. We'll start with Chris. If the Conox 3 signed Lindholm, do you think Garland ends up getting traded? Talk it likes Lindholm in the 3C spot, but I don't know if they can afford both Garland and Lindholm on that third line. Satyar, you had an interesting take on this during yesterday's show in that would you not consider Lindholm and Garland to maybe be a duo if you're keeping Lindholm here long term? Well, yeah, my whole thing on this too is if you're keeping Lindholm, he needs wingers as well. So if you're keeping Lindholm, we can't just be like, oh, let's get a winger for Patterson, and then Lindholm plays with whomever. You've got to find-- if you're paying Lindholm $7 million, you have to have somebody capable playing with him too. I don't think you pay a cent or big money if you're not expecting them to have a good line mate. And if it's not Garland, it's going to have to be somebody else. I'm not sure that Garland money being opened up if you sign Lindholm really puts you ahead because you still have to replace somebody to play alongside Lindholm. So I'm not sure that's what's going to move the needle. The one that would move the needle is moving Mekeia, but that's obviously a lot easier said than done because of the season that he had. I just don't know if there's upside in trading Hoaglander. I mean, start trading Garland if you're keeping Lindholm. You kind of want to have somebody hit for him to play with. You're definitely going to need Lindholm, like wingers for Lindholm, right? And him and Garland seem to have a budding chemistry when playoff time rolled around. Lindholm is, if he signs this deal, as we pointed out during the playoffs, like Rick Tockett found ways to get him, Miller, and Patterson all over 18 minutes. So yeah, for the majority of the game, they may end up on separate lines, but as we saw in the playoffs and certainly in big games, like situationally, you're going to put Lindholm and Patterson together or Lindholm with Miller so that you have a right shot and a left shot to potentially take a face off. And if one guy gets kicked out, the other guy goes in, so you're covered on the ice in that sort of a way. The Canucks, like, they're going to find and have to find creative ways to use all three of those guys. Like for as much as, yes, you'd have them all three separately down the middle for the majority of every game. I don't think that every game will play out necessarily quite like that. Next. - For Mertest, has there been a depressidence of a cup winning scene with three centers making over seven mil each? Is it more realistic to just pay your top two centers that kind of money and then load up on the wingers? - It is, in theory, more realistic, but who's that winger out there for the Canucks to spend that money on? Yeah, the flip side of that would be like, well, then just don't spend the money. - Right. - And to those that say, is Elias Lindholm that much better than Teddy Blueger? Is he five million dollars better than Teddy Blueger, which is probably the difference between their salaries if Lindholm's up in over seven million and Blueger's again around two? Like, to me, yes, Lindholm is still a really good player. But, like, no, I don't think there is really an example. The best you can really look at is maybe Pittsburgh, but even then in '08 or when they won in '09, I don't think all those guys were getting paid at that point. Like Crosby, Malkin, and was it Jordan Stahl still their third line center at that point? So, you know-- - Yeah, it wasn't quite the same number. So, something that's relatively close is different now, but if you go back to 2019, St. Louis was playing Ryan O'Reilly over six million. They had Tyler Bozak playing him, paying over five million. They're playing Alexander Steen over five and a half million. And they have Braden Shen making almost five million. So, I mean, it's not quite the same numbers. The cap was pretty flat, too. So, we're not talking about a huge drop-off. It was like 78-some million or whatever. That's about as close a ballpark I can find immediately the past few years as a comparison. And even that's not a direct comp, because of how the salaries are set up for the Canucks players. 'Cause like even the Pittsburgh Penguins, when they had Malkin and Crosby on separate lines, percentage of cap, those two guys were probably taking up quite a bit. But Benino wasn't making a ton as their third line center. But he played with Phil Kessel. I mean, Kessel was making, like, what, eight million there? Or I guess he was making a bit less 'cause he retained money in Toronto, but they still had a high-paid player on that line, right? - Yes, I think Kessel's cap hit was 6.8. I want to say if memory serves correct. It was somewhere in the sixth range when, you know, Pittsburgh made that trade for Phil Kessel. And he was mostly a third-liner. Like, it didn't necessarily, he was kind of like, he was kind of like Pittsburgh's version of Connor Garland. Maybe just, like, way better. Sorry, Connor, but Phil Kessel's like, kind of fringe Hall of Fame with the numbers and the cup rings that he has. That's not-- - Probably should've won a cons might, to be honest. - Yeah, like that first cup of the back-to-back, like Kessel was unreal during that run. But like, he was kind of there, Connor Garland. Like, he drove a third line and made that line, like, almost unplayable. That HBK line was huge for them in that first cup run. And it's just because, like, he didn't really gel with Crosby, he didn't really gel with Malkin. And so Kessel was playing with Nick Benino and whoever else. So it's interesting how there's that little bit of a comp to Connor Garland with this version of the Canucks. - Was that Carl Haglin on that team? - Yeah, yeah, it was Haglin. - Yeah, it was Haglin and Haglin was making something like, I think-- - I wanted to say Casperi Capenin, but I knew that wasn't correct, 'cause he was in Pittsburgh a lot later. - Yeah, and I think Carl Haglin at that time was making like four million or something like that along those lines. So I made him put in, he was making like three million or something. So it wasn't a cheap, third line. Like, so I think in terms of looking at the numbers for the centers, it's hard to find like somebody 11, eight, and then seven. But if you look at the total money spent on, say, their top six players, and that being duos for each line, heading down to the third line, pretty similar ballpark with Penguins, I would say, that here. - The bottom line is, like, you can't get fixated too much on position, but you definitely need more good players. Like, that's what the Canucks are focused on. They're not, like, who are the best players we can assemble with the salary cap space that we have available to us? And as I pointed out yesterday, and as we talked about on the show yesterday, you know, if you're unable to get Jake Genssel and you have a sense, you're unable to get Jonathan March or so. You know Stephen Stamkos and Sam Reinhardt are probably resigning with their current clubs. Like, you start running out of options pretty quickly to add to this team in a free agency. So maybe your best option is to bring back Elias Lindholm. And I think that's more of the way to think about the Canucks thinking than, oh, like, yeah, it's just about having the three strong centers through the middle of the ice. That's part of it, but it's also, maybe that surefire top six winger isn't going to be available to them in free agency. Yeah, and I think that's part of part of the equation, and especially if they're trying to find some higher level players or keep the higher level players around. Next, from Josephine, if the Canucks never traded for Lindholm, Eddie was a UFA this summer, where the Canucks actually signed him to a seven times eight AAB deal. I don't know about seven times eight. Like, we know that they're willing, or as we talked about in Eliot Friedman, also reported, you know, they're probably in the seven by seven range. Like I just-- - As high as they go, or did it go slightly higher? But to answer the question, I think they would be kicking tires on Lindholm. - Yeah. - It's clearly a guy that organized, like Rutherford has always liked, Alveen has liked, and when those things happen, usually they circle to those players when they become available. So even if they didn't trade for him and the Canucks have the cap space, they have now, I'd imagine they'd be in on Lindholm. He just tracks with like what they really like in players, you know, great IQ, smart positionally, smart defensively. He ticks a lot of boxes of what this front office really values in players. And I think that's a big part of the reason why they, you know, made it a priority to be the first ones to get Lindholm. They paid the premium to get him early in the trade season. And are now really trying to see if they can make it work to keep him in Vancouver. So yeah, they really liked the player. I don't know if they would go seven by eight. As, you know, we've referenced, it doesn't feel like they'd give him the same contract as they gave J.T. Miller. And, you know, I mean, Miller's a 100-point guy. Lindholm was nowhere near that this year, but would they get closer to that? Like, could they get to 51 or 52 million? I think that's ultimately what the Lindholm camp might be waiting for. - From Connor, would you guys rather have Lindholm at 7.5 and Joshua at 3.5 or Chandler Stevenson at five and Dabrask at six? Well, I mean-- - Okay, run the first pair by me again, 'cause I definitely don't want the Dabrask at Chandler Stevenson. - So you're bringing back Lindholm and Joshua at seven and a half and three and a half. - Yeah, I'd rather do that. - Do we really think, like, Jake Dabrask is getting six million a year? There's no way. - You thought-- - I don't know that. - But I'm saying, if you're paying, I mean, Louis, Jake Dabrask six, like, no, no thanks. Like, I want no part of that, no part of that, none. - Sad things Jake Dabrask is the new Louis Erickson. - I mean, not even Louis, but come on, like six million for Jake Dabrask, I mean, come on. - Yeah, the blues have been, the Bruins have been kind of wanting to trade this guy the entire time he's been with them. - Yeah. - He's always kind of been on the market, right? And but he's kind of always done enough where it's like, hey, he's scored 20, he's scored 20, but, like, he drives coaches mad all the time. I'm not paying this guy six million, no way, no chance. - Yeah, and I also think Chandler Stevenson probably gets, he's probably the guy that gets six million in that equation, not so much Jake Dabrask. - If you think Lindholm has a hard time scoring goals, Chandler Stevenson has never scored more than, like, what, 16 goals, 18 goals? - Yeah. - Did he score 21s? - I think he may have scored 20 in his one big season. I'd have to double check that. - Oh, 21, 21's the most he scored. So you're talking about a guy who, and I'm looking at bigger seasons, so he played 67 games, had six goals, played 64 games, had five goals, played 65 games, had 11 goals, played 51 games, had 14, played 79, had 21, 81, 16, 75, 16. You're telling me, people think he's the actual 20 goals score, he had one 20 goals season on his, under his belt, and he's 30 years old. Come on. - Yep. - Not, not good at it. - I like Chandler Stevens in a lot, but if you're worried about Lindholm's office of production, I'd be terrified about Chandler Stevens's office of production. - All right, next. - This one from Dylan, would you trade a fourth to get Gansal's rights, even if you weren't confident that you could sign him? - No, I think you're just throwing a pick away. - Cucks don't have enough picks, like, I'm for it. Again, like I mentioned in the first segment, like I'm for trading a mid-round pick, if Gansal's willing to sign to get it done, 'cause it's hard to find players like that. And like we talked about yesterday, there is no great solution. No, there's no solution for the Canucks to address their upfront needs without taking a massive risk. Either A, trading away big assets, B, signing a player into his thirties with a big number, or C, going after kind of the mid-level guys, but then you're gonna spend a chunk of change of mid-level guys who might just be average. So there's no avenue you can take that doesn't have a lot of risk to you. So I would be fine with doing so, but considering how few draft picks the Canucks have, you can't be trading a mid-round pick away unless you are confident you can get him signed. - Yeah, and... Everything I've heard says that they're not, like Gansal has maybe other teams on his mind. I'll say it, I'll say it that way. And that makes it tough for the Canucks to really sort of make that deal. I think for any team, it shouldn't be too hard to get a sense from Gansal's agent, whether or not there is mutual interest in player and club, whoever that may be. - I think you made a really good point yesterday saying drawing a line between the NHL combine, coming and going. And the Canucks now seemingly, maybe either making an effort or making steps towards making an effort to sign Linhome and Zadorov being an indication of, they have a pretty good sense of who they can land outside of their own team in free agency and who they can't land. And you wonder if they have a good direction on where a guy like Gansal is leaning towards when it comes to coming to Vancouver. Next, from Robbie, Canucks have a reputation in the playoffs for being a tough team now. Don't they need to find a way to sign Zadorov Myers and maybe add Brendan Dillon from Winnipeg? - Well, Zadorov and Myers, they definitely bring that come playoff time over the course of '82 as we've seen with Myers, maybe get frustrated that they don't have that every single night because you can't really, you can't really do that for the course of an '82 game season, especially as you get older. You'd be broken by the time April and May came around. As far as Brendan Dillon goes, I mean, look, the dollars evaporate quickly if you bring back Zadorov and Myers. That's like, for those two alone, you're sort of earmarking something in the ballpark of $8 million. - So yeah, not only that, you're right, it's $8 million to those two players, but if you bring Zadorov back, you have Zadorov, you have Susie, you have Hughes as your three lefty defensement. And I'm not sure I'm paying Brendan Dillon, a giving him a multi-year deal to force him to play the right side as a lefty. - Yeah. - And Zadorov's not comfortable doing that. Susie, I guess, can do it. But to me, that's not a great solution. You know, if you could sign Dylan to a one-year deal, like the one you signed Ian Cole to, okay, I have no qualms with that, whatever, you make it work and maybe you know, maybe Susie can play his offside a little bit or whatever. Like, you can find a way to get through it. But if you're signing Zadorov, I just don't think it's prudent for you to give a multi-year deal to a guy who's physical. I like Brendan Dillon a lot, but I'm not giving him a multi-year deal to have a fourth lefty on the roster for at least two or three years. - Yeah, it's a great point. Like if you do bring back Zadorov and Myers, as it looks like is a real possibility for this team, probably whatever money you have left to spend on D is going to another right-shot guy, whether that's Philopronic or somebody else. And, you know, as we talked about, if you're keeping Zadorov, Myers, and Linholm, it's sort of a question mark of whether or not they also keep Philopronic in that sort of a scenario. Next. - From Austin and Langley, what is more likely if it's only one that Canucks acquire a top six winger, that Canucks acquire a top four defenseman? - I guess top six winger. Because if they were to get a top four defenseman, I would think it's Philopronic and it's not like a, I wouldn't consider that an acquisition. So I'm going to say top six winger. - Yeah, I would say the same, right? Because, I mean, coronics already here, like you don't have to add a top four defenseman if you sign Zadorov, herronic. - Yeah. - And you have Myers back in there, you go, your defense is pretty much set up, right? You have Noah Julesen, and there you go. It's adding a forward. Like they need another scoring winger somehow. Like that's the, I agree on the back, and if you're trading a herronic, it creates a different equation. But if that's not happening, I think it would be a forward. - All right, next. Switching gears around the NHL, which team is regretting their deadline acquisitions the most, I would assume a first round exiting team, like Winnipeg would be high on the list, but Carolina gave up a lot for Genssel. - I would say Winnipeg, no? First round pick for Monahan, give up a couple picks, second and a third to get taller to Foley, and then you get dusted in the first round. An actual dusting. - Yeah, it was not really close for Winnipeg. - Is winning two or less games, qualify as a dusting? - What's the definition of dusting? - Well, I think the way the series played out, certainly towards the end, qualified as a dusting for Winnipeg. - Yes. - I think Carolina's gotta be pretty disappointed too though. It's probably Winnipeg, but if you think about Carolina, it's like, okay, this is the year we're really going for it, we feel good in the east, nobody else really has the assets to go and make the big addition, so we're gonna beat everybody to Jake Genssel. And Genssel plays well, but you still fall short. - Is that their system letting them down more than anything? - It makes you think? - I mean, their match up against the Rangers didn't help them. - The match up against the Rangers, they went down 3-0 in that series. Some of the things that, like their ideology as a team continues to get questioned, right? Whether it's the way Rod Brindomour plays, how they're a volume team sometimes, and don't get the same quality looks that their opponents get like we saw with the New York Rangers in that series, and also their goal-tending. Like every single year their goalie gets exposed. That's why I wonder, like, are you guys not gonna just go out and get Lena Solmark, like what are you waiting for? - They always lose to an elite goaltender. - That's part of their problem. They don't have the elite goal-tending in their series. - Yeah, and it's not like their goalies are ever that bad. Freddy Anderson wasn't awful, but you let in one or two bad goals in a series, you're going up against Eversia Stirken, good night. - Abrowski last year or past left scheme? - That's just the way the playoffs go. You can't afford to have those kinds of swings in games. And that's what I wonder about with Carolina, is like their ideology as a team continues to get questioned. - Yeah, and I would say though, this was a year where I'd like the againstal acquisition. You know, and at least you got through the first round. Like, it's not like they didn't, right? - Well, Gansal was great in the playoffs. Like, he was great, you know. He was great down the stress room as well. Yeah, and it was a goal-tending that perhaps cost him this time around, which again, it's the other side of it. Like, they finally went in on the defense. I mean, on the forward, on the goal score, but did you really solve your goal-tending? And that's why I say, I think the Carolina hurricane is a very boring franchise. Very boring franchise. - Next, this one from Nick. Instead of looking at the UFA pool, are there any off-the-radar targets that other teams may be looking to dump for cap space, example, given Nate Schmidt a few years back, that could fix some of the scoring winger issues? - So, there's a couple of names. I wonder about, we've talked about Capo Kocko, and mentioned him a couple of times. Another guy I'm kind of interested in, and I think Vegas probably finds a way to keep him, but I really like Pavel Dorfev, this year. And he is an RFA, 23 years old right now. I think he scored 13 or 14 goals in just 47 games. You know, I don't know if you'd put him into a top six role right away, but could definitely be a bit of a scorer in your bottom six that could come at a lower cost for the Vancouver Canucks. - Yeah, I mean, I think that's a good candidate. I like that. There's a few guys around that are somewhat intriguing too that we've seen in the past that, whose names, you know, they've, I wanna say their names have soured in many ways, but the one guy I like, and I don't know if Philly's gonna trade him enough considering how young he is, but Tyson Forster. That's a guy I just kind of wonder about, and that's a team of flyers that may have to get creative doing certain things, and I know they like Forster a lot, but where does he fit in, especially with a bunch of wingers, they have coming through their system as well, long term. They have some guys they wanna sign as well, like, and they have Owen Tippert has taken a big step, right? Like, how does he kind of fit in there long term? That's a guy kind of wonder about it. And maybe it's not this year, but next season, but that's a guy that I've always kind of kept my eye on. I think there's a lot more than what he's shown. He had a 20 goal season this year. - All right, next? - Will the Canucks run at a time in signing any of their core free agents this year? - You would hope not. - Well, I mean, they're not gonna sign all their key free agents, are they? - No. - No, they won't. - So I guess at some level, they will run at a time, right? 'Cause I don't think they're going to be able to bring them all back, but I don't think we're gonna be in a situation as we saw back in 2020, right? Where it was literally everybody. If they ran out of time on every single free agent they had. - All right, let's close this up. Let's get one more in before we get to Yannick Hanson. - What will be bigger, the flood of interest from players wanting to play here or the great flood of Dan Ritchie? - Oh, here we go. You asked for one more. - How many water bottle questions did we get today? - I got at least five more. I was saving the rest for mailbag extra. - I could see them in the rundown here. What is the best approach to desktop water safety? - You're doing a good job with a napkin on your desk right now. - Yeah, do you guys have enough space in your studio for a little swimming pool? - No, we don't. But a good thing is, Recho does have his lifeguard certificate. - Yes, yes I do. I learned from Baywatch. - I did. (laughing) - Yeah, Samsung TV that I have just has a channel just for Baywatch. - Does the Baywatch channel? - The Baywatch channel. I can get as much David Hasselhoff as I want. - Do you have like an app on your TV that's like the Baywatch logo's on it? - Yeah, it's just like, it's always on. - Some watch for Pam Anderson, Dan watches for David Hasselhoff. - Why not? The show is just absolutely incredible. It is just pure comedy, it's great. All right, we're done with the water bottle questions. Like I'm tired of it.
