[MUSIC] Canucks Central Friday. It's Dan Reicho, Satyar Shah here in the Kintec Studio. Kintec, Canada's favorite orthotics provider, powered by thousands. Thousands of five-star Google reviews, sore feet. What are you waiting for? >> Yes, it is a Friday, it's time for a mailbag, we're going to get to it in just a moment. Dan Reicho, Satyar Shah, Josh Elliott, Wolf with you and the Stanley Cup final. On the brink, when the Florida Panthers and Edmonton Oilers dropped the puck for game four, Lord Stanley's mug will be on the line, Sat. >> Edmonton's really, really doing a job of bottling this, I guess. >> Yeah, I mean, we know one thing I'm happy about though, they're showing us what a proper dusting looks like. >> [LAUGH] >> That's true, you know, losing in seven games, not really a dusting. If you get swept, that's kind of the definition of getting dusted. >> Yeah, I think if you only win one or fewer games in a series, you got dusted. >> [LAUGH] >> That's pretty, I would say that's fair. >> I think that's accurate. >> Yeah, that's totally fair. So we'll get more into that, we got a lot of your questions coming up. We are pre-recorded the mailbag today, so if you're hearing this on Sportsnet 650, we did this a little bit earlier in the afternoon. >> Yeah, before 10 AM, actually. >> Yeah, we're kind of in a weird spot, like between Blue Jays and Canadians games, so we decided to get it in early. >> And to be honest, I mean, we were scheduled to do a one hour show and we're like, if we're just doing one hour, we'll just record it early and have our day, you know? >> Let's give the people what they want, an hour full of mailbag questions. Hit the music. [MUSIC] >> More time for me to watch the US Open as well. >> All right, Josh, what do we got today? >> We will start with this one from Tawas and Nux. Watching the Stanley Cup final, how would the Canucks fare against the Florida Panthers? >> Would it be better than Edmonton? Would they be down three nothing? I mean, it's just fair, I mean, I'm not saying they would beat the Panthers, but would they be down three nothing right now? >> I would say like likely not. >> Right, because Demko would have been back, right? >> Yeah. >> And even the way she loves is playing it. Maybe they're down two one, but they're probably now down three nothing. >> Do they have more goals than Edmonton? I mean, Edmonton finally put a couple past Bobrovsky late last night. >> Yeah, and I'm not trying to do this in terms of like crafting at Edmonton, cuz Edmonton fairly beat Vancouver. They were better in game six and seven. And in terms of quality looks, they created more than Vancouver did, right? So it's not like, you know, Vancouver deserved to win and they were beaten by inferior team. That's not the case at all, but it's more about match ups to me. >> Yeah. >> And Stewart Skinner, and you know what, that's why Woodley's the best man. If you miss Woodley on Wednesday, and we asked like, well, the first couple of games, you can't really blame Skinner can. He was like, well, you can't butt. >> Yes. >> Watch his game. And that butt kind of came through last night. And I think that's where the difference is. Like the Canucks probably wouldn't have an implosion the way Stewart Skinner can implode. >> Almost every goal in this series, it's just like Florida has been more composed. Look, I'm not going to sit here and say that the Canucks would affair much better. I think I would have picked Florida to beat the Canucks in any kind of series. I'm not going to sit here and say otherwise. But it's very thin margins. Edmonton has shot themselves in the foot more than anything else. >> Yeah. >> And that's something, the Canucks did that against Edmonton too, a little bit certainly towards the end. But it's something that the Canucks made a habit of not doing over the course of the season. Florida is just, I thought it during the season and it's played out that way during the playoffs. They are the class of the league with the Canucks have fared better. I don't think they would get swept like Edmonton is about or potentially about to do, but I don't know if it would be much better. >> It's hard to score goals. >> Yes, well, the Canucks have trouble scoring, right? And if we're assuming that Patterson would have been right, different story. I don't think the Canucks would have beat the Panthers. >> Anything could have happened, right? I mean, they would have had a puncher's chance. >> A healthy Demco makes it a series. >> Right. >> Because Demco would have come back, if not for game one against Dallas, he would have come back at some point in that series. >> Yeah, they probably would lose in five or six most likely. >> Yeah. >> That's Edmonton. I mean against Florida. >> Chester is an archer she lobs off her sheet a real risk. Where am I making this up? >> So, I've seen what he's talking about, and he's not wrong, right? Like I think everything Chester is talking about in terms of if somebody's offering him 2.4 and under a certain threshold, it's like next to no compensation you have to give up. And all it does is drive the price up on Vancouver, right? The thing is, teams just don't do it. >> Yeah, teams really just don't do that. >> You know, I think the only ones we've seen of that ilk have actually been like Steve Bernier and David Bacchus, and that was the Canucks when they offered she did Bacchus, and they came back at them with Bernier. And that was kind of a lower range, right? The compensation would have been second round pick was 2.5 million in terms of money. We haven't really seen that since. It makes sense to me, it makes sense doing those things and putting teams up against it. We just don't see teams exercise it to that extent in the NHL. >> Does any team really want to pay archer she loves $2.5 million or whatever that might be? >> Well, for one year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I guess so. >> You know what I mean? If you're trying to, it's kind of like the Carolina hurricane's offer sheet, but it was a higher end to give up a first- >> And they gave them a really bad contract right after that. >> Yeah, so that wasn't why, you know? But it was a one year offer sheet. >> Yes. >> The whole thing about it, and you can call GM's cowards for feeling this way, but the way the offer sheet compensation tends to play out in the way offer sheets have gone in the salary cap era, teams tend to not want to do it because they don't want that smoke coming their way. >> Yeah. >> If they end up in a bind and in a salary cap hell, and the team comes with them with an offer sheet, you know, like teams don't want to have to deal with it. >> No, and the question is, right? So I think I haven't seen what the offer sheet, everything is for this year, the exact numbers quite yet, but I think it's something along the lines of like 2.4 for a third round pick. >> Yeah. >> Anything below that is a third round pick, and then less than 1.56 or something's going to be no compensation, the connection to match anything I want, like, would they not match anything at 2.4 even, do you think? Like what price did they put on a sheet of logs? Like, do they think they let him walk for a third? Because they don't want to pay him 2.4? >> Yeah. >> It would be a second rounder for 2.4. >> Would it be this year, is this, you're going to last years, this year? >> Yeah, I'm looking at this year's 24 cap friendly, all right. So the threshold is like 2.29. >> So that would be a second rounder for the 2025 draft then. >> Yeah. >> And like that's, see, ultimately, like why teams wouldn't do this is because if you wanted to get Arthur Shilov's, you would just give the Canucks a second round pick too. >> I don't think the Canucks would move him for a second round pick unless it's a situation where then like, I think what the Canucks would say is like, we're not moving him for a second. Well, if you want to offer him, go ahead. >> Yeah. >> And then if they do it, then fine, we'll take the second. But I just don't see the value for Vancouver right now to trade Arthur Shilov's. Like especially if you value is keeping him and having him as a cheap backup option to Thatcher Demko. >> Now, when somebody offers sheets him and it's a second, okay, fine, you'll take in a walk away, it's, I get what Chester's saying, it's just unlikely. >> Yeah. Good question, Chester. >> Next one. >> For once. >> For once. >> I'm just kidding. >> Next one from Austin and Langley, if they can't land a big name winner, what are the chances they just move Miller to wing and extend Elias Lindholm to play top six center? >> Next to nothing. >> Yeah. So let's put a number on it though. What are the chances? >> Percentage. >> Percentage, percentage, chance. >> Next to nothing, one percent. >> You put it one percent. >> That is next to nothing. Yeah. >> Fair enough. >> I'll probably put it at like five percent. >> Yeah. >> You know, I won't put it out of the realm of possibility, but here's the thing, like the Canucks a few, JT Miller is your first, like first line center. That's how he's viewed. >> There is a non-zero chance that this happens, but by non-zero, I mean one percent. >> Yeah. >> And that's kind of like, look, Miller's a center, Pedersen's a center. And you know, with Elias Pedersen, I don't think there's any desire from the player at all to move off to wing. And so, you know, in this world, I get where Austin and Langley's coming from because, yeah, as we've talked about, once you get through the top tier of wingers, Elias Lindholm is maybe your next best option for a true top six type of bonafide forward. But it just feels as though that that train is moving out of the station right now. >> Next one from Peter, how intriguing is the off season going to be if, in fact, they walk away from multiple free agents? How do they replace the blue line? Genssel seems like a long shot to me. How do they better the club seeing these guys walk? >> Well, I don't know if Genssel is a long shot, like maybe he is, like, I mean, we'll find out in a few weeks, right? But as I've been maintaining, I don't think your ceiling as a team is going to be significantly better if you're bringing back your own free agents, especially at the numbers they seem to be able to command right now. And even if that means a sideways year next season, I think it still gives you the chance to, like, skyrocket beyond that, not burning yourself with a lower ceiling. And I think that's when you have to avoid. And I would be fine with not being quite as formidable and looking for other opportunities to build my team. You know what I mean? Like, if that's the worst case scenario, like, it wouldn't be great, right? But I think you at least give yourself a fighting chance beyond next season. The other thing, too, is I don't think the Canucks are going to be a left empty-handed. >> Yeah. >> Like, I think if they're not bringing Lindholm back as a drawback, like, they're going to get a frontline player one way or another. Like, I'm pretty confident. >> This is pretty confident in them being able to pull that off. >> This front office is shown to be too well prepared for something like that to happen. And it was the MO on Patrick Alvene before he got the job as general manager, like this is as prepared a guy as he will find in the NHL, and that's why he was on the radar for a GM job even, you know, before Jim Rutherford was taken on the President's gig here in Vancouver and decided to hire a bunch of his old Pittsburgh colleagues. But that's always been the track record of Patrick Alvene. Now, I guess one of the questions I have is the Canucks core good enough, you know, if they just add complementary pieces, similar to what they did last year in free agency, where you take some short-term bets and hope that they work out, keep yourself flexible, go into the year, like, is your core good enough to make you a playoff team? Or at least on the cusp, the bubble of the playoffs? So I think if they're not bringing back, like, if they don't bring back their own guys and they're not replacing them with legitimate top four, top six players, like, I think you're a bubble team. >> Yeah. >> And you don't have enough depth, right? But I do think if you bring her own back and bring Gensl in, like, I think you're gonna be at least as dangerous as you were last year, and that's even not having the depth, right? I think you can fill that stuff out, and you can have cheaper players come in and give you. But I think if you're getting a frontline player with Patterson, like, a legitimate scorer, >> Yeah. >> Again, like, I don't know if you realize how much that's gonna boost your overall offense. >> Well, and even if you do something like, you know, you bring back Ronik, Myers, and let's say, let's say, Blooger, and maybe add, you know, like a veteran winger, like, a Jason Zooker, like, name like that, like, if that's in a world where you don't land Gensl. And I still think you are a pretty good hockey team, and you can go into next year being like, okay, we're gonna have to find ways to make upgrades at some point, but we're gonna see how this year plays out and try to make the most of it. >> Yeah, like, you could, especially with how the market's going to go, you're gonna have a bunch of guys who are in that middle six range, or veteran guys who are a bit older that are gonna be had from one of your deals. You know, whether that's a David Perron type you mentioned before, we mentioned a Zooker type, right? What is Victor Ibertson going to command? Is it going to be term, or is it going to be a shorter term deal where he's gonna have to, like, show again or whatever it is? >> With his injuries, it's tough to imagine him getting much term, right? >> Yeah, so you may be able to have a chance to sign a few of those guys on short-term deals and give yourself a fighting chance. Now, that to me is like, plan D in the worst-case scenario, but that at least doesn't handcuff you long-term. It still gives you a pivot point during the season and obviously next offseason. >> It would be an interesting pivot point for them to go to. It's just, you know, I don't really have a ton of confidence in giving, like a Toyvo TerraBine in, or Jake DeBrusk, any kind of, like, term contract that those players might be able to command on the open market this summer. >> Next one is from Alonzo. What would be the ball ziest yet somewhat, like over 5% realistic move to happen by Rutherford and Alvene this offseason? >> No, not a complete long shot, but, like, something unexpected, I guess, that would be ballsy. >> I mean, it's pretty ballsy to trade Philopronic. >> Yeah, I wouldn't put, yeah, like, to me, you went out and acquired a guy that has worked out brilliantly as a pair, as a, you know, as a pair for your number one defenseman. And I get it, the numbers are uncomfortable, but a lot of times we just see general managers in the situation that the Canucks find themselves in right now just say, you know what, we'd rather do this than live in the alternative life of finding a replacement now for Philopronic. So to me, that's a very realistic scenario that could play out that is very ballsy of this team to do, because most often, what do front offices do? They just overpay the guy that they have, because they're worried about what the alternative is. And as of right now, it doesn't feel like the Canucks are in that stage where they're ready to give Philopronic whatever he is asking for. So yes, for me, that would be the ballsy move that could realistically happen. >> Yeah, like 5% is that right? >> Yeah, over 5%, over 5% so you have the one I'll go with is Thatcher, Demko. >> Whoa, like trading him with the ballsy's now I don't anticipate this is going to happen, but I'd say like, I don't think it's realistic in that sense, but 5%, like again, it's like, yeah, he didn't set the bar like 25%. I'm saying I'm taking the low end on it, right? >> Long shot. >> It's a very long shot. 95% chance. It doesn't happen. So please don't radio me on this, but I'd say Demko. >> It's definitely ballsy, right? That would be the one, because like, my thinking on this is you can't ever put anything past these guys. Same thing with a Pedersen thing, right? There's still like a, I put it under 5% for Pedersen getting moved. For Demko, the reason I would probably put it at 5%, maybe 6%, you're right, is because they trust their goalie institution when he and Clark, the value will be immense, at least for goalie wise would be immense. They have a guy that they're somewhat grooming and they probably feel confident in finding somebody to bridge the gap for a year or two as well, right? Again, I don't anticipate it happening, but to answer the question, that's where I'm going to go. >> What about a Connor Garland? Is that, is that ballsy? >> I feel like that's based on Dem wanting to have moved him in the past, I feel like that's closer to like the 25% threshold. >> Okay. And the ball ziest one really would be Pedersen, right? Like that's, if you were looking at it like, if you're not putting percentages on it, like the ball ziest move you could make would be the trade Pedersen before as no trade kicks in. >> That wouldn't happen now. >> No, it wouldn't, but I'm just saying, like out of like, you know, the definition of the question, if you take it, remove the percentages, man, what an alternative reality that is. >> People ask me like, we're just answering questions, man. That's all we're doing. >> Things that could happen. >> And I'm not advocating, like I'd rather not trade Demko, and I'd rather not trade Pedersen for the record. >> Yes. >> Next one comes from Vinay. Which winger? >> Oh, wait, what, Vinay? >> Yeah, I said that, dude. >> Say it again. >> I don't want to say it again. >> I used to, I love how he just wanted to say it. >> Vinay. >> Vinay. >> It's just leaned into the South Park. >> Yeah, he's good. >> No, that is not it. That is not it. >> Vinay. >> Sorry, Vinay. >> Sorry, Vinay. You're right now forever known as Vinay. >> It's like, "Jinnay." Which winger would be the best alongside Pedersen for the Canucks window? >> Like, out of any winger in the league? >> Out of any winger, well, let's keep it to like reasonably could be available. >> Reasonable. >> Reasonable. >> Yeah. >> Out of available ones, that's pretty much it, isn't it? >> I mean, Ryan Hart could be really good too. >> If he is truly available? >> Yeah. >> I don't think Ryan Hart. I mean, everything is pointing to Ryan Hart staying in Florida, and them about to win a Stanley Cup. As much as he's worth more than $10 million, like when you just want a Stanley Cup, it feels like that's kind of the moment you give the hometown discount and sign for whatever Matthew Kachaka signed for and just call it a day. >> Yeah, signed for 9.5 or eight, or it's the moment you cash in because you're like, "Yeah, just won a cup." >> Yeah. >> I mean, the way it's going though, I would imagine they're more likely to sign Ryan Hart the Montor. >> Mm-hmm. >> Like I said, sorry, no, Florida, right? Because Montor is a free agent, and the way Forzeling is going, the way the rest of their blue lines play, like, and I know they like Montor, but if I had to guess, I would guess they would pay him before Montor. The other option here is Stephen Stamkos as a free agent. >> Yeah. >> That would be electric. >> [LAUGH] Having Stephen Stamkos and his big right shot join the power play could be interesting. You'd have to figure out what you're going to do with J.T. Miller because he wouldn't play the left half wall anymore, but that would be an interesting one. And because there is so much smoke around Mitch Marner, does he fit into this? >> Like throw out the playoff idea right now or throw out his playoff or his lack of playoff performance through his career, Mitch Marner. But if you were to just think about the fit between Elias Petterson and Mitch Marner and what that could look like in a regular season setting over 82 games, would that be a perfect fit? >> Mm-hmm. I think it'd be a decent fit. >> Yeah, both guys are playmaker pass first guys probably. I kind of like to have a trigger man with Petterson. >> Yeah. >> And I think that's a fascinating topic too, is like what is the ideal winger for Petterson? >> Mm-hmm, if you have to like, let's take the restriction of someone who's reasonably available off, like who's the ideal winger for Petterson just in the league, I guess. >> Yeah. >> I like guys as Shuka Chuck. >> I mean, Matt's just probably the ideal winger for anybody, right? >> Yes. >> [LAUGH] >> Who's the best winner of that guy? >> Yeah. >> Let's go, let's go and get that guy. >> Corill Capriza. >> Capriza, I think we'll be really good. Guys that shoot first, and like Tofoli was really good fit with him too because he shot the puck. >> Yeah. >> Right, and he went to the areas, right? And I think guys that do that, they're the best with Elias Petterson, smart players that shoot the puck a lot. And I think that's the profile I look for, and that's why Genssel meets that profile. >> Yeah. >> Look at guys, they get tons of volume, and when you look at nachas, for instance, his goal scoring hasn't been insane, but it shoots the puck quite a bit. And I think that makes sense, some sense for why Vancouver was interested, and if it's especially if you're looking for him to play with Petterson, think of that profile. A guy that is a guy who likes to shoot the puck. >> Yeah. >> Next one comes from Ernest in Richmond. How long until annually attaching draft picks to get rid of bad contracts catches up with the Canucks? >> Annually? >> That's what the question says. So we were having a back and forth with someone on X, sports philosopher Vancouver, D.Marchine 67, I hope I said that, right? And his take is, hey, the Canucks have to get rid of McCabe's contract, if that means trading a second round pick, go ahead and do it. He wants to have as few players as possible that do not provide surplus value, fair points and all that, right? >> Yes. >> But the thing is, you trade a second round pick this year, you're going to have three straight years without second round picks. You kind of not have a ton of first round picks in recent years either. You did have LeCara Mac, you had Willander, and then you didn't have one this year. You traded the extra one that you got from the Bohour vet trade. >> Yeah. So the Canucks are draft pick deficient. We had the segment on this, was it this week or last week, we spoke about how, hey, the Canucks, when you start looking at assets and everything, they don't have a ton of pick value anymore. >> No. >> And if you get into a position where you're trading a second round pick this year to clear money and you don't recoup that pick. I think it catches up with you pretty quickly, because you're not going to have as many players coming through your ranks and two-fold complicating the problem, you're going to have fewer assets to pedal out the trade deadline or during the season next year. And I just don't think the Canucks are in a position to be, to burn draft picks right now. They need to acquire them. And I'd rather bet on rebuilding guys and then saving that capital for in season at the very least. Like, I'd rather you save that second round pick to get the player that puts you over the top of the deadline, as opposed to giving away a player today that, honestly, like we're talking about McCabe, you, sure, like you trade him away, you give up a second round pick. But it's not like you're replacing what somebody who brings zero risk. >> Yeah. >> So it's like you're replacing him, you have to pay somebody, there's going to be somebody in free agency, like there isn't this like no risk situation where you're moving forward with, like you could find yourself in a position where you're trading a draft pick, getting a player who underachieves. >> Yeah. >> Now, you traded a draft pick. And you have a player who underachieved. >> You trade the draft pick to move McKayev's money off the books and maybe, you know, sign somebody in free agency that's now taking up that money that, you know, also might not be all that correct. >> Oh, not the perfect fit, right? >> Yeah. >> And if I'm overextending a free agency for somebody, I'd just rather not be giving up a pick to do so, you know, like I'd rather just re-bank on him finding his game. Now I'm not against trading somebody and dumping the contract if I'm not giving anything up to do so, right? Like I'm all for doing those things, but I don't think that connects with how few picks they have can afford to trade high draft picks right out to move off salary. >> A lot of the issues that they've had to clean up were from the previous regime. McKayev would be one that they themselves have gotten themselves into. But the last trade like this where they moved off a draft pick in order to get rid of something was Tanner Pearson last summer, right? They attached a third round pick to Tanner Pearson, plus they took back Casey to Smith. >> Yeah. And the year prior was a second to move off Jason Dickinson's contract. >> Yeah. So they've done this quite a bit like or on a couple of occasions in order to open up some extra money for themselves. >> They've given up a second and a third to clear space. >> Yeah. And it's not great, especially for a team that even before this front office came in was picked efficient because Jim Benning and Cole were throwing everything at the wall to try and get this team back into the playoffs. You can't just keep doing this. You can't just keep pulling this lever and hoping that it works because it catches up with you. And with McKayev especially, I just think like I'd bank on him bringing at least $3 million value next year. And while that's still not a great world to be living in, it's something I'd rather live in than having to give up a second round pick to just move off his money. And it might be, I don't know, what the cap dump price is right now because the cap has gone up a little bit, but in the past cap dump price, even for Tanner Pearson who had one year left at $3 million was a third round pick last year. It's expensive. >> But here's the thing. We were operating under the assumption that McKayev's value is not that depressed because there are people that like Ilya McKayev. >> Yes. >> But what if his value truly is depressed because he's owed $5.15 million this year and $4.15 next year. >> Yeah. >> So that's actually $9.3 million in cash. To move $9.3 million in cash, it costs more than a second. >> Yes. >> So it depends on how he's viewed, right? If he's viewed as a decent asset, maybe it's all it takes for a second. But if he's viewed as a negative asset, the cost would be a first round pick. And are you trading a first round pick to move off salary? I don't think anybody here is. In the last two years, the cuts were up against the cap really badly and had to move money to make it work. They would like to have some cap space, but not the same immediacy in terms of needing it right away. >> We'll do this one and then we'll hit the break. Taylor, why and what are we doing with Zadorov? Pay the big man. We paid Meyer six by six, gives Zadorov the bag. >> So the dream's not over. The Zadorov dream is not over. Ilya Friedman on 32 Thoughts today. >> Yeah. Said the door isn't closed on Nikita Zadorov. He still thinks it's unlikely, but the door is not yet closed on Nikita Zadorov. >> And I know you and I've talked about this too, and I'm like, hey, on Lindholm, okay, maybe it looks unlikely, but I would be careful to say it's over on any of the free agents quite yet. And I know Donny and Dolly mentioned this morning that Zadorov and the Canucks are going to take another run at it this weekend, and apparently Zadorov really wants to stay here. Like what we've heard is like, Zadorov loves it here. >> Yes. >> His wife loves it here. >> Yes. >> The question just comes down to how much do you love it and how much money you're willing to walk away from to stay here, right? And if they're not that far apart, which some, you know, we've led to believe that the offer the Canucks have made is fair. It's not necessarily too far off of what he would want to stay, but it's not quite at that number yet. >> Yeah. >> Does somebody move? >> You know, if it's the Canucks moving slightly, like, well, I'm just throwing this out there, right? Let's say the Canucks have offered him a contract worth four million something over six years, and he wants five. Like five on the dot. Does he take 4.8, 4.9? Do the Canucks move up there? You know what I mean? Like, can you get this deal done at like 4.85 or 4.9, where's just hair under five and make everybody happy? >> If Zadorov is set on getting to $30 million, is that something the Canucks do? >> They get to like say 29 in a bit. >> Yeah. >> So you're that close, you know? >> It doesn't seem like the biggest gap to bridge. But if Dan Milstein and Nikita Zadorov think that maybe $36 million is out there in the free agent market, you know, that's why it's hard for maybe Zadorov to come down that far knowing, you know, an extra $6 million might be on the table for them. >> Yeah. That's why I think you got to get close to 30. If it's hair under 30, maybe you can make it work. But we'll see. I mean, if they can get Zadorov signed under five per year, yeah, it's palatable. And if we're living in a world where Zadorov gets 36 million in free agency, I mean, it's -- >> Giddy up. July 1st is going to be something. >> What? Chadfield got nine. >> Yeah. >> And he got like everything he wanted. All the signing bonus, no move clause for Jalen Chadfield. What a world. Play 15 minutes a game last year. >> More of your Canucks questions on the mailbag next on Canucks Central. >> Hey, it's Jamie Dodd and Thomas Drans. Get your daily dose of Canucks talk with us weekdays from 12 to 2 on Sportsnet 650. Or catch up on demand through your favorite podcast app. >> We're back on Canucks Central, Dan Rachos, Satyar Shah, producer Josh Elliott-Wolf in the Kintec studio. Kintec, Canada's favorite orthotics provider, powered by thousands of five-star Google reviews. What are you waiting for? It's a mailbag Friday whole show today. Your mailbag questions. Let's get back into it with the mailbag. >> All right. Next one comes from Sterilite Corona. What is the possibility of the Canucks trading some of their UFA rights before free agency arrives and getting some picks back for those rights? >> I think it's unlikely. This doesn't happen a lot in the NHL and a team really just want like they'd have to have a good sense that this player is willing to sign with them and they want to make sure that no other team gets that opportunity. >> Yeah. So the Doraab was traded to the Canucks for a third and a fifth. >> Yeah. >> In season, early in the season. >> Like does the Doraab land you a fifth just for his rights? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And if you look at recent players traded for picks, it's usually been defensement. >> Yeah. >> It was Seaberson last year. >> Dougie Hamilton. >> Dougie Hamilton negotiating rights. That's usually what happens. The four is not as much and it's a Doraab and again I'm not sure it's a Doraab is at that caliber. >> Yeah. >> Dan Hamhus's rights were traded a couple of times and he still signed to Vancouver. He went to the Pittsburgh. He went to the Flyers in 2010 and then ended up signing in Vancouver for instance. Seaberson went for a 30 and ended up signing with Columbus, right? But it's the higher end guys. Usually I'm not sure the Doraab quite fits the bill for that. >> Yeah. >> Lindholm is the guy because he's the highest caliber player. But the question is, let's say you're Boston, do you feel like you need to do that? If you're at Lindholm or you're just not waiting to get to free agency and if that's kind of what you're doing, then what team is going to be pointing up the draft pick to do so? >> Like I would imagine the player and agent love when this happens because it gives them extra leverage knowing that the team that's now traded a draft pick is probably not turning away from whatever your demand might be and you can eat out an extra couple hundred thousand as we saw with maybe Damon Seaberson last year. Like I just don't see Boston. For as much as we've linked Elias Lindholm to the Boston Bruins, like the Bruins don't have a pick in the first three rounds this year. >> I can't see them being a team that's willing or wanting to trade a pick in order to have the early crack at signing Elias Lindholm. >> And maybe the pick they're willing to trade is like a six or something? >> Yeah. >> And I mean, and hey, I'll take a six or a seventh even, it's better than nothing for a guy who's walking away. It's just, I don't know if it's the needle moving move you're hoping to happen. >> It is something that we talk about more than is what history says warrants. Next one comes from Blake. Is it possible to sign both Brendan Dillon and Chris Tana for under seven point five million on the AV? >> If you kidnap family members. >> Anything possible when you do that? >> No, I mean, so, Brendan Dillon's probably getting at least three million. >> Yeah. >> So let's say if he gets, I think the number frame is probably three point two, five SUSI money, shorter term, maybe two years, maybe three max, right, but it's in the three range. And is Chris Tana like, he's making at least four and a half at least? >> Yeah, like it's really on the lowest end of the spectrum that you're able to get both of these guys for seven and a half million bucks. >> You know how you could do it? >> It's very humbling. >> Well, you could actually, you know, let me rephrase that. You don't get kidnapped. >> You show them a beautiful like PowerPoint presentation or video of what it's like to play and live in Vancouver. >> It's just Quinn Hughes's picture. >> No, no. The answer is always money. It's the same money, but more term, right? >> You give Tana four and a half times four for a guy who's like, what, 33? And you give Brendan Dillon like three or four years or three, right? Or three years at three. But I think three, you have three for nine for him for his age. >> Yeah. >> That might do it. But you would have to go extra on the term on both guys to get that number, I think. >> Promise Chris Tana of a veneer's endorsement after his playing career is done. >> Some great dances here, I will say. >> Next one comes from Todd Nasland, who scores more with the big club next season? The Silly Pod Colson or Jonathan Lekoramaki? >> Ooh. >> Smart money is on pods. >> Just because he'll be playing more games. >> Yes. >> But is there a world where Lekoramaki, I mean, hey, I've said it last week during the round table. Could you, they have to live in a world where you maybe leave the door open for Lekoramaki if you're not able to land a high octane winger in free agency or somehow this off season? But even still, it seems unlikely that Lekoramaki wears a Canucks uniform coming out of training camp unless he just absolutely blows the doors off of camp and pre-season. What are you looking at? Best case scenario then? He plays half a season with the big club? Who do you think scores more, 82 games to put Colson next year or 41 games for Lekoramaki next year? >> Oh, it's definitely Lekoramaki. >> I'll go with Lekoramaki. And I like put Colson. The only reason is like, I'm like, I'm gonna get radio for this, but I'm like, are we even sure put Colson's gonna be here next season? >> Yeah. >> I think I'm not saying they're trying to trade him. All I'm saying is like, a lot of things can happen between now and we get to the start of next season, right? >> Well, if we think about some of the moves they were trying to make at the deadline, I wouldn't be surprised if, you know, Pod Colson was a name that got floated around quite a bit in order to land a Tyler Tofoli instead of having to move a draft pick. >> Yeah. And I'm not saying they're going to do that. All I'm saying is like, I'll probably go with Lekoramaki for next season. And I want to pick put Colson because I do think him playing a full season is more likely than Lekoramaki. >> Mm-hmm. >> I'm gonna say Pod Colson. >> All right, next one comes from Josephine. If you were sitting in the press box for a Canucks Stanley Cup final game and the Canucks Ops left a white towel on your seat, would you wave it during the game in press row? >> No, they left actually the first two home games against the threads they left us some towels on the seats on press row. >> They did. >> I took them home. >> Yeah. >> I did not wave them. >> I don't think you'll see anyone wave them but like take them home as a souvenir or whatever. >> I took them home, gave them to people actually. >> You did? >> You're gonna keep one? >> No. >> You don't have any of the towels? >> No. >> Trying to remove clutter from my home. >> So you get rid of the little towel? >> Yeah, you probably felt good about the clutter, like a clutter. >> I just felt like a fold into my backpack. >> Wanted to give it to someone. >> Could have been a golf towel too and good Samaritan move. >> Or is this your way of being like, listen, honey, we have to, we have to let things go and look at me letting this go right away. >> Let it go right away. We're moving on from it. >> No, I would not wave the flag in press row. >> No. >> That would be a bad look. >> Like when I'm watching a connection, I want to see them win. I get happy when they score it and stuff of course, right? But like you have to have some level of decorum, you know, we're not gonna be like Mark Specter, you know? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It just wouldn't happen. >> Yeah. >> You see the pom poms though? >> Yeah. >> I don't think all Edmonton media, you know what, I don't even want to do this with the media. There's a couple of guys who talked a lot of ish. >> Mm-hmm. >> And that was it. >> Yeah. >> And those guys don't know right now. >> Now they're right now. I mean, the guy who talked about Cody C.C. being better than Tana of that age, poorly. >> Yes. >> Specs takes age really poorly. >> Yes. >> The people's being like, "Ah, Bouchard, Quinn, you suck." So Bouchard, he's... >> It's having a rough go. >> Bouchard, so Edmonton media that really pulled out the guns. >> Yeah. >> And Gazdic talking about getting dusted. >> Yeah. >> Hey. >> But he and Gazdic on the hockey net panel as well. >> Yeah, that was great. >> That was so good. >> What team do you cheer for again? But how many Vancouver media we're going after like Edmonton in general? Like, you know what I mean? Not really. >> Yeah. >> So I will say, again, I have a soft spot for Edmonton. I don't mind most of the media, but the guys that talked a lot are getting to come up this right now and it's pretty funny. So they should take those pom-poms and wave them and wipe off their tears. >> Yeah. Don't, to Josephine's questions, if you are in press row for whatever reason, don't be cheering. >> Right now. >> They can have a little quiet fist bump or something, you know what I mean? Or something? Like, you can, you know, just, just keep it cool. >> Yeah. Don't be weird about it. >> If it's a Canadian like national team, I'm sure, you know, in 2010. >> Yeah, they're probably some cheering. >> You know? >> Yeah. I feel like that's weirdly different though. Like, you're allowed to do that when it's the country. >> Yeah. >> I've seen that when I've covered soccer matches for like visiting media, playing against Canada. Like, they don't care. >> Oh, they don't. >> These guys from the Central American countries, they're just like, whatever, man. They're all over it. They're cheering in the press box. They just do not give a bleep. >> No, when it comes to your nation's colors, I guess, all journalistic integrity is thrown out the window. >> I do think in hockey, there's too much of like, whoa, this guy likes hockey team. You know, a lot to have, you know, a lot to have a favorite team. It's like, in England, every single reporter has a favorite team. In the NFL, every single reporter has a favorite team. >> Yes. >> You know, like, it's just, it's kind of what happens, except for in hockey. It's taboo. >> I mean, if you're hockey takes itself so serious. >> Guess what? If you're covering sports for a living, you probably grew up loving sports. >> Really? You have favorite teams? >> Okay. I came into this neutral. >> Yeah. I hated sports. >> I never watched a hockey game in my life. >> Yeah. >> But listen to me talk about it. >> Next one from a rash, can the Stanley Cup final be considered a dusted? >> Uh, yes, a proper dusted? >> Assuming Florida wins it in five or less, yes. >> I mean, they've been dusted so far. >> Yeah. >> There's no question. You're down all through, you're getting dusted. >> Have the games been closer than what the three zero series lead for Florida suggests? >> Yeah. But that can't- >> Sure. >> But that can't- >> I guess. >> But that can't be your definition. >> No. >> Because apparently it was a dusting when you lost in game seven and six games were one goal games. >> Okay. >> So I don't want to hear the, the games were close. >> Oh, we got goalieed by Bobrovsky. I'm like, I'm not sure that's the only thing that's going on here. It's definitely a dusting from Taj, the next one. Would you rather have a Stanley Cup party at Boston Pizza or at Joey's? >> Probably- >> Man, I'm going to say Joey's. >> Yeah. >> I would assume Joey's. But then if you're the Panthers, you can go into Boston Pizza and be like, oh yeah, Canada's team. >> Yeah. I think that the best troll would be Boston Pizza for sure. >> The best troll would be Boston Pizza. >> What a, what a weird look for an NHL team after winning the cup to be like, Boston Pizza. Here we go. >> We're going. >> But they would have to make an appearance somewhere. Like who's the most, is Matthew Chuck the most likely Florida Panthers to like walk into a BP? >> Oh yeah. >> I feel like if he wins, he's just going full troll now, you know, like he's been holding it in for a while. >> It's got to let it out. >> Yeah. >> He'd wear Panthers cup, like cup gear inside the Boston Pizza. >> Yeah. >> Josh with McDavid, dry side on Bouchard do massive raises over the next two seasons. >> Is this the peak of the McDavid area? >> Man, it's going to be tough for Edmonton the next few years, right? Like, you think I'm especially when dry side will leaves when, yeah, a year from now that out. >> Eight and a half million, you have one year left of Leon dry side, eight and a half million. >> Well, you know, I can't trade them. >> No, you know what? The thing is though, even if they keep them, they're going to have to pay them an astronomical number. >> You're going to have to extend McDavid to an astronomical number. >> Yes. >> Which will eat into all the cap increases. So it's like, how are they going to get appreciably better when they have to still, even with the cap going out? You know what I mean? >> Like McDavid and dry side, those combined cap hit, like 30 million. >> Yeah. >> And it's fine, like listen, like dry side on both guys, I'm not like saying no to either guy. >> That's why dry side is like under 14 million, right? >> He's got to be the biggest contract in the league. >> Right. >> There's no way he doesn't sign the biggest contract. >> Like Matthews is, what, 13 and a half or whatever it is, is a play off performer too. >> Yeah. >> Like he crushes in the postseason. >> Like it's at least 14 million. And then by the time McDavid's up, the cap should be at 92 million by that summer, at least around there. So we were talking about, yeah, 16 million. >> It might be a 92 million next year. >> Yeah. >> Because it would be four million. >> So it would be like 95, yeah, like it's going to be at least 30 million. >> So a third of your salary cap to be on both guys, and that's not to say they can't be competitive. >> Yeah. >> Again, they're both worth it, but to answer the question about their window, like these past couple years may have been their best chances because of how much more they have to go up in cost. They have some cap space next year, but it gets eaten up pretty quickly once you re-sign your guys, right? >> The nurse contract is just such a dagger. >> Tough. >> They have some money coming off though, because they have to pay Bouchard though after this year. >> Yep. So. >> The Campbell contract. >> Yeah. >> Oh, you can't make a Stanley Cup final if you got a bunch of bad money on your books. >> Said somebody on Twitter today. >> I think maybe win a cup, but even like the teams that win a cup, there's always one or two guys. You're not going to have all 20 guys. >> Defense for night. >> Defense for night, right. >> Exactly. No, great point. Like literally dead money. >> Yeah. >> I can't believe he's making four and a half, another bucks. >> Yeah. >> And as good as Bobrovsky is, is he giving you surplus value on a $10 million contract? Or is he just giving you value? >> No, I am like, for the most part, I wouldn't even say he's giving you value. >> But in the final, yeah. >> He's been fine, right? >> Yeah. >> But that's like $14 million right there. That's not like super surplus. >> Yeah. >> Mm-hmm. Crazy. >> All right. >> What's next? >> Next one from basketball fill. Who's hurt their reputation more in the finals? >> Luca or McDavid? >> Ooh, it's a really good question by basketball fill. I would say Luca. >> Yeah, man. I'd say Luca. >> That's a Luca. >> And he's whining, getting fouled out, not defending. >> I think that's the biggest thing is like, people are now much more aware of his whining and kind of hating on him for it. >> Yeah. Well, also like when you're getting, it's one thing to whine and it's another thing to get killed defensively. >> And he can't quit on your team and the posy is like in the finals. >> Yeah. He's getting slaughtered. Like he was, he was getting absolutely slaughtered defensively and he just gave up and he's yelling at his own bench. I thought Brian Winhorse did an incredible job breaking it down. >> Yeah, I love Luca. Like, you know, I was hoping Dallas would pull it off. >> Yeah. >> You know, like, I want to see Deluca win it. But I'd say him because McDavid, he's clearly banged up. >> This close to tying the game last night, trying to bank it in off Bobrovsky. And if McLeod, like, I don't know, makes a half decent shot, he should score there. >> And he clearly does not look right. >> Yeah. >> And in basketball, like, you know, it's the one guy is so important. This is one of those situations, it's similar to when Edmonton got dusted by Colorado in the Western Conference final and they got swept, where it's just like, you're not going to blame McDavid when you can just plainly see that the other team is that much better. >> Yeah. >> And that's, I think, similarly, what's happening here in this final. He still has three points in the series or three points in the last two games. >> Yeah, he's still producing. It's just like, Luca's like costing us the game. >> It's hard to be as bad as Luca, and his reputation is gone, especially after that game three for the maps. >> And I think he'll learn from this and be better for it, but it's been rough to watch. >> Next one from Benjamin, Cleveland Browns over under 10 wins this season. Benjamin took the over. >> I'll take the over to screw it. It's June 14th. If I can't be optimistic on June 14th, when am I going to be optimistic? >> You don't have to be married to this take right now. >> I know, I can change. >> Hey, listen, you can always change your mind with more information. >> Under. >> Why? They're good. >> Don't trust Ashan. >> Yeah, I mean, fair enough. But he did play well before he got injured at the end. >> Keep telling yourself that. >> Dude, you watch the game and he's Baltimore. He went at two Baltimore in the second half and crushed the Ravens on the road and won that game. >> You know who else had one good game? >> I said his last game. He was a great game. He had a number of good games like that. I can't believe I'm defending DeShawn because he's a jerk, right? And more than that. But, you know, I think even in case Keenum had the miracle in Minnesota. >> What a moment. What a moment. I thought that was the Super Bowl winner right there. Wow. Turns out it was Nick Foles. My bad. Next one. Gabriel. Who's winning the Euros? Is it? Is it Gabriel or Gabriel? >> Gabriel. >> Gabriel. Gabriel. >> Vina. >> Gabriel. >> Gabriel. >> Is Gabriel playing for Team France? >> I don't know. I don't know. I started that one. >> Sorry, Gabriel. Gabriel. Gabe. Gabe. Gabe. I just won in the Euros. Hey, Gabe. >> Shout out to our guy. >> I'm going to top spot. I have to say all these names. I can't even say tough properly. >> Yeah. >> When I hear Gabe, I think of our guy on sports rage. Gabriel Munrency. That's who I think about when I hear Gabe. So, England is the favorite. >> I'm going with Georgia. >> Because they're basically the Dallas Cowboys Toronto Maple Leafs of international soccer. They're the favorite. All the people from the UK, the expats, and everything else around the world. They go and they bet on their England. And hey, they got a really good squat. I'm not going to deny them that this year. But I'm not buying it. >> Who are you going with? >> France feels too chalky. So, I'm going to go with Italy. Last time there was an international tournament in Germany, guess who won? The Italians. >> Italians, all right. >> And Italy doesn't have a great team either. >> Who would have thought reach would pick Italy? >> For Zadzoudi, baby. Let's go. >> All right. You know what? I'm going to go off the board a little bit. I'm going with Croatia. >> Croatia. >> Yeah. Don't love that pick. I'm going with Croatia. >> I'm going with the hosts. >> Germany. >> You're going with Germany. >> I'm going with Germany. >> I was going to say France and then Dan's like it could be chalky. I can't say that. >> I'm going for Croatia. Here we go. And he's like, I don't like that. Am I going? >> My bear. Sorry. Can't go chalky. Can't go off the board. Soccer snobs. It comes out like that. >> Yeah. Next one. We've got a couple more. Discount Dracula. 7-Eleven hot dogs. Would you? >> Can't do it. >> I've done it. I'm not going to say no. >> Would you now? >> Probably not. >> No. >> I can't do it. No. I just can't do it. >> All I've heard about 7-Eleven food is that it's very underrated. I don't know, man. >> I've never had it. >> I don't think food like on a like heating roller thing sitting there for hours can be underrated. >> Wow. >> I just say. >> You're going into it with a bad mindset. >> How hungry are you that this is? >> It's happened. I will say like late nights when I was in my 20s and we used to go to clubs and stuff a lot. You end up late night. It'd be like pizza, don't air or like you go into 7-Eleven and get whatever they have, right? So I mean, I'm not going to say I haven't had many nights where I've like had a taquitos or had had like a hot dog or some of the chicken like I've done all those things, but at no point that I ever think to myself, oh, this is like really good. This is like underrated. >> How are you becoming here more often? >> I just, I'm not really like I don't like hot dogs in general. >> Yeah, you're not a big hot dog guy. >> I can't. I wouldn't do it. I'd rather do like whatever like pizza they had had sit there for hours. >> Yeah. >> I'd rather do that than the hot dog. >> I think I'd lean taquitos before anything else from 7-Eleven. >> Taquitos. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. The hot dogs scare me a little bit. >> Yeah. >> They're just sitting there like, you know. >> It's actually a really funny part of the bad boys movie where Martin Lawrence is in a convenience store and he's like, how long those hot dogs been there? Only a day. Only a day. >> What? That's it? >> That looks good. Only a day. >> So gross. >> We'll end with this one, crypto cow, does your summer vacation start on Sunday? >> No, no it does not. >> Sunday? Why Sunday? >> Well, first day of summer. >> And I'm assuming that. >> Come final? >> Yeah. If the panther's late. >> No. So my summer vacation begins on, let's see, July, well I guess technically after July 5th, so July 6th, July 6th, it starts from July 6th and then between that and the end of August I only work one week. So I'll be gone pretty much. >> That's the classic summer set. >> Yeah. >> Gone. Just going, oh my God, I forgot set work too. Then I show up in late August. Hey guys. >> Yeah. >> I'm here for most of July actually, so you won't hear much Dan Rachel in August, but most of July I'll still be around. >> Yeah. >> I think I'm here all summer. >> You are? >> All summer. >> Well, yeah. >> Because you got a big event coming up. >> Yeah. >> Josh is getting hitched. >> Yes. >> Come September. >> Really September, I'll be gone, but. >> Okay. >> But also, still a great play for the up and coming broadcaster that Josh Elliott-Wolf is, to just, while we go away in the summer, he just eats up half of the radio time. >> It's great. Put it in a minute. >> Honestly, the best thing to do, especially if you're an aspiring host, as Josh is, he hosts a lot of shows or whatever, your best time to get your reps in is a summertime. Like, word of advice to any young broadcaster, like if you get a chance, like, don't go away in the summer. Because that's where you can get your reps in if you want to get on air. >> Yeah, Christmas vacation and summer vacations weren't really a thing for me for a long part of my career, and it won't be for Josh either. >> Yeah, like, so I'm back for- >> I bet I'm hosting shows with Josh this summer. >> I can't wait for it. >> I'll be fine. I mean, it'll be okay. >> All right. [LAUGH] >> This is actually why I sat to time off, he's like, "Oh my goodness, I can't host with Josh." >> No, but it says- >> I just have to beat Josh at golf at some point this summer. >> That bad, I won't be able to- >> You and I, right, like, I'm back for just the last week of July, August, which is in a full week, and then I'm back for the last week of August, so I'm gone, like, six out of seven weeks before we get to July, and then you're going to be gone. So that's like, I think for like eight weeks straight, neither of us are going to be, like, at least one of us isn't going to be here, so lots of reps for Josh, and other producers who may want to get in on it. >> There might not be a conoc-central reconnection until conoc-central starts again. Still pew-sooter signs in the middle of the summer. >> True, yeah. Emergent pew-s. Do we do it? We didn't do an emergency. >> No, we did. >> No. >> I was hosting with Pick at the time. We were at the now. >> Oh, right. That's right. That's right. Very good. >> Yeah, so unless there's some kind of emergency podcast, conoc-central, we'll probably be on hiatus after July 6th until training camp and early September. >> Still got three weeks of solid coverage coming up. >> Yes, and lots of conocs happenings, we hope. All right, for producer Josh Elliott-Wolf, my co-host, Sat, I'm Dan, you the listener providing us all the mailbag questions today. Talk to you next week on conoc-central.
