Our Core (Discussion)(Long Read)

[J.I.A.H.N]

It would be fantastic in my view to move some of our core players over the next 2 years, but for the most part I wonder how realistic the trades would be of happening, and the value of the returns.

If we look at our core, it's today value isn't all that bad, there are not too many places within the NHL that you could obtain first line hockey players or top 4 Dmen.

But the question in the "New" NHL is what team will give you top value, due to cap, and budgetary restraints. Not to mention "cap" issues that cause teams to hesitate to put their eggs in a basket without the ability to move them, themselves at a later date, to recover some of their assets, which were spent to obtain them in the first place.

I am not going to say what team could use who, or what the actual return would be, as I am in somewhat unsure of what would be coming back.

If you look at the absolute best we could offer, which is in my opinion, the Sedin's (together), we could offer them at a discount....example

Hank and Daniel Sedin at the deadline with 1/2 salary carried and I am not sure what that would bring, as what team would give true value for 2 1/2 years?

My conclusion on that front is no one..........hence, the Sedin's stay here for the remainder of their contract and most likely, the remainder of their NHL life.

Other players, such as Burrow's and Higgin's, although fine 2/3 line players, and who are also under No Trade Contracts will have meager returns for their value compared with the value they have internally. Unless we want to give them away, the argument is much the same as the Sedin's, the NTC hamper their true value. Are they worth more than a 3 or 4 round pick? Yes, but they would return no more IMO, and in Burrows case, would also come with us having to carry some of his contract.

Who does carry value and who would be easier to move (outside of their NTC's) are Hamhuis and Edler, and when I look at the two, and weigh their internal value compared to their return, I come up with the fact that Edler looks to be the man, which would give greater value and which most teams would trade for without much hesitation.

But even so, with his NTC, it looks to be a more difficult thing to do, because Edler would be calling the shots as to where he would want to go, and by doing so, would limit the teams ability to get full value.

This brings me back to Hamhuis and what king of return a short rental return might bring, my question to myself is , is a very low 1st rounder worth trading Hamhuis for, compared to just resigning him for another 2 or 3 years?

As much as I and others think that trading vets for young assets and picks, would be a good long term thing for the Canucks to do, I just do not see a great return for our vets, in this market.

We, "if" committed to a rebuild, may be much better off trading Bonino or Hansen for 2nds and 3rds, then actually trying to get something like a 1st or high end 2nd pick.

I guess, in the long run, I am saying that I am coming around to the reality for the above stated reasons, that I don't expect much movement of our vets in the next couple of years, and as much as I would like to see them moved, there will be only a minor chance of that happening.

Anyone care to disagree?

Cheers!

[smithers joe]

i could see some of the core being moved over the next 2 years but only when the young guys can push them out...as far as higgins, hansen and burrows can be replaced as far as goal scoring goes but, their defensive games, help this team be successful...when the young guys learn to play strong defensive games to go along with their offense, those three will be redundant.....

[Canuck Surfer]

Hmm?

Interesting OP from one of the longer term, louder voices in tank nation...

Contract scenario's are most certainly a factor and very fair commentary Janice. Juice was a prime example. He accomplished 3 things handpicking his destination; a new contract, a top team and the California board shorts lifestyle. JB may convert his mid pick, a paltry return, into a legit NHL'er in Brisbois? It does illustrate your point.

I suppose we could complain about the returns on Kesler, but also Juice & Lou. They were all low. But Bieksa and Luongo were at least both signed by us as UFA's. Even if from our own team. They could have already been gone for nothing.

My opinion is the time to trade a vet is when there is a valid younger player stealing his spot. And then I suppose a softer return, after getting max value on the ice in his Canuck tenure, is not such a bad thing.

In a perfect world you have hot, ready waiting prospects beating down the door all the time. Then you are under no such pressure. You have leverage not to offer the vets such terms to entice (beg) them to stay. And can even trade them for a premium earlier in the cycle, in their prime, for a bigger payday.

[Gollumpus]

i could see some of the core being moved over the next 2 years but only when the young guys can push them out...as far as higgins, hansen and burrows can be replaced as far as goal scoring goes but, their defensive games, help this team be successful...when the young guys learn to play strong defensive games to go along with their offense, those three will be redundant.....

^^^^

regards,

G.

[aliboy]

Higgins and Hammer yes, the twins no.

[Crabcakes]

Like it or not, the Canucks are in a rebuild and the core will be turned over. The question is when.

I think it comes down to how useful a player is to the team in terms of on ice play, leadership / character and age (diminishing returns) that determine if and when a core player will be moved. The other factor is how attractive a player is to other teams in terms of all of the above and their contract. I think that Higgins is attractive as a player but nobody wants a part of his 2.5 NT contract with 2 years remaining on it.

In general, players today are more moveable in the last year of their contract. Hamhuis, Vrbata, Prust, Bartkowski and Weber are all UFA's next season and are candidates to be moved at the deadline imo. Whether they are moved depends on how the team is doing, how well younger players behind them are developing and the market.

[J.I.A.H.N]

Hmm?

Interesting OP from one of the longer term, louder voices in tank nation...

Contract scenario's are most certainly a factor and very fair commentary Janice. Juice was a prime example. He accomplished 3 things handpicking his destination; a new contract, a top team and the California board shorts lifestyle. JB may convert his mid pick, a paltry return, into a legit NHL'er in Brisbois? It does illustrate your point.

I suppose we could complain about the returns on Kesler, but also Juice & Lou. They were all low. But Bieksa and Luongo were at least both signed by us as UFA's. Even if from our own team. They could have already been gone for nothing.

My opinion is the time to trade a vet is when there is a valid younger player stealing his spot. And then I suppose a softer return, after getting max value on the ice in his Canuck tenure, is not such a bad thing.

In a perfect world you have hot, ready waiting prospects beating down the door all the time. Then you are under no such pressure. You have leverage not to offer the vets such terms to entice (beg) them to stay. And can even trade them for a premium earlier in the cycle, in their prime, for a bigger payday.

Yes, you pretty much nailed it on the head......there is no perfect world for vet replacement, at least not in most cases.

As for my "tank" accreditation, I am not for a "tank", as per say, but my opinion is we do not have the horses, nor are they in our stable, to climb to the top of the NHL, and I must say anyone who thinks we are even close, should not be allowed to shout down anyone.

What I will say is there is a ton of difference between calling for change and it actually happening. I have thought many things over the past year, including trading our prospects for up grades of our vets.

But in the end I believe 2 things #1. We should move a lot of vets out and #2. it isn't going to happen the way I think it should.

So I dream and hope for better days.....but honestly think it will get worse before it gets better.....but that is only my opinion, not foretelling the future.

And just for the record........I have loved the Canucks since the 60's, so everyone will just have to get used to me. lol

[canuktravella]

we can all hope that vrbata and hamhuis are traded at deadline should get decent picks for teams overpaying at deadline.

if only higgins, burrows can get moved some how id rather play the youngsters even if we are bad for a yr or two

sedin sedin virtanen

baertchi bonino shinkaruk

kenins horvat hansen

dorsett prust gaunce

grenier

edler tanev

sbisa corrado

clendenning

miller

markstrom

[bigbadcanucks]

Hmm?

Interesting OP from one of the longer term, louder voices in tank nation...

Contract scenario's are most certainly a factor and very fair commentary Janice. Juice was a prime example. He accomplished 3 things handpicking his destination; a new contract, a top team and the California board shorts lifestyle. JB may convert his mid pick, a paltry return, into a legit NHL'er in Brisbois? It does illustrate your point.

I suppose we could complain about the returns on Kesler, but also Juice & Lou. They were all low. But Bieksa and Luongo were at least both signed by us as UFA's. Even if from our own team. They could have already been gone for nothing.

My opinion is the time to trade a vet is when there is a valid younger player stealing his spot. And then I suppose a softer return, after getting max value on the ice in his Canuck tenure, is not such a bad thing.

In a perfect world you have hot, ready waiting prospects beating down the door all the time. Then you are under no such pressure. You have leverage not to offer the vets such terms to entice (beg) them to stay. And can even trade them for a premium earlier in the cycle, in their prime, for a bigger payday.

What? Bieksa was a Canucks fifth round draft pick in 2001 and Luongo was acquired in the Bertuzzi trade.

Back on topic...

The core isn't going to win any championships. The best we as fans of the Canucks can hope for is that whatever of the core remains in the next season or two, they do what they can to usher in the next generation of the leadership group.

As crabcakes says, the Canucks are in a re-build right now. It's going to be at least 2-3 years before the Canucks will be serious contenders again. And that's the best case scenario.