Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Acquiring Defensemen/ Defense prospects


Recommended Posts

I absolutely agree with that. Next year;

Edler / Tanev

Hutton / Byfuglien (Ufa)

Sbisa / Honka

Pedan / Tryamkin

Byfuglien would be ideal for a 4 year stop gap.  Big and strong, that top four would be a really tough to play against.  Honka could be a fit on the bottom pairing and eventually work up to a top 4 role.  If we can't get more for Hammer, Honka would be fine i guess.    

In the upcoming draft i'm liking Cederholm (younger brother) Solid, has size, right handed shot could be a good second round pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a Bowey deal is definately possible. I can see at the deadline them going for a Vrbata-Gaunce for Bowey-low pick or a Hamhuis-Gaunce, for Bowey and a low pick. Also, if Sven Baertschi picks up his play and value, we could see him as a chip as well. I for one would think that a Baertschi-Gaunce type package should be fair enough to build around.

 

Basically we have a lot of forwards. Someone like Bowey is playing in the AHL, and could do so all year to get seasoned, as well as be our first emergency call up which as we can see we need. Bo Horvat would lead the young forwards, and Bowey will lead the defence. That leadership tandem to me is almost too good to pass up on. Add Demko in the net and you have a solid core. 

 

If we were to acquire Bowey for say both Brendan Gaunce and Sven Baertschi/HunterShinkaruk package like deal for Bowey +.

 

Hutton - Bowey (Both guys could potentially pass Edler and Tanev for the top spot. Which if they do, this team would be elite)

Brisebois - Subban (Defence on left and Offense on right).

 

Up front we still have a great core.

Gaunce or Shinkaruk - Horvat - Virtanen

Rodin (who may be able a late bloomer) - McCann - Boeser

Zhukenov - Cassels - Vey

 

Markstrom (for now)

Demko (for later)

That is a quality core of young players that are close to NHL ready. Perfect transition to move the vets out. I really think it's an idea worth looking at.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As above.  I really like the Honka concept. But a total; of 4 2knd and 3rd round picks (incl Brisbois), Higgins and Jensen?

Somehow I don't see, given how Benning "loves" his picks, that we can give up that package? I'd go a more classic package! 

Dallas has Klingburg and Demers on the right. Funny Demers clicking this year when he did not last? And lots of prospects (Lindell) but are still not that strong with Odouya & Goligoski as key minute men on the left side. Hamhuis could be a great deadline acquisition for them.

Hamhuis + Gaunce (they need a young LW) for Honka Moen & a first.

 

What you said about his competitiveness and his explosiveness is correct. Combine that with a very high hockey IQ and that's a top-tier package. I understand some of the concerns about his size and the size of our D-core in general, but I don't think it will be a big issue.

 

Look at the Ducks. They have Fowler, Lindholm and Vatanen (with Theodore in the mix as well) as their most talented defensemen. None of them fit the description of big, crease-clearing guys. Their composure with the puck and the ability to make the smart, skilled play is what makes them so good offensively and defensively. Granted, they do play with big guys, but acquiring the Stoners and Monsons is much easier than getting one of the talented guys.

 

We would have a future top-4 looking something like this:

 

Hutton  -  Tanev

Edler  -  Honka

 

The only one that would shy away from physical play would be Hutton. Tanev, Edler and Honka would all be more than capable of playing guys hard physically. Factor in guys like Tryamkin, Pedan and Sbisa, and our D-core would not be small at all.

 

Also, if we want to keep some of our picks, we could take one or two out and replace it with Gaunce. However, Jim Nill would hang up on you if you only included Hamhuis and Gaunce for Honka, let alone Honka, Moen and a 1st. A package that doesn't include as many picks would look pretty similar:

 

To DAL:

Hamhuis (50% retained)

Higgins

Gaunce

Briesbois

Jensen

Vey

2nd Round Pick 2016

 

To VAN:

Honka

 

I would do that trade still. It just means we might resign Higgins for one more year, maybe not even if Shinkaurik and Baertschi are both Canucks next year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a Bowey deal is definately possible. I can see at the deadline them going for a Vrbata-Gaunce for Bowey-low pick or a Hamhuis-Gaunce, for Bowey and a low pick. Also, if Sven Baertschi picks up his play and value, we could see him as a chip as well. I for one would think that a Baertschi-Gaunce type package should be fair enough to build around.

 

Basically we have a lot of forwards. Someone like Bowey is playing in the AHL, and could do so all year to get seasoned, as well as be our first emergency call up which as we can see we need. Bo Horvat would lead the young forwards, and Bowey will lead the defence. That leadership tandem to me is almost too good to pass up on. Add Demko in the net and you have a solid core. 

 

If we were to acquire Bowey for say both Brendan Gaunce and Sven Baertschi/HunterShinkaruk package like deal for Bowey +.

 

Hutton - Bowey (Both guys could potentially pass Edler and Tanev for the top spot. Which if they do, this team would be elite)

Brisebois - Subban (Defence on left and Offense on right).

 

Up front we still have a great core.

Gaunce or Shinkaruk - Horvat - Virtanen

Rodin (who may be able a late bloomer) - McCann - Boeser

Zhukenov - Cassels - Vey

 

Markstrom (for now)

Demko (for later)

That is a quality core of young players that are close to NHL ready. Perfect transition to move the vets out. I really think it's an idea worth looking at.

 

Did you read anything that I posted earlier?

RW they don't need vbrata.  Not unless he's the 30 goal scorer he was last year.  Williams had 13 points in 16 games and they have Wilson and oshie after that.

On D they don't need Hammer, Orpik, Alzner and Smchidt on the left side.  unless and injury happens neither of those two players help them get better.  If their interested in Hammer they could offer a 2nd and a 3rd or just their late 1st to acquire him (since thats the most we will likely get back for him) without having to give up their top prospect.

Plus you completely ignored the fact that the caps have 1 mill in cap space and can't afford to take on neither Vbrata or Hamhuis even if we retain max 50% cap.  Add to the fact that both are upcoming UFA's and you want them to trade Bowey and a pick.

Don't forget they both have NMC's.

As for Baertschi or Shinkaruk being trade chips, they have zero use for them, they are stacked on the LW, Ovi, Burakovsky, Johanssen and Vrana.  The guy who is their 13th overall, top LW prospect that is putting up over a ppg in his first stints in the AHL. Why do they want Hunter or Baertschi?

The only player you mentioned that Caps might have interest in is Gaunce, and Gaunce is not enough to get the caps to consider moving their D and basically only real upside D prospect.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said about his competitiveness and his explosiveness is correct. Combine that with a very high hockey IQ and that's a top-tier package. I understand some of the concerns about his size and the size of our D-core in general, but I don't think it will be a big issue.

 

Look at the Ducks. They have Fowler, Lindholm and Vatanen (with Theodore in the mix as well) as their most talented defensemen. None of them fit the description of big, crease-clearing guys. Their composure with the puck and the ability to make the smart, skilled play is what makes them so good offensively and defensively. Granted, they do play with big guys, but acquiring the Stoners and Monsons is much easier than getting one of the talented guys.

 

We would have a future top-4 looking something like this:

 

Hutton  -  Tanev

Edler  -  Honka

 

The only one that would shy away from physical play would be Hutton. Tanev, Edler and Honka would all be more than capable of playing guys hard physically. Factor in guys like Tryamkin, Pedan and Sbisa, and our D-core would not be small at all.

 

Also, if we want to keep some of our picks, we could take one or two out and replace it with Gaunce. However, Jim Nill would hang up on you if you only included Hamhuis and Gaunce for Honka, let alone Honka, Moen and a 1st. A package that doesn't include as many picks would look pretty similar:

 

To DAL:

Hamhuis (50% retained)

Higgins

Gaunce

Briesbois

Jensen

Vey

2nd Round Pick 2016

 

To VAN:

Honka

 

I would do that trade still. It just means we might resign Higgins for one more year, maybe not even if Shinkaurik and Baertschi are both Canucks next year.

 

Honka was picked top 15, not top 3 overall.

Gaunce is  6'2'' big forward generally regarded as NHL ready. Also a 1st round pick. Who fits a specific hole in Dallas's line up. Possibly right away. And over time.  Hamhuis is, IMO, worth a late first round pick and exactly what the doctor would order at the deadline.

That's a good offer for Honka and  cap dump. Gives them an honest run this year and fills a strategic hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honka was picked top 15, not top 3 overall.

Gaunce is  6'2'' big forward generally regarded as NHL ready. Also a 1st round pick. Who fits a specific hole in Dallas's line up. Possibly right away. And over time.  Hamhuis is, IMO, worth a late first round pick and exactly what the doctor would order at the deadline.

That's a good offer for Honka and  cap dump. Gives them an honest run this year and fills a strategic hole. 

I never said Honka was a top-three pick. However, I did say that he was a top-TIER defenseman.

 

We understand how hard it is to acquire a young, right-handed defenseman with #1 defense potential right? We will not be getting one, whether its Honka, Bowey or anybody else for a prospect with 3rd line potential and an aging UFA. I understand what you are saying about Dallas possibly overpaying if they feel they can make a run this year, but that doesn't change the fact that they want to get max value for such a rare commodity. Colorado could throw Duchene or Barrie at them if they are on the block, and Colorado could receive the top-TIER defense prospect that they've been looking for (plus cap dumps). Other teams could easily put together a much more attractive deal than that.

 

If they are in desperate need of a Gaunce-type player, and set on making a run, why wouldn't they just ask for Higgins?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said Honka was a top-three pick. However, I did say that he was a top-TIER defenseman.

 

We understand how hard it is to acquire a young, right-handed defenseman with #1 defense potential right? We will not be getting one, whether its Honka, Bowey or anybody else for a prospect with 3rd line potential and an aging UFA. I understand what you are saying about Dallas possibly overpaying if they feel they can make a run this year, but that doesn't change the fact that they want to get max value for such a rare commodity. Colorado could throw Duchene or Barrie at them if they are on the block, and Colorado could receive the top-TIER defense prospect that they've been looking for (plus cap dumps). Other teams could easily put together a much more attractive deal than that.

 

If they are in desperate need of a Gaunce-type player, and set on making a run, why wouldn't they just ask for Higgins?

 

 

Gaunce is long term value for them. Big, mobile, solid defensively. Can take a draw in a pinch.

Hamhuis is for their cup aspirations this year.

Hamhuis & Higgins would not fit under their cap. (Moen only came in to it to fit Hammer under the cap)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Plus you completely ignored the fact that the caps have 1 mill in cap space and can't afford to take on neither Vbrata or Hamhuis even if we retain max 50% cap.  

I can't remember exactly if the math is as straight forward as this (I don't think I'm far off) but as of the trade deadline the Canucks will have 21 of 82 games left. Meaning Vrbata's remaining salary would be prorated at only $1.28m by my math. 50% of that is $640K...

Hamhuis at 50% would be $576k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, J.R. said:

I can't remember exactly if the math is as straight forward as this (I don't think I'm far off) but as of the trade deadline the Canucks will have 21 of 82 games left. Meaning Vrbata's remaining salary would be prorated at only $1.28m by my math. 50% of that is $640K...

Hamhuis at 50% would be $576k.

I don’t think you fully understand how that works.  Teams total cap is also pro-rated.  So if there is 21 games left that means roughly 75% of the teams cap has also been used up.  So if there is no significant injury they won’t have enough room to add on the new cap space.  They will only have appro. 18.42 cap left, and as of that point, with their roster remaining unchanged, they will have only .240 cap available to take on, so hammer or Vbrata (even prorated and 50% retained) won’t fit unless cap is coming back.

 

However a significant injury (or multiple) throughout the year does get added onto the teams ceiling, even if that player is healed and back playing by the time of the trade.  So if a player (say that has a cap hit it of 5 million) goes on LTIR for 20 games, roughly 1 mill of his cap hit gets added into the teams cap ceiling.  That’s how hawks were able to take on Vermette’s contract even though he pushed them over the cap.    

So as I said earlier, without an injury or multiple, caps cannot take on Hamhuis or Vbrata’s salaries, even at trade deadline, even with us retaining salary.

But at the same time you have to also question on what either of those twos value is.  Why trade their best D prospect when they could give us their late 1st to get the player they want (especially when they don’t have a need for either).  At this rate Hamhuis or Vbrata won’t be hot trade deadline commodities, add on their NTC, and what else is available and we won’t be dictating the market on what their value is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

I don’t think you fully understand how that works.  Teams total cap is also pro-rated.  So if there is 21 games left that means roughly 75% of the teams cap has also been used up.  So if there is no significant injury they won’t have enough room to add on the new cap space.  They will only have appro. 18.42 cap left, and as of that point, with their roster remaining unchanged, they will have only .240 cap available to take on, so hammer or Vbrata (even prorated and 50% retained) won’t fit unless cap is coming back.

 

However a significant injury (or multiple) throughout the year does get added onto the teams ceiling, even if that player is healed and back playing by the time of the trade.  So if a player (say that has a cap hit it of 5 million) goes on LTIR for 20 games, roughly 1 mill of his cap hit gets added into the teams cap ceiling.  That’s how hawks were able to take on Vermette’s contract even though he pushed them over the cap.    

So as I said earlier, without an injury or multiple, caps cannot take on Hamhuis or Vbrata’s salaries, even at trade deadline, even with us retaining salary.

But at the same time you have to also question on what either of those twos value is.  Why trade their best D prospect when they could give us their late 1st to get the player they want (especially when they don’t have a need for either).  At this rate Hamhuis or Vbrata won’t be hot trade deadline commodities, add on their NTC, and what else is available and we won’t be dictating the market on what their value is.  

No, I get it.

Yes, they'd still need to have injuries (they almost certainly will) and/or we'd need to take salary back but the amounts aren't so much that it's as out to lunch/impossible as you seem to be implying. If both teams see a fit, there's ways to make the $ work quite easily. It's not the insurmountable task you seem to think it is with Washington or pretty much any other team.

That's my only point.

I'm not making any commentary on what value they'd see in them or if they'd send us Bowey etc. So you can get off your little soap box there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Here's a crazy idea: draft some.

The problem with that is that D-men tend to take 4+ years to develop to even bottom pairing/bottom 4 level. We lack at least one top 4 quality D NOW. Never mind 4 years from now or post-Hamhuis.

And while we certainly have some decent prospects on the left side with spare/bottom pair and maybe bottom 4 potential, we lack blue chip, top 4 and especially top 2 D save perhaps Hutton. And we have far, FAR less on the right side. 

We may very well be able to band-aid a top 4, right side guy in to keep us competitive but if the plan is to have us contending in a few years, we realistically needed to draft that guy already. 

Regardless of how it happens, a band-aid and trade later or a trade now, most likely it's going to require a trade at some point to get a right side D-man unless we get REALLY lucky along the way.

Cross your fingers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The problem with that is that D-men tend to take 4+ years to develop to even bottom pairing level. We lack at least one top 4 quality D NOW. Never mind 4 years from now or post-Hamhuis.

And while we certainly have some decent prospects on the left side with spare/bottom pair and maybe bottom 4 potential, we lack blue chip, top 4 and especially top 2 D save perhaps Hutton. And we have far, FAR less on the right side. 

We may very well be able to band-aid a top 4, right side guy in to keep us competitive but if the plan is to have us contending in a few years, we realistically needed to draft that guy already. 

Regardless of how it happens, a band-aid and trade later or a trade now, most likely it's going to require a trade at some point to get a right side D-man unless we get REALLY lucky along the way.

Cross your fingers?

The real problem is we need a young D-man with potential to be elite. Look around at all of the truly elite defensemen in the league:

Doughty, Keith, Weber, Karlsson, Subban, Hedman, Letang, Josi, Pietrangelo, Karlsson, Faulk... How many of them were ever traded? Is there a single legitimate top-pairing D-man in the league who is under the age of 30 and not with same team that drafted them? Maybe Shattenkirk - and only because he was traded for another D-man thought to have even higher potential.

The only guys available for trade/signing are going to have holes in their personality/game, just like all the guys we currently have. And if they're half-decent at all, they're going to cost a boatload. We're better off biting the bullet and just drafting/developing our own.

Picking some defensemen in the first 2 rounds of the draft would help...which we haven't done since Yann Sauve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, D-Money said:

The real problem is we need a young D-man with potential to be elite. Look around at all of the truly elite defensemen in the league:

Doughty, Keith, Weber, Karlsson, Subban, Hedman, Letang, Josi, Pietrangelo, Karlsson, Faulk... How many of them were ever traded? Is there a single legitimate top-pairing D-man in the league who is under the age of 30 and not with same team that drafted them? Maybe Shattenkirk - and only because he was traded for another D-man thought to have even higher potential.

The only guys available for trade/signing are going to have holes in their personality/game, just like all the guys we currently have. And if they're half-decent at all, they're going to cost a boatload. We're better off biting the bullet and just drafting/developing our own.

Picking some defensemen in the first 2 rounds of the draft would help...which we haven't done since Yann Sauve.

Elite might be a stretch but we need someone to at least be very good. We need at least a young guy capable of playing top4 and occasional top 2 fill in. We've still got Tanev for a good while yet short of someone breaking him.

"Elite"would just be a bonus. And I agree, we can try to draft that guy now. He likely won't be playing for ~4 years at least though. We still need ANOTHER top 4 righty to play behind Tanev until then and possibly take over for Tanev on the first pair for a couple years until Mr. "2016 Elite" is ready to play top 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Tyson Barrie? His contract is expiring at the end of this year, and Colorado most likely won't be able to afford him. However, he is going into arbitration. 

 

Do we have to trade for him and then sign him, or can we just give him an offer?

 

I wouldn't mind giving him a 7-year deal at 6 million per year. That will take him until he's 31, which is pretty good. He might be interested in playing in Vancouver as he is from Victoria. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J.R. said:

Elite might be a stretch but we need someone to at least be very good. We need at least a young guy capable of playing top4 and occasional top 2 fill in. We've still got Tanev for a good while yet short of someone breaking him.

"Elite"would just be a bonus. And I agree, we can try to draft that guy now. He likely won't be playing for ~4 years at least though. We still need ANOTHER top 4 righty to play behind Tanev until then and possibly take over for Tanev on the first pair for a couple years until Mr. "2016 Elite" is ready to play top 4.

We have Hutton, who is fantastic, so there's 1.

Then there's Tryamkin, who is supposedly developing very well; so that could be 2.

Jordan Subban seems to be doing well in his rookie AHL season, so that could be 3. (If not him, then maybe someone else will surprise.)

The common theme? Draft your own. Not all will pan out, but if/when they do, they're like gold. And that's just with a 3rd rounders or higher - imagine if we were using 1sts and 2nds!

Let's say we miss the playoffs, and end up with a good D-man high in the draft (perhaps even winning the lottery?). Sprinkle in an astute free agent signing (like Zaitsev), and a good return from vets at the deadline (like Arizona getting Dahlbeck). In 2 years, we could have our coveted young D-core rolling along nicely.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, D-Money said:

We have Hutton, who is fantastic, so there's 1.

Then there's Tryamkin, who is supposedly developing very well; so that could be 2.

Jordan Subban seems to be doing well in his rookie AHL season, so that could be 3. (If not him, then maybe someone else will surprise.)

The common theme? Draft your own. Not all will pan out, but if/when they do, they're like gold. And that's just with a 3rd rounders or higher - imagine if we were using 1sts and 2nds!

Let's say we miss the playoffs, and end up with a good D-man high in the draft (perhaps even winning the lottery?). Sprinkle in an astute free agent signing (like Zaitsev), and a good return from vets at the deadline (like Arizona getting Dahlbeck). In 2 years, we could have our coveted young D-core rolling along nicely.

 

 

A lot of 'what if's' in that plan. Good management would generally dictate better planning than crossing your fingers and hoping IMO. But hey, maybe we'll fall right out of the standings, win the lotto and draft Chychrun this year :) 

Hutton looks like he'll be a solid 2nd pair, maybe #2/first pair guy. Likely be a good #2/#3.

Tryamkin looks promising but I wouldn't count on him being anything more than a 2nd or 3rd pairing guy...yet. Likey a ~#4 guy but who knows...

Subban has the potential to be a good, complimentary offensive #4 guy with the right partner but might only be a third pair ~#5 guy if he can't reach his ceiling. If he trails off and/or has trouble translating his game to the NHL,a Weber-grade #6/#7 guy or AHL guy. He's also our only real depth on the rights side on the somewhat immediate horizon. Yikes.

Pedan will probably be a good bottom pair guy capable of occasional 2nd pair fill in.

Forgive me if I'm not swooning over all that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, J.R. said:

The problem with that is that D-men tend to take 4+ years to develop to even bottom pairing/bottom 4 level. We lack at least one top 4 quality D NOW. Never mind 4 years from now or post-Hamhuis.

And while we certainly have some decent prospects on the left side with spare/bottom pair and maybe bottom 4 potential, we lack blue chip, top 4 and especially top 2 D save perhaps Hutton. And we have far, FAR less on the right side. 

We may very well be able to band-aid a top 4, right side guy in to keep us competitive but if the plan is to have us contending in a few years, we realistically needed to draft that guy already. 

Regardless of how it happens, a band-aid and trade later or a trade now, most likely it's going to require a trade at some point to get a right side D-man unless we get REALLY lucky along the way.

Cross your fingers?

It’s not about getting lucky it’s about filling the cupboards.  That’s exactly why myself and others have stated to sign/trade for a 3-4 year stop gap.  It doesn’t have to be a young upcoming top 2 potential guy that is going to cost us top assets to get.  Byfuglien would be ideal. 

That gives us 3-4 years to find out if our current picks (Subban, Tryamkin, Brisebois, Pedan) turn out.  Or time to draft and develop a top 4 defense.  Considering that we have 4 possibly 5 (torts) picks in the first 3 rounds this year (that’s without trading Hamhuis, Higgins, Vbrata) we could end up very strong in the D prospect pool by July, all while retain our current top prospect pool. 

We’re not a contending powerhouse this year, or next.  Our future core in 4 years will still be under 25 and not yet entering their prime. So Ideally, our timeline of drafting a player this year lines up perfect if we can find that stop gap.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, J.R. said:

A lot of 'what if's' in that plan. Good management would generally dictate better planning than crossing your fingers and hoping IMO. But hey, maybe we'll fall right out of the standings, win the lotto and draft Chychrun this year :) 

Hutton looks like he'll be a solid 2nd pair, maybe #2/first pair guy. Likely be a good #2/#3.

Tryamkin looks promising but I wouldn't count on him being anything more than a 2nd or 3rd pairing guy...yet. Likey a ~#4 guy but who knows...

Subban has the potential to be a good, complimentary offensive #4 guy with the right partner but might only be a third pair ~#5 guy if he can't reach his ceiling. If he trails off and/or has trouble translating his game to the NHL,a Weber-grade #6/#7 guy or AHL guy. He's also our only real depth on the rights side on the somewhat immediate horizon.

Pedan will probably be a good bottom pair guy capable of occasional 2nd pair fill in.

Forgive me if I'm not swooning over all that.


No, but have you swooned over Luca Sbisa, Keith Ballard, Lukas Krajicek, or Keith Carney? Because that's how we've generally done trading for top-4 (real/potential) D-men.

If you were an Avs fan, you may be swooning over giving up Shattenkirk and Stewart for Johnson, but for the wrong reasons. Or even worse, a Stars fan, thinking about James Neal and Matt Niskanen for Alex Goligoski. Perhaps sticking with what they had would have been the better move long-term?

The only time in the last dozen years we managed to strike gold on a D-man trade was Ehrhoff - and even then, what did we get? 2 years, -14 collectively when it mattered, then he was gone as a UFA, with little loyalty to the team that didn't draft him.

There are 'what ifs' in every plan, and we have more now on D because of not drafting/developing properly and trading away picks/youth for band-aids. More of the same will only get us more of the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, D-Money said:

There are 'what ifs' in every plan, and we have more now on D because of not drafting/developing properly and trading away picks/youth for band-aids. More of the same will only get us more of the same.

Yet the alternative seems to be simply a different brand of band aid...

57 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

That’s exactly why myself and others have stated to sign/trade for a 3-4 year stop gap.  It doesn’t have to be a young upcoming top 2 potential guy that is going to cost us top assets to get. 

And for the record, it's not 'more of the same'. We develop and draft better than before and we used to trade prospects/picks for vets. That's not what I'm remotely talking about. I'm suggesting that we trade from a position of strength/depth to help shore up a position of weakness. Youth for youth and possibly veterans (or assets acquired for them) for youth. Added that forwards, wingers in particular, are FAR easier to replace (trades/UFA's) and faster to develop (draft) than D men.

There's more than one way to skin a cat guys. And even if I could somehow gives the Canucks an ultimatum to trade for a young guy (I can't), doesn't mean they'll actually find a suitable dance partner. I'm merely stating that IMO it would be preferable to go that route and they'd be remiss if they weren't attempting to do as such.

A veteran stop gap like Buf should be very much plan B IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...