[Discussion/Proposal] Trading Assets

[J.I.A.H.N]

Been thinking about this awhile and have some thoughts about our vets.................first off, over the last year, I have been convinced by others we just can't trade all of our vets. As much as I would like to, those that think we would loose our character and leaving nothing for younger players to emulate, are probably right.

So, really it is a question, about which vets give the best return, while leaving a vet that can fill in behind, so as not to have that leadership void behind.

My list of vets I would trade has changed some what over the first quarter of the year.................

List of vets considered tradable.....Miller (34)Hamhuis(32) Edler(29) Vrbata(34) Burrows(34)Higgins(32)Hansen(29)Prust(31)

Players I would move at the trade deadline would be Hamhuis, Vrbata, Higgins, and Hansen

My belief is that they will bring us the best return, for the smallest pain, and will be the easiest to replace internally, or through Free Agency

I would package these players for the highest return, and in the case of Hamhuis and Vrbata, would hold short term cap, if it was a deal breaker.

My expected return would be 1st, plus a prospect, 2-2nds,

My suggested trades would be    #1.Hamhuis,Hansen and Mtl 2nd to Winnipeg for Morrisey and 2016-1st

                                                     #2. Vrbata and Higgins to Montreal for Minni 2nd and Montreal's 2nd

Now before you get all over me on the Winnipeg trade, I am giving Hansen the benefit of the doubt for the rest of the season, and giving him higher value than I would ordinarily do....but he has always been a versatile player, who has been able to go up and down the line-up, and is having a career start to the season. (This is why Winnipeg wants him, and this is why we sell him)

My other reason for thinking Winnipeg would go for this is their, free agency position at the end of the  year, and that they may want to take one last kick at the cat, before loosing Buff and Ladd....

In Montreal's case we may have to pay some of Higgins cap next year, but I think it would be worth it......

I am sure, there are other better idea's out there, but really think that putting Hansen into the discussion and doing bundle packages, might get us higher returns.........if not the trades, what about the packaging of players for better returns?

There will be other teams that may need these players as well.....Ottawa comes to mind

[Pears]

Edler, Miller and Hansen should NOT be considered tradeable for the following reasons:

1) There aren't many teams that need a goalie right now so it wouldn't make much sense to move Miller

2) Hansen has arguably been our best player behind the Sedins and Miller, why would we trade him?

3) Edler should also not be traded unless Benning gets a ridiculous offer or an upgrade. 

[Canucks Prophet]

I would rather keep Hansen, for another year at least. With his salary (2.5 mill), he's been excellent for us. If he can keep the Sedins playing at a high level, he should stay. 

[qwijibo]

Montreal doesn't even have the cap spave to take on Vrbata, let alone Vrbata and Higgins, also, why does Montreal need Higgins?

[Canuck Surfer]

I'd like to think Vrbata is worth more, but you may be on track value wise.  But I don't think (reasonably certain) they can fit both players cap wise.  Maybe Vrbata for a first, we include a counter balance maybe a 5th + Jensen? Or a 4th...

Hamhuis is worth a fair bit. He would be the single best LHD available at the deadline.  Goligoski and Coburn would be close to comparable but I do not see them being traded by quote / unquote contenders.

I don't advocate trading Hansen. He works his arse off and his speed remains a highly viable match up problem for other teams. Even when he is not with the Twins he makes us significantly more competitive. Nor do I see Hansen stealing a roster spot at 2RW from Ehlers. 

My guess is Morrisey, their GM is a stooge, will not be available.  I would take Armia. I would consider packages of Poolman or Kostalek and a 2knd. They can also use Hammer. He's better than Stuart, more useful than Enstrom & much better than Chiarot and Pardy. Their left side NEEDS a boost imo. But we honestly can probably get more? The best two way LHD, bar none that will be available at the deadline as a rental??? 

Washington, Dallas and the Isle may be our best targets?

edit spelling

[J.I.A.H.N]

Pears and CP..............I get you about Hansen, and that is the exact reason why we trade him now......his value has never been higher.....is it high enough is my question.......

We have recently seemed to want to hold guys that extra year, and then the rath of the Canuck gods come and either the player gets hurt, or his play diminishes, or the market dries up.......Hansen is having a good year, yes! But if the Sedins were no here, whether or not he plays with them......I suspect his value will be less......

I don't have a problem with your reluctance....but it seems we have always been afraid of just that.......it is not like Hansen has just come out of his shell....pretty much the same player for the last 6 years, just putting a few more in this year.......in saying that, I have always had a positive feeling for how Hansen plays.....I just think now is the time!

[Canuck Surfer]

2 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Pears and CP..............I get you about Hansen, and that is the exact reason why we trade him now......his value has never been higher.....is it high enough is my question.......

We have recently seemed to want to hold guys that extra year, and then the rath of the Canuck gods come and either the player gets hurt, or his play diminishes, or the market dries up.......Hansen is having a good year, yes! But if the Sedins were no here, whether or not he plays with them......I suspect his value will be less......

I don't have a problem with your reluctance....but it seems we have always been afraid of just that.......it is not like Hansen has just come out of his shell....pretty much the same player for the last 6 years, just putting a few more in this year.......in saying that, I have always had a positive feeling for how Hansen plays.....I just think now is the time!

Get a good young RW in a trade, say Armia, maybe its easier to let him go?

My logic has always been to force our young guys to steal a spot from a vet. If we trade Vrbata and Hansen, do we go with a RW depth chart of Virtanen, Burrows Dorsett, Grenier?  I'm not sure that spot has been won yet. Or that advances our cause? We'll get as much or more for Vrbata, plus have his cap to spend in the off season. I'm happy with Vrbata and letting Hansen stay a Canuck.

[coastal.view]

32 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Been thinking about this awhile and have some thoughts about our vets.................first off, over the last year, I have been convinced by others we just can't trade all of our vets. As much as I would like to, those that think we would loose our character and leaving nothing for younger players to emulate, are probably right.

So, really it is a question, about which vets give the best return, while leaving a vet that can fill in behind, so as not to have that leadership void behind.

My list of vets I would trade has changed some what over the first quarter of the year.................

List of vets considered tradable.....Miller (34)Hamhuis(32) Edler(29) Vrbata(34) Burrows(34)Higgins(32)Hansen(29)Prust(31)

Players I would move at the trade deadline would be Hamhuis, Vrbata, Higgins, and Hansen

My belief is that they will bring us the best return, for the smallest pain, and will be the easiest to replace internally, or through Free Agency

I would package these players for the highest return, and in the case of Hamhuis and Vrbata, would hold short term cap, if it was a deal breaker.

My expected return would be 1st, plus a prospect, 2-2nds,

My suggested trades would be    #1.Hamhuis,Hansen and Mtl 2nd to Winnipeg for Morrisey and 2016-1st

                                                     #2. Vrbata and Higgins to Montreal for Minni 2nd and Montreal's 2nd

Now before you get all over me on the Winnipeg trade, I am giving Hansen the benefit of the doubt for the rest of the season, and giving him higher value than I would ordinarily do....but he has always been a versatile player, who has been able to go up and down the line-up, and is having a career start to the season. (This is why Winnipeg wants him, and this is why we sell him)

My other reason for thinking Winnipeg would go for this is their, free agency position at the end of the  year, and that they may want to take one last kick at the cat, before loosing Buff and Ladd....

In Montreal's case we may have to pay some of Higgins cap next year, but I think it would be worth it......

I am sure, there are other better idea's out there, but really think that putting Hansen into the discussion and doing bundle packages, might get us higher returns.........if not the trades, what about the packaging of players for better returns?

There will be other teams that may need these players as well.....Ottawa comes to mind

mmmm you state that you think others are right when it comes to trading vets

and then you go ahead and propose trading vets anyway

this team as currently structured cannot afford to lose any more vets . or it is tank mode and a full rebuild

the team presently has a great deal of difficulty winning one goal games and holding onto leads

if anything, adding a quality vet might be what this team needs if it hopes to make the playoffs

[J.I.A.H.N]

8 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

mmmm you state that you think others are right when it comes to trading vets

and then you go ahead and propose trading vets anyway

this team as currently structured cannot afford to lose any more vets . or it is tank mode and a full rebuild

the team presently has a great deal of difficulty winning one goal games and holding onto leads

if anything, adding a quality vet might be what this team needs if it hopes to make the playoffs

No Coastal....that is not exactly what I said......I said " I am convinced, not to trade all of our "vet's" the operative word being "all".....

And although there has always been an argument that if we trade vets, we will be purposefully tanking....                                     where I call it "Asset Management"....... I have never been shy of advocating......that is exactly what we should do.........and that is what I think......trade vets.....for assets.....drop in standings.......pull in greater assets.......lower our cap.......buy several high end UFA's.....develop our prospects........and move on from being a middle of the pack, also ran.....one that has absolutely no chance of winning the Stanley Cup

I don't know why anyone on CDC would have a problem of that unless one honestly thinks the personnel and prospect we currently have can win the cup.......I do not think that........with some "asset Management", luck and 3 to 5 years, and I believe we can do just that.......

Nothing is easy.....but that is what I believe!

[Pears]

47 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Pears and CP..............I get you about Hansen, and that is the exact reason why we trade him now......his value has never been higher.....is it high enough is my question.......

Again, what sense does that make? How often do teams trade key role players when they're on fire? Hansen should not be traded and it would make 0 sense to do so. 

[Green Goblin]

No freaking way. We've always known that Hansen is a late-boomer. He can only get better and is a huge bargain at his salary. The only trade-able players on the team are Vrbata and Hamhuis. And maybe Prust, but he is an asset so far this year and would be better to trade him at the deadline. The rest have NTCs or are still under contract after July 1st. Unless there's a deal where we can significantly upgrade our team right now. And if we did trade Hansen, aside from Burrows, we don't have any other wingers who are versatile enough to play anywhere in the line-up. 

I don't like your proposals as they were hard to keep track of because you didn't include the salaries involved and how they would affect each respective team's cap. I guess you assumed it would all fit. And obviously WPG wouldn't trade Morrisey considering their cap situation as he would be a cheaper replacement.

BUT if we can trade our vets for 1st rounders straight up. Then I'd do it. Depending on other team's needs, these are about the same price as last year's rental prices. 

Vrbata for 1st

Hamhuis for 1st

Miller for 1st, goalie prospect

Edler for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, top 4 D prospect

Hansen for 1st

Burrows for 1st, 2nd

Prust for 2nd, 3rd

Higgins for 2nd

They are all high quality players who would all be helpful for a team poised for a Cup run.

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 minute ago, Pears said:

Again, what sense does that make? How often do teams trade key role players when they're on fire? Hansen should not be traded and it would make 0 sense to do so. 

I guess if you think Hansen will be a 50 point man for the next 3 to 5 years....you keep him

To me his value is high at this very moment....but it will not remain there long

And the reason you sell high now, is for that very reason...........

[Noble 6]

The only one we should be making available is Vrbata. Hamhuis and Higgins should be "softly in play," but only for the right price.

 

I've said it before, but if Dallas thinks they can make a run this year, we could potentially be the perfect trading partner. I wouldn't mind packaging Hamhuis and Vrbata, but only for the right return. We could do something like this:

 

To DAL:

Hamhuis (50% retained)

Vrbata (50% retained)

Higgins

3rd Round Pick

 

To VAN:

Honka

Moen (cap balancer)

Hemsky (cap balancer)

1st Round Pick 2016

 

I'm not sure if the numbers are perfect, but they should be close. The 1st might be a 2nd depending on how much value Vrbata and Hamhuis have. The only way I would package Vrbata and Hamhuis together is for a top D prospect, like Honka. If we could pry away Honka (or a player of Honka's caliber) away from a contender by packaging Vrbata and Hamhuis, then go for it. However, the more likely scenario would be this:

 

To NSH:

Vrbata

 

To VAN:

1st

 

Not necessarily Nashville, just a team that can give up a 1st for him. That is probably the only trade, if there is one at all, we will see at this year's deadline.

[bigbadcanucks]

28 minutes ago, Green Goblin said:

No freaking way. We've always known that Hansen is a late-boomer. He can only get better and is a huge bargain at his salary. The only trade-able players on the team are Vrbata and Hamhuis. And maybe Prust, but he is an asset so far this year and would be better to trade him at the deadline. The rest have NTCs or are still under contract after July 1st. Unless there's a deal where we can significantly upgrade our team right now. And if we did trade Hansen, aside from Burrows, we don't have any other wingers who are versatile enough to play anywhere in the line-up. 

I don't like your proposals as they were hard to keep track of because you didn't include the salaries involved and how they would affect each respective team's cap. I guess you assumed it would all fit. And obviously WPG wouldn't trade Morrisey considering their cap situation as he would be a cheaper replacement.

BUT if we can trade our vets for 1st rounders straight up. Then I'd do it. Depending on other team's needs, these are about the same price as last year's rental prices. 

Vrbata for 1st

Hamhuis for 1st

Miller for 1st, goalie prospect

Edler for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, top 4 D prospect

Hansen for 1st

Burrows for 1st, 2nd

Prust for 2nd, 3rd

Higgins for 2nd

They are all high quality players who would all be helpful for a team poised for a Cup run.

 

If you can pull off two of the list you provided, they should build you a shrine.  I'll mix the cement.

Maybe I'm undervaluing the current Canucks players, but IMO, Vrbata, Hamhuis, Miller each bring back a second if they waive their NTC/modified NTC; Edler gets you a first only; Hansen, Burrows, Prust a third each; and Higgins - no one apparently wanted him in a trade before, so why would anyone want to give anything up but a 5th for him? 

The only thing that may allow for any thing more is that all rationality is lost during trade deadline.  Lets face it, our vets are good guys in the room and during practice.  But come game time, their not even close to what they once were.  I have a feeling that most NHL GMs feel that way about the Canucks' vets not named Sedin.

[J.I.A.H.N]

The question is really....what are we doing?

Do you see us as a team with enough prospect talent to develop and contend for the cup

or

Do you see us gathering prospect talent for a team that contends in 5 or 6 years

I see us collecting prospects and trying to develop them..............for down the road........

I just don't see us with enough right now to do it properly.......

I think the people who say we don't have enough talent to sell off all the vets are right...because we don't have the numbers.....but if we could...the next few years are invaluable..........we are going to be young either way in a couple of years.......lets just do it while our vets have value.......

[Crabcakes]

40 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

The question is really....what are we doing?

[A] Do you see us as a team with enough prospect talent to develop and contend for the cup

or

(B) Do you see us gathering prospect talent for a team that contends in 5 or 6 years

I see us collecting prospects and trying to develop them..............for down the road........

I just don't see us with enough right now to do it properly.......

I think the people who say we don't have enough talent to sell off all the vets are right...because we don't have the numbers.....but if we could...the next few years are invaluable..........we are going to be young either way in a couple of years.......lets just do it while our vets have value.......

Obviously it's option B.  This is the Detroit model in it's simplest terms.

Benning said that they had a good draft in the Horvat year with 2 firsts and he was happy with the 2 years that he has drafted.  I think that it really takes 5 drafts to build a good prospect pool.  This, together with adding a few prospects who are 23 and under will put the Canucks in a good position prospect depth wise in a couple of more years. 

What happens then?  Continue to draft and develop.  The more time that goes by and the deeper the prospect pool gets, the less pressure there will be to bring players like Horvat, McCann and Virtanen in to play as teenagers and the more the system will look like what Detroit has now.

Obviously, we will start to see the play of some of the veterans fall off before young prospects are ready to take their places.  So I think we will see a few players in their mid 20's brought in to act as bridge players between the old core and the new core.  Examples are Sutter, Prust, Dorsett, Bartkowski, Sbisa.  These may be free agent signings if there is cap space available (see below).

The other question is how will they find somebody to replace the top 6 forwards and top 4 D?  This is where we may see some of the vets (UFA's) moved for picks and picks packaged together to move up in the draft (much like Sweeney attempted in Boston last draft).

[Green Goblin]

1 hour ago, bigbadcanucks said:

If you can pull off two of the list you provided, they should build you a shrine.  I'll mix the cement.

Maybe I'm undervaluing the current Canucks players, but IMO, Vrbata, Hamhuis, Miller each bring back a second if they waive their NTC/modified NTC; Edler gets you a first only; Hansen, Burrows, Prust a third each; and Higgins - no one apparently wanted him in a trade before, so why would anyone want to give anything up but a 5th for him? 

The only thing that may allow for any thing more is that all rationality is lost during trade deadline.  Lets face it, our vets are good guys in the room and during practice.  But come game time, their not even close to what they once were.  I have a feeling that most NHL GMs feel that way about the Canucks' vets not named Sedin.

That's easy. If we're not in a playoff spot, Vrbata and Hamhuis. Both UFAs and without a doubt highly coveted for their experience. The younger teams who lack veteran presence like WPG, OTT, TB, and MTL.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Green Goblin said:

That's easy. If we're not in a playoff spot, Vrbata and Hamhuis. Both UFAs and without a doubt highly coveted for their experience. The younger teams who lack veteran presence like WPG, OTT, TB, and MTL.

What can we expect in return (realistically) for those two at the TDL?  I'm hoping for A LOT!

[Crabcakes]

I think that if you look at all of the players who have contracts that are not expiring at the end of this season, you can see who Benning wants to keep for sure. 

The rest are options for him to move.  We know that GM's don't like to acquire players with contract baggage (especially NTC's).  I'm not saying that he will move these guys just that he can.  Here is the list:  Vrbata, Prust, Baertschi, Cracknell, Hamhuis, Bartkowski, Weber, Vey.

But really, more to your original post, character veterans who provide the identity of the team and who will benefit the development of young players will be sticking around.  The Sedins, Burrows, Dorsett, Hansen, Sutter....Hamhuis and Prust could also be on this list.  A year ago, I would have included Bieksa so it could be that Benning also weighs whether he still thinks that a player can play at a higher level than other players in the system.  Hamhuis could be moved then but only if there is a top 4 replacement for him.

[canuktravella]

im thinking we hold on to hansen hes on pace  for 70 points only making 2.5 mill a yr  only way i trade him at deadline would be if jets offer a 1st and morrisey and a decent forward prospect    teams would have to over pay for him.

hamhuis could get us a 2nd rounder and a 3rd 

vrbata a first and a b prospect

higgins a 3rd

prust a 2nd  

vey a 5th

jensen a 4th

weber waive him

 plenty of cap space next yr for upgrading on right side of d corps  on freeagency 

plus benning can find a bunch of gems at draft