JM_ Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Yeah it would have to be an overpayment for us to move Hutton before TD. as I said before, Post playoffs there is a going to be a long list of teams trying to find expansion players in exchange for players they think they would be loosing. Hutton's value will only rise the closer we get to expansion draft? It could be better to wait, but you can't control the timing on the sellers side. If Landeskog or Nylander e.g., were available now for Hutton... hard to pass that up given our potential D depth and gaping holes in the forward group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 56 minutes ago, J.R. said: Doesn't make a lot of sense with the ED coming... finally, you and I see eye to eye on an ED thread. Trading a player protected from the ED for a fwd who would have to be protected means that you, for sure, are giving up a Baer/Granlund/Hansen to Vegas.......it's a completely lateral move and makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 48 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: The only D I would mind them trading at this point is Tryamkin. All our other D have someone on the team, or in the Canucks' system, who could replace them if need be. When it comes to Traymkin's size though: Agreed!! Trymakin is the last d on the NHL roster I would trade ATM. He and Stecher are found gold. Hutton only makes sense if a ED protected player comes back. If Hutton is moved, other moves are hopefully coming. If this is a last ditch effort to make the playoffs, fire the entire management team. I am not against trading Hutton, he has promise but we have a much better LHD waiting in the wings. We have the depth to trade a d man as long as it goes to address another weakness. Maybe as part of a package for a key player like JP, Reinhardt, Landeskog etc... That being said, unless a sweet offer is coming in for Hutton, there is no reason to move him before any of the ED eligible d men. EW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscience Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 57 minutes ago, J.R. said: Doesn't make a lot of sense with the ED coming... This, hutton doesn't need protection, if they want to move a d it should be one of the top 4 guys that need protection. And hopefully the player coming back wouldn't need protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Just now, smokes said: Hutton for Nylander maybe? Still cant see Toronto parting with Nylander unless getting a D with top pair potential in return. That aint Ben Hutton. I was thinking of players along the lines of Oliver Bjorkstrand, Jakub Vrana, Adam Erne, Nick Schmaltz, Jake Guentzel, Pavel Buchnevich, Matt Barzal, Evgeny Svechnikov, Denis Gurianov... Theres a few others, but Id think the value is moreso at 2nd line scorer rather than the top line potential Nylander has shown imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 minute ago, stawns said: finally, you and I see eye to eye on an ED thread. Trading a player protected from the ED for a fwd who would have to be protected means that you, for sure, are giving up a Baer/Granlund/Hansen to Vegas.......it's a completely lateral move and makes no sense to me. Unless Jim has already made a deal with Vegas for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowYaDrouin Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Everytime the Canucks trade a player under the age of 25 they should offer a free new jersey if you have that players number and name on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Probably easiest of our D to trade. I really wish it was Edler though. My D ranking on the current roster: Untouchable : Tryamkin Tanev Stecher Hutton Gudbranson Sbisa Edler So Edler and Sbisa I would move, Tryamkin is untouchable and Tanev/Stecher I'd be reluctant to move. Hutton lies somewhere in the middle, I like the kid but I don't see him fetching a top 6 forward on his own. And by top six forward I mean a top 6 forward on a playoff team, not a craptastic team like ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'd rather try and move Edler, regardless of the return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, KKnight said: Edler-Stecher Tryamkin-Tanev Juolevi-Gudbranson Its hard to tell Sbisa could be picked up in expansion or Tanev could be traded. I don't think they plan on losing Sbisa personally. Especially if we do move Hutton. And Juolevi is almost certainly back in London next year. 13 minutes ago, stawns said: Trading a player protected from the ED for a fwd who would have to be protected means that you, for sure, are giving up a Baer/Granlund/Hansen to Vegas.......it's a completely lateral move and makes no sense to me. 12 minutes ago, Conscience said: This, hutton doesn't need protection, if they want to move a d it should be one of the top 4 guys that need protection. And hopefully the player coming back wouldn't need protection. 13 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said: Hutton only makes sense if a ED protected player comes back. Well it could somewhat work (as Forsberg pointed out) if we move 2 for 1 on a forward upgrade. Hutton + Baer for Landy could work as we'd simply have a better quality forward to protect in Baer's place. Still not sure I'd do it now though. And we'd have to have an agreement with LAV for a pick or something that they not take Sbisa/Granlund/Hansen short of other moves to cover those issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Just now, Lockhart said: I'd rather try and move Edler, regardless of the return. Edler for future considerations? I'm sure most teams would jump at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Maybe they're protecting Sbisa, while trying to bring in a forward? Sbisa brings a physicality that Hutton doesn't. Edler - Tanev Sbisa - Gudbranson Tryamkin - Stecher I wonder if a Hutton + (Hansen?) for Drouin is a possibility. Y'know, both Hutton and Drouin are #27, so it makes sense they would trade jerseys (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 36 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Landeskog by far...Our LW depth is weak. At least down the middle we have Horvat. Duchene would make sense here in a few years but right now it would be a log jam between Hank, Sutter and Bo. All players that are capable playing top 6 middle. But the real question would be, why make this move now? Canucks aren't going to make playoffs, we don't need the help today and Hutton isn't ED expendable. So why not wait until we know what spot we are picking in june draft. IF we happen to win and get a 1st (Patrick) or 2nd overall (Hischer), then there's even less need for a player like Duchene Yea I've started to lean towards Landeskog too. His qualities are what Benning is looking for and he'd be quite a bit cheaper than Duchene. Think a package involving Hutton+Granlund would get them interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Just now, HerrDrFunk said: Edler for future considerations? I'm sure most teams would jump at that. I was thinking something along the lines of Edler for a top prospect or 1st and taking back a bad contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Just now, Lockhart said: I was thinking something along the lines of Edler for a top prospect or 1st and taking back a bad contract. Ah, the "regardless of the return" part threw me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 A trade for Hutton has to involve an entry draft exempt forward coming the other way. Can't trade Hutton for a top 6 guy that we have to protect, would end up giving more than just Hutton away in that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, 70seven said: Still cant see Toronto parting with Nylander unless getting a D with top pair potential in return. That aint Ben Hutton. I was thinking of players along the lines of Oliver Bjorkstrand, Jakub Vrana, Adam Erne, Nick Schmaltz, Jake Guentzel, Pavel Buchnevich, Matt Barzal, Evgeny Svechnikov, Denis Gurianov... Theres a few others, but Id think the value is moreso at 2nd line scorer rather than the top line potential Nylander has shown imo. Barzal is one player I would trade Hutton for. A bit of a gamble, but he could be our second top six center to counter Bo. I think Nylander for Hutton is appropriate with a small ad. IMO Nylander is an improved version of Baer with less two way game and more offence. He still needs to have another season or two with steady production to be a true top 3 talent. He could easily regress. With our roster, as much as I have dissed Joffery, he could do well. If anything it would end the whole 'should have drafted Nylanderz' crap and that would be wonderful. Tanev would likely be the ask... Trade Tanev for Nylander and a pick (3rd) and Hutton for Barzal. Move Hansen and Burrows for picks. Next few years... Nylander Bo Boeser Baer Barzal Virtannen Granlund Gaunce Sutter Edler Stecher Trymakin Guddy Sbisa McEnemy Juolevi Not too bad. Plus a higher 1st in this draft as we decline due to losing Tanev. I would do that. But I also see double rainbows across the sky... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, J.R. said: Still not sure I'd do it now though. And we'd have to have an agreement with LAV for a pick or something that they not take Sbisa/Granlund/Hansen short of other moves to cover those issues. You may have to. Really good "hockey deals" are rare and if someone's selling it may force you to do something a year early, but then you're starting to really build something around Horvat. As far as timing goes, I'd rather have a guy a year early vs. not getting them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: You may have to. Really good "hockey deals" are rare and if someone's selling it may force you to do something a year early, but then you're starting to really build something around Horvat. As far as timing goes, I'd rather have a guy a year early vs. not getting them at all. That's the only reason I could see something like this happening before the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Barzal Keller Brown Puljujarvi Connor Rubtsov Strome White Eriksson-Ek Jost Dubois Nylander Among others.... in no particular order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.