Beary Sweet Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 i'd take a flyer on him and sign him for cheap. knowing Benning though he's going to grossly over pay him. if we sign him for cheap, i wouldn't mind taking a gamble on the kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 i don't know how he's any better than what we already have in our top 9. Daniel, Henrik, Goldobin, Boeser, Horvat, Granlund, Sutter, Beartschi, Eriksson.... unless one of them is going to be traded. He seems to get most of his goals on the PP and a couple of tap ins not so much during 5v5 play... i dunno about this, i don't like the idea of getting another undersized forward to add to our already small forward group... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyLow_ Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Yes, small players that don't put up enough points are something we don't have enough of.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said: Expose Sutter, sign Spooner. I'd be for it as it seems Spooner can actually pass the puck properly and is 3 years younger. He'd also come a hell of a lot cheaper than Sutter. So, perhaps apart from salary cap requirements, why would Las Vegas claim Sutter over Spooner? 3 hours ago, oldnews said: What a horrible idea. Who needs Sutter's elite faceoff, penalty killing - matchup abilities when we can plug in Spooner's 39%, make our third line really easy to play against, and put more shutdown weight back on the shoulders of Horvat. Well, that might be why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny in Vancouver Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Alflives said: If JB makes this kind of trade, for another middle aged guy, doesn't that kind of show we are not rebuilding, but (instead) going back to that retooling plan? Not unless JB's planning on tanking by getting a worse player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynwa Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Mediocre with size—hey maybe. Mediocre and small—why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Weird one. I don't really see a fit, but I'm curious as to how this plays out. If we trade for him, then we have to protect him, if we tender an offersheet, then we lose picks... only way this doesn't suck if it's a one for one after the expansion draft. At that point, we'd give up a prospect or D, not comfortable with either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 No more Boston trash please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Could see the Canucks showing interest but I can't see how it would be good for them to give up any significant assets to get him. Saw suggestions that he could replace Sutter at 3C. As far as I know, he's not a strong faceoff man so not sure how that helps the Canucks. I guess I could still see that happening if the Canucks plan on exposing (and losing) Sutter in the Expansion Draft, but in that case it seems like it would be less costly to just lose Sutter and retain assets (without trading for Spooner). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RakuRaku Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 We still need Sutter as our strong 3C.... if Spooner was much bigger and tougher, then go for it.... but he just seems like a more productive version of Boucher, nothing more.... and we already have Boeser, Baer, Granlund, Dahlen..... we desperately need more size and grit with decent skill too....like a young Jeff Carter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Why..... the.... hell.....are stupid ideas like this still floating around. Trev FIRE JB if he tries to overpay another ex-Bruin that we don't need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, EternalCanuckFan said: Could see the Canucks showing interest but I can't see how it would be good for them to give up any significant assets to get him. Saw suggestions that he could replace Sutter at 3C. As far as I know, he's not a strong faceoff man so not sure how that helps the Canucks. I guess I could still see that happening if the Canucks plan on exposing (and losing) Sutter in the Expansion Draft, but in that case it seems like it would be less costly to just lose Sutter and retain assets (without trading for Spooner). Sutter isn't tradable?I've forgotten his contract details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 nvm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickels Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Should be perfect acquisition to ensure we stay in perpetual mediocrity for ....well basically ever, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Jays_Canucks Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 He must be a big fan of cuddling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, terrible.dee said: Sutter isn't tradable?I've forgotten his contract details Sorry, didn't mean to imply that Sutter isn't tradeable. I suppose if the Canucks wanted to deal him, they could. His contract is bad in the sense that his production doesn't necessarily justify his pay, but he does seem to have a reputation as a solid defensive center. I just wasn't thinking of a Sutter for Spooner deal. Still not sure how the Canucks would line-up in that case, though Gaunce could possibly shift back to center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 8 hours ago, Warhippy said: Damn that's vicious but could work Think we could capably get a decent return on Sutter though instead of losing him for nothing At this point,. "Show me the money" looks like a good return for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messier's_elbow Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 8 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said: Doesn't play to his offensive potential and doesn't like to get physical? Hardddddd passssss. This has the same smell to it that the Erickson signing had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 I get it now. There have been a bunch of these "outrage" rumors lately (Sutter for coach ect,) They are designed to make Canuck fans freak out, somebody is sitting back and having a good laugh at us, Spooner isn't coming here, don't worry about it, just like Sutter isn't the coach I'm going to be a little more discerning in regards to which rumors I even entertain as possible, You want me to be a dancing monkey? Your going to have to let me keep the quarters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrek Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Swapping Sutter for Spooner is one of the dumber ideas I've seen on CDC. If the choice is between Sutter and Spooner I'm taking Sutter every time. That being said if he's super cheap (like in the $2m range contract wise) and we can give up one of our B prospects to get him I'd do it. 30-40 points for that kind of money is a steal for that production level, though we'd have to convert him to wing or throw him on the 4th line as a center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.f351d0829e1fa642c2ffece938019cb3.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.