[Discussion] Are you ok with trading veterans for picks?

[Phat Fingers]

9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I am just interested what veterans you would be ok trading from the start of the season to the TDL..........and we will not be trading the Sedin's.............and let's not argue about NTC's as we do know they are movable with consent of the player...............We will not trade everyone, but we "could" trade a few if the return is good. I just simply want to know which ones you would most be able to live without.......if you would like to put their values up, hey that's great, it is just for debate.........discussion!

 

Sutter...................................2nd + 3rd

Vanek...................................3rd

Gagner.................................2nd at the TDL

Burmistrov............................4th rounder

Baertschi..............................1-2nd + 1-3rd

Eder......................................late first at the TDL 0r 2-seconds

Del Zotto...............................3rd rounder

Dorsett..................................4th rounder

 

For sanity reasons, I will leave Tanev out of this one. and Eriksson won't be going anywhere $$$$

 

Heh, thanks!

 

I would trade any of them for the record! Am I high or low?

 

 

                                                   

 

Sure. At the TDL I would be happy to move some guys.  Just not for other aging players.  

[Ghostsof1915]

Trading for the sake of trading is not good. As I've said before, you can trade pretty much anyone for a 7th round pick. Getting value is the trick.

If Jim does what he did at the last deadline, yes. 

[PlanB]

8 hours ago, Aircool said:

I don't think that's been proven whatsoever. In fact, culture is a completely BS concept in my opinion. People just use culture to describe hard working teams that have success. Those teams might be "perceived" to be lesser talented. But the game isn't played on scoresheets and the best players aren't always the ones who put up the most points (see Patrice Bergeron). If culture was a real thing, one should be able to name a Bottom-5 team in the league in the last 2-3 years that had good "culture". Unless the claim is that "culture" is worth so many points in the standings that it's not even possible to be that low in the standings. Then I call double BS, because talent is the most important thing.

 

 

If you look at all the teams that had playoff success this last year, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Nashville, Anaheim, even Edmonton, these are teams with Elite players. Every last one of them, none of those teams have only average-ish players or really any bad players, they're laden with stars and strong supporting players. Culture can lose you games, I believe that's true. Can't see how it wins you any though. If you or I had the best mentality of any athlete in the world, we still wouldn't be able to compete with any NHL players period. This is extremely obvious, but if "culture" was a real thing, surely we'd be able to separate it from talent. Yet I can't think of any example of bad teams winning.

 

Every GM/coach in the league talks about culture or inferences it in some way - accept it, it's a thing.  If you accept culture can lose games then you must accept that it can win games also. 

 

CBJ is a perfect example of a place where culture is being built without any elite/generational talent - yes they have a couple very good players but no one could argue they have generational talent on the team.  DAL would be an example of the opposite - with their talent - goaltending notwithstanding - they should not have missed the playoffs and were trending down as far as team culture went.   

 

Culture in team sports - it's a 'thing'.

[kloubek]

I'm all for getting rid of vets now in exchange for picks so that when our current players have developed and we are a good team again that the cupboards remain full to continue to have guys coming through the pipeline.

 

On the other hand, being that a bottom feeding team is hardly guaranteed the highest lottery picks now,. I don't really want to sit though too many more years of watching crappy hockey either.  I'm with Benning in the fact that we want to keep the team competitive as well.  So what it comes down to is that players who are UFA at the end of the year are 100% expendable.  There are also some veterans on the team that are declining or overpaid that I would have no issues with trading away for picks.

 

Sutter...................................2nd + 3rd - But we would need a replacement.  Right now, he is extremely solid for a 3rd center role.

Vanek...................................3rd.  Unless he produces well and we can re-sign him again for the same discount price.

Gagner.................................If he can replicate last season, I wouldn't want to trade him.  We need that extra veteran scoring - especially after Sedins retire.  He's a good deal if he can produce.

Baertschi..............................late first.  I think he has proven he is MINIMUM a solid 2nd liner.  That ought to be worth a late first imo.  The only reason I'd be willing to get rid of him is because I just don't see his ceiling being the elite 1st liner we need.

Eder......................................late first at the TDL 0r 2-seconds.  I like Edler but we are best of getting value for him while some still exists.

Dorsett..................................3rd.  With this said, he is out most gritty player on a soft team so I'd want to make sure that can be replaced.

[JM_]

12 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

 

I agree.....I do wonder if some of these teams will just wait and take our guys off the waver wire........I still think we are in good position, but I would think who ever we put on wavers gets looked at closely by the other teams.....which is probably why our rookies are sent down.......until the injuries show up!

we will lose someone to waivers this year, or at least have to expose some guys, and thats actually a good thing in our case this year. The most likely guys imo are Megna, Chaput and Boucher, and on D Pedan. I like Pedan but we've got too much L side D so he's the most likely to get picked but even then I bet he clears. Boucher had a lot of interest last year because of that great shot but he's also going to have to get into much better condition to win a spot here or anywhere else. 

[VegasCanuck]

13 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I am just interested what veterans you would be ok trading from the start of the season to the TDL..........and we will not be trading the Sedin's.............and let's not argue about NTC's as we do know they are movable with consent of the player...............We will not trade everyone, but we "could" trade a few if the return is good. I just simply want to know which ones you would most be able to live without.......if you would like to put their values up, hey that's great, it is just for debate.........discussion!

 

Sutter...................................2nd + 3rd

Vanek...................................3rd

Gagner.................................2nd at the TDL

Burmistrov............................4th rounder

Baertschi..............................1-2nd + 1-3rd

Eder......................................late first at the TDL 0r 2-seconds

Del Zotto...............................3rd rounder

Dorsett..................................4th rounder

 

For sanity reasons, I will leave Tanev out of this one. and Eriksson won't be going anywhere $$$$

 

Heh, thanks!

 

I would trade any of them for the record! Am I high or low?

 

 

                                                   

 

Unless there is a substantial problem with their play, you don't sign these guys, just to turn around and trade them. They are here to bring stability and depth to the group while we bring youth into the system. We are not a playoff team in this conference in my opinion. I may be wrong on that, but I don't think we are far enough along in development to make it into the playoffs. So, here's how I see it playing out over the course of the year, into the trade deadline in March;

 

Sutter: Not going anywhere unless someone gives us a really strong offer

Vanek: I think his contract was strategic on both parts. Brings him into the league on a contract that would be really attractive to playoff teams at the deadline. Most teams could pick that up, prorated without too much shuffling. There wasn't really any teams with real chances of the cup, who had the space to pick him up right now, good strategic move for him as well, not to price himself out of a possible run at the cup.

Gagner: Won't be moved until trade deadline, 2 years from now. He was brought in for at least 2 years depth unless there's a significant disconnect in how he meshes with the team.

Burmistrov: If he can't make it here, he has no trade value. Will either be assigned to Utica to free up cap space, or will be picked up by another team on waivers.

Baertschi: He is the one player I could see being moved as I think we have a number of players who have similar skill sets. I see him as a bit of a bubble player for the team as he sometimes lets himself be more of a perimeter type player, that I don't think Green will tolerate. Needs to have a strong camp and reassert his status as top 9.

Edler: He will be looked to as a stabilizing force on the blueline for another season. I could see them approaching him about waiving, trade deadline March 2019, but he's here until then at least. If they decide to move him, there will be a LOT of teams with interest.

Del Zotto: Bridge and depth player, is here to take stress off players like Juolevi, who I believe has a real chance of making the team. Our blue line gets beat up every year, I think if Juolevi proves that he's physically ready, he'll be giving the chance to be a part of the 3rd pairing with some nights off for reflection. I don't think the team believes that he has much left to learn in Junior. Bottom line, don't look for Del Zotto to go anywhere until trade deadline March 2019.

Dorsett: Unless he is not the same player after the injury, expect him to be here for the duration of his contract. He fills a need that we have few other players in the system who can. Will drop and go with anyone in the league, proved that when he went after John Scott, not once, but twice. We need that on the team to protect younger players. In case anyone missed that, video links attached: 

 

 

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, PlanB said:

Every GM/coach in the league talks about culture or inferences it in some way - accept it, it's a thing.  If you accept culture can lose games then you must accept that it can win games also. 

There is a BIG difference between not losing you games, and winning you games. Anyone one here can go play in any game they want, and make their team lose. Not anyone here can go play in any game they want, against whoever is there, and make their team win. There is a GIANT chasm between not throwing away games, and winning them. You can and will still lose games where you didn't throw the towel in.

 

1 hour ago, PlanB said:

CBJ is a perfect example of a place where culture is being built without any elite/generational talent - yes they have a couple very good players but no one could argue they have generational talent on the team.  DAL would be an example of the opposite - with their talent - goaltending notwithstanding - they should not have missed the playoffs and were trending down as far as team culture went.   

Well if you think Columbus is such a poor team, lacking elite talent, then I don't know what I can do to help you. It takes a special type of ignorance to think they don't have elite players. Especially since they have a 2 time Vezina winner on their team. Not to mention the performance of players like Werenski and Jones last year. I mean, Werenski only scored more points than all but 2 Canucks last year. You know, as a rookie defenseman. I can see how you think they're a talent-less team that did everything they did on the back of culture. 

 

You're the one using the word generational, not me, I just think your team actually has to be good to win. If culture is a factor at all, which I don't believe it is, past not throwing games, it's like 50th on the list of things that matter in whether you win a game. You claim Dallas is an example of team with bad culture that should've done better, why? You then immediately point out their goaltending is amongst the worst in the league, not like that isn't the most important position in the entire sport, ironically see Columbus and Bobrovsky. I also see all this defensive prowess from the forwards and defensemen in Dallas right. Multiple Selke and Norris trophy candidate there right? Oh wait, they're a bunch of flair players. Everyone who talks about Dallas that knows anything about hockey, which means you probably know this too, knows that Dallas is amongst the most one-dimensional teams in hockey and that if they don't outscore you they lose. They won't outlast you. They will not grind out wins, and last year their glass castle came crashing down.

 

Defensive capability is part of talent, it's not just hard work. You can't ignore a player's defensive impact when assessing ANY player's value. Yet you do that in analyzing Dallas, and make them out to be a stronger team than they are. They're not a good team. They won't win a cup in the next 3-5 years. They are completely flawed. Lucky for them they will get cap relief sooner than later and still have assets to make moves, but it's looking grim for them in some ways.

 

1 hour ago, PlanB said:

Culture in team sports - it's a 'thing'.

Yeah, you weren't convincing.

[kingofsurrey]

9 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Agreed..I'd guess 'vet' status wouldn't really be applied until a guy had at least 5 or 6 seasons under his belt.

Vets are very useful on the team and great for the rookies...  Vets can introduce the rooks to the over 30 women at the Roxie.......

 

 

[aGENT]

Based on players we have now...

 

2018 TDL:

 

Vanek

Rodin (hopefully after a pump and dump season)

*Possibly Baer (if kids are suitably progressing)

*Possibly Gudbranson (if not re-signing... though I prefer we re-sign)

 

Burmistrov, Boucher, Wiercioch (if worth anything, could just walk as UFA's... if not already claimed off waivers etc).

 

2019 TDL:

 

Dorsett 

Gaunce (if surpassed)

Edler (if he'll waive in his final year *prod, prod*)

MDZ

*Possibly NIlsson (If Demko is ready and Nilsson isn't our #1 over Markstrom)

 

2020 TDL:

 

Gagner

Tanev (if not sooner...but that ship may have sailed)

 

[PlanB]

7 hours ago, Aircool said:

There is a BIG difference between not losing you games, and winning you games. Anyone one here can go play in any game they want, and make their team lose. Not anyone here can go play in any game they want, against whoever is there, and make their team win. There is a GIANT chasm between not throwing away games, and winning them. You can and will still lose games where you didn't throw the towel in.

 

Well if you think Columbus is such a poor team, lacking elite talent, then I don't know what I can do to help you. It takes a special type of ignorance to think they don't have elite players. Especially since they have a 2 time Vezina winner on their team. Not to mention the performance of players like Werenski and Jones last year. I mean, Werenski only scored more points than all but 2 Canucks last year. You know, as a rookie defenseman. I can see how you think they're a talent-less team that did everything they did on the back of culture. 

 

You're the one using the word generational, not me, I just think your team actually has to be good to win. If culture is a factor at all, which I don't believe it is, past not throwing games, it's like 50th on the list of things that matter in whether you win a game. You claim Dallas is an example of team with bad culture that should've done better, why? You then immediately point out their goaltending is amongst the worst in the league, not like that isn't the most important position in the entire sport, ironically see Columbus and Bobrovsky. I also see all this defensive prowess from the forwards and defensemen in Dallas right. Multiple Selke and Norris trophy candidate there right? Oh wait, they're a bunch of flair players. Everyone who talks about Dallas that knows anything about hockey, which means you probably know this too, knows that Dallas is amongst the most one-dimensional teams in hockey and that if they don't outscore you they lose. They won't outlast you. They will not grind out wins, and last year their glass castle came crashing down.

 

Defensive capability is part of talent, it's not just hard work. You can't ignore a player's defensive impact when assessing ANY player's value. Yet you do that in analyzing Dallas, and make them out to be a stronger team than they are. They're not a good team. They won't win a cup in the next 3-5 years. They are completely flawed. Lucky for them they will get cap relief sooner than later and still have assets to make moves, but it's looking grim for them in some ways.

 

Yeah, you weren't convincing.

Sorry,  but it's contradictory imo is admitting poor team culture can in fact lose you games but positive team culture can't influence the opposite effect - trying to argue such a thing loses all credibility as does immediately referring to someone else's opinion as ignorant just because you don't share the same one. 

[Rob_Zepp]

23 hours ago, Fanuck said:

I'm OK trading anyone on your list  - vets or not - for the right price/deal.

 

That said,  I think it's been proven - most recently by Edm - that you need some vets on your team if you want to establish the right culture/atmosphere on your squad. 

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^

In regards to Edmonton signing vets.........the important vets were either signed or traded for later in the rebuild..........I think that is an important fact that people forget.....

 

With due respect

[Aircool]

6 hours ago, PlanB said:

Sorry,  but it's contradictory imo is admitting poor team culture can in fact lose you games but positive team culture can't influence the opposite effect - trying to argue such a thing loses all credibility as does immediately referring to someone else's opinion as ignorant just because you don't share the same one. 

You know, you can say that you are "Sorry" to open your post. What I'd say is that you are an incredibly disgusting person. And your apology, which it clearly isn't would never be accepted, if it was ever to be offered. It takes an incredibly small person to refuse to admit making the most obvious of mistakes, and to then misquote someone as to misconstrue their argument against you. You claimed Columbus was an untalented team. No elite players. You are just wrong about that. Not much else to say about that. You were nothing short of IGNORANT of the capabilities of many players on Columbus. I called you ignorant for your ignorance, funny how the appropriate word was used. I didn't call you ignorant in any other context, and you intentionally left the context out when making your cheap reply quoted above.

 

How about you have some integrity, and admit the obvious things at least, that you are clearly wrong about, and we can argue about the things we disagree about. I could appreciate that, but I don't have time for disingenuous people who are just going to lie and misconstrue your arguments when debating you and dodge all your points. I made a fairly lengthy and considered post, and you responded in 2 lines while misrepresenting my argument. You think I place any value in that useless of an opinion? Why would anyone with half a brain value this response? 

[HockeydownUnder]

On 05/09/2017 at 0:02 PM, janisahockeynut said:

I am just interested what veterans you would be ok trading from the start of the season to the TDL..........and we will not be trading the Sedin's.............and let's not argue about NTC's as we do know they are movable with consent of the player...............We will not trade everyone, but we "could" trade a few if the return is good. I just simply want to know which ones you would most be able to live without.......if you would like to put their values up, hey that's great, it is just for debate.........discussion!

 

Sutter...................................2nd + 3rd

Vanek...................................3rd

Gagner.................................2nd at the TDL

Burmistrov............................4th rounder

Baertschi..............................1-2nd + 1-3rd

Eder......................................late first at the TDL 0r 2-seconds

Del Zotto...............................3rd rounder

Dorsett..................................4th rounder

 

For sanity reasons, I will leave Tanev out of this one. and Eriksson won't be going anywhere $$$$

 

Heh, thanks!

 

I would trade any of them for the record! Am I high or low?

 

 

                                                   

 

The players that just signed with the Canucks will have to wait until the deadline at the minimum. Signing a player and then trading him before the season starts is bad for m and will discourage other free agents from signing with the Canucks

 

Sutter I don't think has as much value. A late second with a small cap dump i coming back the most I can see.

 

That's likely exactly what Vanek is worth unless he really regresses

 

Gagner probably won't get that much until the last or second last year of his deal.

 

Burmistrov has no value atm. If another team wanted him they would have just signed him. If he gets into the lineup though he could raise his value and be worth something.

 

Baertschi likely could fetch more unless he has a really bad season since he's young.

 

Edler may get a late first if he can remain healthy and doesn't regress.

 

Del Zotto is interesting. He's going to be getting pp time here and if he puts up some points might fetch more than a 3rd

 

Dorsett has negative value in my opinion. That being said Penguins paid to get Ryan Reeves so it's hard to say

[Rob_Zepp]

10 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

In regards to Edmonton signing vets.........the important vets were either signed or traded for later in the rebuild..........I think that is an important fact that people forget.....

 

With due respect

This is later in Canuck process too if you want the process to be a few years versus a decade.

 

Not sure you need "due respect" - your opinion is valid just as it is!   

[-DLC-]

Here's where the problem lies for me .... you can't have a blanket plan for all teams.  When you deal with individuals (which hockey players are), there are variations and differences from player to player.  Some "younger" teams may not be as mentally prepared or mature than others and, therefore, require veterans in place to help guide them. Some others may be further ahead.  So you have to deal with situations on a player by player basis, in accordance with their importance and role on the team.

 

I, for one, am perfectly ok with it (trading vets for picks) at this point...after Bieksa and Burrows left, it was a bit of a no brainer for me.  I enjoy watching the young guys, as it's an exciting, speed(ier) game.  

 

And, for me, "my" team has changed/is gone and it's a transitional time, so I'm not invested in a "team" on a player by player basis but, moreso, as a team overall.  Things have changed and the past is just that....I'm quite excited about the future and, even, the uncertainty in it all.  Young new players bring an enthusiasm and eagerness to prove themselves.  They also play for the love of the game as a primary focus.  As guys age and have families and kids, that shifts a bit for some.  It becomes more of their "job" and less of the passion and fire deal.  Doesn't mean they're not as committed to it, just that the energy may be a bit depleted.  Let's face it, when you have the pressures of the outside/real world, it's a bit more of a balancing act than if you're an 18-21 year old guy who doesn't have a care in the world.  They work hard as youngsters and are breaking through...there's a lot driving them as they move into the big league.   For guys who've done it for years, it's more of a routine with less emotion invested in my view.

[Fanuck]

10 hours ago, Aircool said:

You know, you can say that you are "Sorry" to open your post. What I'd say is that you are an incredibly disgusting person. And your apology, which it clearly isn't would never be accepted, if it was ever to be offered. It takes an incredibly small person to refuse to admit making the most obvious of mistakes, and to then misquote someone as to misconstrue their argument against you. You claimed Columbus was an untalented team. No elite players. You are just wrong about that. Not much else to say about that. You were nothing short of IGNORANT of the capabilities of many players on Columbus. I called you ignorant for your ignorance, funny how the appropriate word was used. I didn't call you ignorant in any other context, and you intentionally left the context out when making your cheap reply quoted above.

 

How about you have some integrity, and admit the obvious things at least, that you are clearly wrong about, and we can argue about the things we disagree about. I could appreciate that, but I don't have time for disingenuous people who are just going to lie and misconstrue your arguments when debating you and dodge all your points. I made a fairly lengthy and considered post, and you responded in 2 lines while misrepresenting my argument. You think I place any value in that useless of an opinion? Why would anyone with half a brain value this response? 

LOL, talks about integrity and writes two paragraphs denigrating another poster just for having a differing opinion. 

 

Two paragraphs yet you don't have the time for disingenuous people.....let me guess, you'll find time to write another diatribe denigrating this post yet you don't have time for it......keep up the integrity there....

[-DLC-]

Fanuck and Aircool...probably best to just make use of the ignore feature at this point and agree to disagree. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Thinking in terms of "trade-trees", where you can trace an original acquisition, & you try to extend/improve upon it. For example, the Linden pick has led to one Sedin & Markstrom. GREAT mileage for something that started(high 1st) about 3 decades back. Big names like Bert & Lu also sandwiched in the succession.

 

Or Hansen(was he 7th or 9th R?!). To get great use out of an unlikely source, & then recycle into more gain. Burr WAS a freebie..which led to Dahlen. If a team can swing a half-dozen of these scenarios, you might overcome mediocre drafting(we know about that!) or a few poor trades.

 

So we acquire some FREE asset, FA's..great! I say find a few desirable assets(currently held) that we can get good return upon(in prime age now). Go with some of our old vets, these summer FA's, & the young foundation we should gradually filter in. We need to build DEPTH in YOUTH now. Therefore the discipline to trade some assets which we could certainly put to good use, is a tough choice that could make sense. Names I've recently mentioned like Baer, Granny, Hutton(or even Tanev) types. That's all provided the return meets our demands. If not, we have to try & slide excess thru waivers.

 

It's a two steps back, four leaps fwd, kinda' thing.

[Gollumpus]

On 9/4/2017 at 7:02 PM, janisahockeynut said:

I am just interested what veterans you would be ok trading from the start of the season to the TDL..........and we will not be trading the Sedin's.............and let's not argue about NTC's as we do know they are movable with consent of the player...............We will not trade everyone, but we "could" trade a few if the return is good. I just simply want to know which ones you would most be able to live without.......if you would like to put their values up, hey that's great, it is just for debate.........discussion!

 

Sutter...................................2nd + 3rd

Vanek...................................3rd

Gagner.................................2nd at the TDL

Burmistrov............................4th rounder

Baertschi..............................1-2nd + 1-3rd

Eder......................................late first at the TDL 0r 2-seconds

Del Zotto...............................3rd rounder

Dorsett..................................4th rounder

 

For sanity reasons, I will leave Tanev out of this one. and Eriksson won't be going anywhere $$$$

 

Heh, thanks!

 

I would trade any of them for the record! Am I high or low?

I do not necessarily have a problem trading a veteran player. I believe that each case should be individually reviewed as there are different aspects to each which must be considered (the needs of the other team, the age of the player, cap hit, contract clauses, medical/injury history, etc). I believe too many people just ignore relevant factors because they are inconvenient to their wish fulfillment fantasy. Working from your list:

 

Potential for this TDL:

Vanek - I believe this will be too low as I suspect Vanek will have a pretty good season. This being said, I suspect the Canucks won't get a 1st and a blue-chip prospect. If Vanek has a good year I can see them easily getting a 2nd, or perhaps a 3rd with a pretty good prospect. Further, he is on a pretty good contract.

 

Burmistrov - a 4th doesn't seem too out of line. A lot depends on whether or Burmistrov gets a lot of NHL playing time and who are his line mates. I could see him getting as high as 3rd if he plays a lot and plays well at the NHL level. As a upcoming RFA he could still be traded after the season is over and potentially get a pretty good return.

 

 

Potential for future TDL:

Sutter - I believe this is too low for current Sutter. Sutter is a good 3C with some offensive ability. Depending on the team and what they have available, I could see Sutter getting a 2nd and a very good prospect, or perhaps even two 2nds. He does have three more seasons beyond the upcoming one, so that term/cap would have to be taken into consideration, so that might affect the return.

 

Gagner - two more years on a fairly good contract after this season. He'd only be 30(ish) when the current deal is done. I don't believe a 2nd is out of line, or perhaps a 3rd with a pretty good prospect to a team looking for a 2/3C.

 

Baertschi - I don't see him being traded this upcoming TDL. In the future, depending on how he does, if the Canucks are looking to trade him then it's because he wants too much on a contract, or he is under performing on his current deal. This suggests to me that getting a 1st is highly improbable.

 

Del Zotto - if he performs as the "puck moving d-man" crowd hope he does(personal points, team pp improvement attributable to DMZ)  then I could see him getting a 2nd.

 

Dorsett - injuries are likely going to be a factor here. A 4th could be an optimistic return.

 

Eder - when Edler actually waives I'll consider this.

 

                                                           regards,  G.