[Rumour] Hawks interested in Canucks D Michael Del Zotto

[mll]

.

[86Viking]

15 minutes ago, DarthMelvin said:

Tell the Hawks to GET BENT! lol

 

Oh and Admins... you need keep these threads from getting high jacked...

That would be a full time job scouring all the threads and dealing with that. I think they all do it for free?

 

Would be nice but like any website with a forum, there will be issues, nothing is ever kept civil or on topic

[skategal]

1 hour ago, Yotes said:

That would be a full time job scouring all the threads and dealing with that. I think they all do it for free?

 

Would be nice but like any website with a forum, there will be issues, nothing is ever kept civil or on topic

At the risk of highjacking the thread, I think our mods do a great job of keeping things relatively civil.  On topic is impossible 

[Noseforthenet]

If there's an offer made that we can't refuse. So far, it looks like the Canucks wanna trade Hutton, but I bet they had a conversation and then the Hawks came back with Del Zotto. I don't THINK he's untouchable, but with how solid he has been, it wouldn't be the greatest idea to trade him unless we get that offer we can't refuse. I would think long and hard about that penalty killer from Sweden's world junior team. We're gonna need some guys like that going forward if we wanna see the Canucks contend. 

[86Viking]

I am a bit surprised that CHI would be interested in MDZ. They probably wish they kept or would want to re acquire Hjalmarsson. You can bet Bowman ca get Chayka to retain salary on him too.

 

 

[N4ZZY]

On 2018-01-18 at 12:47 AM, Green Building said:

At most I see us moving 1 of Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Guddy or MDZ. It won't be Edler due to his contract clause, and it shouldn't be Hutton because we're the perfect situation for him to play out his issues and hopefully resolve them into a confident young player we saw during his rookie campaign. That leaves Gud, MDZ, and Tanev. Tanev is the most warrior of the 3, MDZ got the shaft this year by staying healthy and being worked hard, Gudbranson has been 50/50 ish as far as demonstrating his future value. I lean toward keeping Tanev and moving Gud or MDZ, but any of those 3 guys should be available for the right price. 

 

I ain't worried one damn bit about Luongo, and if JB was smart he wouldn't be either. That contract was signed before recapture penalties came into effect so any attempt by the league to screw us could be taken to court, and we'd likely win. Bettman retroactively tried to screw us one day and I don't think it would hold up if the league tried to enforce it.

&^@# BETTMAN

[canuckleface77]

On 1/16/2018 at 1:00 PM, Fateless said:

Trade him if the return is decent.

 

I honestly feel like these boards place way too much emphasis on "feeling" rather than statistics. Del Zotto and Gudbranson are statistically our two worst defenceman by a mile, yet these boards inflate their values so much. Sure the guy can munch minutes and has a touch of offense, but the numbers simply don't lie. The Canucks get buried in possession, scoring chances, and goals when the guy is on the ice.

 

I like him. I like Guddy. But I hope both are traded to make room for Pouliot and a spot for Juolevi next year. Holm and Biega can fill the gaps until next season.

And/or picks.  Trade for prospects, trade for picks...load the cupboard and team for the next 3-4 years when this team will develop into something that resembles a team that could win the Cup.  

[EdgarM]

1 hour ago, canuckleface77 said:

And/or picks.  Trade for prospects, trade for picks...load the cupboard and team for the next 3-4 years when this team will develop into something that resembles a team that could win the Cup.  

I don't get it, how many pieces do you need to "load the cupboards? Benning has been doing that for how many years now and you want to dump a lot of our current roster for picks for another 3-4 years? We are way passed the years of dumping picks for rent a players and have been keeping our own picks.

"Resembles a team that could win the Cup" ? have you been watching the team lately? Notice that fella Boeser or that guy Bo?  

I guess you would like to follow the Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton "model" then.

[Boudrias]

5 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I don't get it, how many pieces do you need to "load the cupboards? Benning has been doing that for how many years now and you want to dump a lot of our current roster for picks for another 3-4 years? We are way passed the years of dumping picks for rent a players and have been keeping our own picks.

"Resembles a team that could win the Cup" ? have you been watching the team lately? Notice that fella Boeser or that guy Bo?  

I guess you would like to follow the Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton "model" then.

That was easy. 

[Provost]

5 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I don't get it, how many pieces do you need to "load the cupboards? Benning has been doing that for how many years now and you want to dump a lot of our current roster for picks for another 3-4 years? We are way passed the years of dumping picks for rent a players and have been keeping our own picks.

"Resembles a team that could win the Cup" ? have you been watching the team lately? Notice that fella Boeser or that guy Bo?  

I guess you would like to follow the Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton "model" then.

We don’t have prospects in the system to replace players going out... so yes we need more picks.

 

We have gone from one of the very worst prospect pools, to having an average/slightly better than average system.  

 

The year is gone, and we were still terrible.  Dumping veteran players and pressing the reset button to re-shape the roster in the summer seems like a good idea.  

 

I dont think it is following the Arizona/Edmonton model at all.

 

We ditch the “meh” veterans for picks or prospects, those assets then give us more chances to have cheap ELC players for years going forward.  Go after top UFAs to fill holes because you can afford them as you have those ELC guys balancing things out.  Get some more value veteran guys like Vanek to keep the competition up without commuting term.

 

... then rinse/repeat every year keep trying to win until it takes 

[EdgarM]

34 minutes ago, Provost said:

We don’t have prospects in the system to replace players going out... so yes we need more picks.

 

We have gone from one of the very worst prospect pools, to having an average/slightly better than average system.  

 

The year is gone, and we were still terrible.  Dumping veteran players and pressing the reset button to re-shape the roster in the summer seems like a good idea.  

 

I dont think it is following the Arizona/Edmonton model at all.

 

We ditch the “meh” veterans for picks or prospects, those assets then give us more chances to have cheap ELC players for years going forward.  Go after top UFAs to fill holes because you can afford them as you have those ELC guys balancing things out.  Get some more value veteran guys like Vanek to keep the competition up without commuting term.

 

... then rinse/repeat every year keep trying to win until it takes 

So get rid of useable players that can be utilized for the next 3-4 years for more picks then what we already get every year? I already said we are no longer giving away our draft picks so exactly how many picks do we need every year?

Your first statement is kind of confusing" We don’t have prospects in the system to replace players going out ". So we are going to send more players "out" so that there is a need to replace them? Why not just keep them in the first place? Makes no sense at all. So lets trade a Guddy or Tanev for picks so we may or may not find a prospect to replace them? That's some fine strategy right there if you ask me.

We are still terrible because for two years straight we have sustained an unusual amount of injuries to key players.

So sucking year after year to get picks and not building a TEAM around them is NOT following the model of Arizona,Buffalo and Edmonton? They do as exactly as you would like it to be, play until you suck, dump all your players for picks, and then start all over again the next year. Sounds like that model to me.

How about build your roster with QUALITY players and build ON that structure year after year through drafting ,trading or acquiring UFA's or RFA's?

[Provost]

2 hours ago, EdgarM said:

So get rid of useable players that can be utilized for the next 3-4 years for more picks then what we already get every year? I already said we are no longer giving away our draft picks so exactly how many picks do we need every year?

Your first statement is kind of confusing" We don’t have prospects in the system to replace players going out ". So we are going to send more players "out" so that there is a need to replace them? Why not just keep them in the first place? Makes no sense at all. So lets trade a Guddy or Tanev for picks so we may or may not find a prospect to replace them? That's some fine strategy right there if you ask me.

We are still terrible because for two years straight we have sustained an unusual amount of injuries to key players.

So sucking year after year to get picks and not building a TEAM around them is NOT following the model of Arizona,Buffalo and Edmonton? They do as exactly as you would like it to be, play until you suck, dump all your players for picks, and then start all over again the next year. Sounds like that model to me.

How about build your roster with QUALITY players and build ON that structure year after year through drafting ,trading or acquiring UFA's or RFA's?

You are 100% misunderstanding.

 

If we have already lost the season LIKE NOW, then yes you do trade away middle/bottom of the roster veterans.  They aren’t what is going to turn you into a winning team, they are what will turn your into a sucking not quite as bad team.  Del Zotto/Gudbranson/Vanek/Gagner are replaceable in the offseason.  So you end up with picks/prospects AND another similar player.

 

Morr picks equals more handed of finding star players.  You are bringing in players for free/cheap through UFA or value trades... and then turning them into club controlled assets.

 

At some point you hit critical mass from picks that turn into top players or wrangle an actual top UFA or two.  Then you are a winning team with players still in the pipeline.  There is no magic bullet and it is trial and error and hoping you find guys that fit.

 

You do build a team with quality players, you are arguing my point by repeating my point.  Unless you are considering the above guys quality quality players.  They are “ok” players who are warm bodies in the bottom half of your roster.  Those also happen to be the roster spots that you want to bring your prospects in for development.  If you have filled your 5th-13th forward and 4th-8th D roster spots with those guys you are stuck with them and nowhere for a kid to fit in.  It is rare guys that break into the league as a top player.

 

 

[EdgarM]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

You are 100% misunderstanding.

 

If we have already lost the season LIKE NOW, then yes you do trade away middle/bottom of the roster veterans.  They aren’t what is going to turn you into a winning team, they are what will turn your into a sucking not quite as bad team.  Del Zotto/Gudbranson/Vanek/Gagner are replaceable in the offseason.  So you end up with picks/prospects AND another similar player.

 

Morr picks equals more handed of finding star players.  You are bringing in players for free/cheap through UFA or value trades... and then turning them into club controlled assets.

 

At some point you hit critical mass from picks that turn into top players or wrangle an actual top UFA or two.  Then you are a winning team with players still in the pipeline.  There is no magic bullet and it is trial and error and hoping you find guys that fit.

 

You do build a team with quality players, you are arguing my point by repeating my point.  Unless you are considering the above guys quality quality players.  They are “ok” players who are warm bodies in the bottom half of your roster.  Those also happen to be the roster spots that you want to bring your prospects in for development.  If you have filled your 5th-13th forward and 4th-8th D roster spots with those guys you are stuck with them and nowhere for a kid to fit in.  It is rare guys that break into the league as a top player.

 

 

I see it like you have 22-23 job openings and you try to fill these positions with the Best possible players you can. So say you have 10 quality employees and 13 not so quality employees. Why would you mess up your 10 good guys when you have done nothing with the other 13 guys? Or you have not even had enough time to deal with the 13. Then you give away 5 of your 10  good guys and now you have 18 openings you need to fill with guys and all you have is guys that may help you later but not right now.

So after you have messed with these positions, now you are gambling on "all of the stars aligning" and all of these guys are going to form one winning team like magic at the same time?

I think that is unrealistic.

Look at Toronto or Edmonton. Its going to be payday for all of those youngsters and I can bet they will not have enough money to be able to pay for them all and they still lack key positions such as a quality goalie or a quality D core.

[Bo_Knows]

On January 16, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

Chicago's 3rd and the rights to Sikura, or 1 for 1 for Henri Jokiharju and I'd be very happy. 

If we could get Jokiharju for MDZ I would love that. It would make sense for both teams as Chicago needs some depth and MDZ could fit in their top 4. While we need some D in the system 

[Patrick Kane]

Don't see a fit... Have too many LD.

 

Plus you won't be getting Jokiharju or Sikura lol.

[JM_]

12 hours ago, Patrick Kane said:

Don't see a fit... Have too many LD.

 

Plus you won't be getting Jokiharju or Sikura lol.

pretty sure you had a similar comment about Burr's value..... 

[Boudrias]

18 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I see it like you have 22-23 job openings and you try to fill these positions with the Best possible players you can. So say you have 10 quality employees and 13 not so quality employees. Why would you mess up your 10 good guys when you have done nothing with the other 13 guys? Or you have not even had enough time to deal with the 13. Then you give away 5 of your 10  good guys and now you have 18 openings you need to fill with guys and all you have is guys that may help you later but not right now.

So after you have messed with these positions, now you are gambling on "all of the stars aligning" and all of these guys are going to form one winning team like magic at the same time?

I think that is unrealistic.

Look at Toronto or Edmonton. Its going to be payday for all of those youngsters and I can bet they will not have enough money to be able to pay for them all and they still lack key positions such as a quality goalie or a quality D core.

Not sure what you are arguing? Like all orgs you have to have a plan that works towards a goal. In hockey it is winning a CUP. Gathering players together who will mature into a group that can challenge for a CUP is a must. Assuming such an effort will end up like the Oilers or Laffers is not comparable in my opinion. Those two orgs have had decades long issues in their managements. 

 

IMHO the failure to convert veteran assets into picks and prospects since 2012 is likely the greatest failure the org has committed. Failure to make a realistic assessment of where the org was in the fall of 2012 and what had to happen in a time line to competitiveness actually pushed the org backwards for another 2 years. I am confident that when Linden/Benning came into the org they knew what had to be done and are doing so. Their biggest challenge is roughing out a vet retention number for next season and trying to make TDL deals that will help increase the picks and prospects. Ideally they can pick up another 1st & 2nd Rounders. 

[86Viking]

14 hours ago, Patrick Kane said:

Don't see a fit... Have too many LD.

 

Plus you won't be getting Jokiharju or Sikura lol.

We wont get Jokiharju for MDZ but we do have pieces that could land him. Just depends if JB is willing to deal a player at or under the age of 25. I think he has to look at moving one of them for a younger RHD that is close to NHL ready. Probably not Jokiharju but from a different team

[captainhorvat]

Ask them if they want Hutton instead

[Gaudette Celly]

16 hours ago, Patrick Kane said:

Don't see a fit... Have too many LD.

 

Plus you won't be getting Jokiharju or Sikura lol.

You might not either.