Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Rumour] Hawks interested in Canucks D Michael Del Zotto


Adarsh Sant

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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

Sikura could well be redundant for them considering how well Schmaltz is doing.  In that case, should also make the pick contingent on Sikura signing.  Perhaps a 2nd if he signs elsewhere, but MDZ's value to the team could still be more than that for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Heard this AM"......from whom?

You have to think that a credible source qualifies where their rumour is originating.

Being a Chicago hockeybuzzz reporter doesn't really gain a person "I heard" credibility.

 

In any event, did the Hawks inquire? 

Might make sense - Keith, Oesterle, Murphy, Seabrook, Forsling, Ruuta, (Roszival).....

Lost TVR to ED, maybe not comfortable with the extent to which a few of their young D are stepping up.  Right on the edge of the playoff race.

They're not typically shy about acquiring veterans to bolster their chances - MDZ could fill a role like Oduya did for them.

 

But this rumour implies only that Chicago inquired.

I think a lot of the equation would have to come down to MDZ's perspective on the matter.

He just signed here months ago...not a one year term.  So if he wants to go to Chicago, I think you entertain it.  If he doesn't, I'm not sure it's a good idea to turn around and flip free agents months into a multi-year term.

The Canucks might feel able to afford to move one of their LH veterans though....and face some real uphill sledding if they hope to make the playoffs this year (probably reasonable to entertain selling at this point) so it could make for natural trade partners.  Does Chicago make this worthwhile?  With MDZ having term remaining, you'd think there'd have to be enough incentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Sikura could well be redundant for them considering how well Schmaltz is doing.  In that case, should also make the pick contingent on Sikura signing.  Perhaps a 2nd if he signs elsewhere, but MDZ's value to the team could still be more than that for now.

thats what I was thinking, plus he elected to go back for his 4th year of college so he's kind of a UFA risk so thats why the pick as well. I really like the idea of another D prospect as well. For where we are at I like the idea of Pouliot and Holm getting time too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think a lot of the equation would have to come down to MDZ's perspective on the matter.

He just signed here months ago...not a one year term.  So if he wants to go to Chicago, I think you entertain it.  If he doesn't, I'm not sure it's a good idea to turn around and flip free agents months into a multi-year term.

he doesn't have a NTC though.... so not sure that plays into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

he doesn't have a NMC though.... so not sure that plays into it. 

19 minutes ago, JC2 said:

I agree in trading a player if the price is right but you also dont want to scare off potential free agents by trading away all of your recent multi year signings. Players are human beings too. I'm sure when they sign a multi year deal they would prefer to play it out and not have to relocate the family every year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 'NucK™ said:

 

 

Del Z is single, there isn't a family consideration here. Its only a 2 year deal with no movement clauses, so he knew going in he could be moved. He'd be sent to a cup contender. 

 

In this case I see very little risk that it would scare off mid-level quality UFAs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

he doesn't have a NTC though.... so not sure that plays into it. 

Your relationship to the player, reputation - what your agreement consisted of / your word - those things matter.   Who knows what the substance is - the fact MDZ didn't command or get a limiting clause certainly factors in and says a lot (perhaps unlikely that he'd take issue with it) - on the other hand, he also didn't sign for one year, so he's not a clear 'rental' - it's not as simple and clear cut as an expiring contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

The source is a writer for HockeyBuzz AKA Eklund's Rumor Factory of Misery and Despair.

My god... I didn't think HockeyBuzz was a legitimate organization that can afford to hire people... I thought it was just Eklund operating under various accounts in a lame attempt to throw people off the scent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Your relationship to the player, reputation - what your agreement consisted of / your word - those things matter.   Who knows what the substance is - the fact MDZ didn't command or get a limiting clause certainly factors in and says a lot - on the other hand, he also didn't sign for one year, so he's not a clear 'rental' - and it's not as simple and clear cut as an expiring contract.

true, but in this case I think the upgrade if you will of going to the Hawks and getting a playoff chance is a nice consolation prize, vs. say getting moved to Edmonton or Buffalo. When Del Z was signed one of the things that was talked about is how having 1 extra year on his deal could be a desirable thing for teams looking for more than just a rental. So in this case I think the fact that he'd be going to a good situation and not being dumped makes it a good situation all around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

true, but in this case I think the upgrade if you will of going to the Hawks and getting a playoff chance is a nice consolation prize, vs. say getting moved to Edmonton or Buffalo. When Del Z was signed one of the things that was talked about is how having 1 extra year on his deal could be a desirable thing for teams looking for more than just a rental. So in this case I think the fact that he'd be going to a good situation and not being dumped makes it a good situation all around. 

good point.

I'd still talk to the player as due dilligence to get their take on specific possibilities and interest - and Chicago probably likewise would want to know that a player is interested in going there, particularly with term - perhaps a small possibility that it's not a fit - but otherwise, like I said, they look like natural trade partners - and the Canucks don't lack leverage here - they're not facing a TD and FA.   So it's John Hayden (who was recently assigned), or bust rocks, hawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MDZ and Vanek for Jokiharju and Chicago's 2018 2nd.  

 

Chicago's core is expensive and getting older.  They need experienced dmen to replace Hjalmarson and strong veteran scoring to replace Hossa.  Vanek would be the 2nd leading scorer on their team right now and would work well with Toews.  Plus both salaries are not too high and could work.

 

We need to add to our Defensive prospect depth and he is a good one.  He and Juolevi would work well together in a couple of years.

 

This would immediately make it so that GMJB could take a defenseman in the 1st round and the cupboards would be full.  We could easily replace MDZ next year with another free agent.

 

Juolevi

Jokiharju

1st Round Pick

Tryamkin

Stecher

Hutton

Brisebois

 

 

That starts to look pretty good.  

 

If Jim can then turn Edler into a late 1st round pick, we could have a hell of a draft with 2 1sts and 2 2nds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vanuckles said:

I have no idea who the source is, and how credible he is, but I hope we keep MDZ. He's a good guy to have on the team. A pairing of him and Tanev could be really good. He can skate up the ice, he's good in the locker room and he has an A. He's only 27. I'd rather trade away Hutton before MDZ.

It's not about who the Canucks like better and who they wants to keep.  If the Hawks inquired about MDZ, it's because they him, otherwise they would have inquired about Hutton.

 

Bottom line is, it all depends on the return.  MDZ is under contract, is NHL calibre and can help while we transition to the new core, so I don't think the Canucks would trade him away for a 5th,6th or 7th pick....however, if the offer is even remotely close to Burrows or Hansen, we have to consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...