aGENT Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jack Fig said: I know they aren't HOFers, but that's a pretty flippant assessment of the team's top-4. It may be a bit brutally honest but... Edler will be what 35, going on 36 (if he's even under contract). He won't need protection, his age basically performs that function. Tanev I'd be pretty surprised to not see dealt next year TBH. Hutton and Stech are both good, young mid-pair'ish players and I'd be happy to keep them but they're not irreplaceable and they'd also likely be due raises around then at the same time we'll be giving raises to Hughes, Pettersson etc and need to hopefully make room for the likes of Woo, Rathbone etc on less expensive ELC's. ...do the math. I'd also not be overly shocked if we sold high on Hutton (assuming Edler's back before the TDL) 4 minutes ago, Borvat said: So if Edler gets signed to an extension this is what it could possibly be next year. Is this enough of an upgrade? Edler - Tanev Hutton -Stecher Hughes - Gudbranson Hard to say until we see what, if any trades we make, free agents we sign etc. But if I was basing it off what we have today... Hughes, Tanev Edler, Gudbranson, Hutton, Stecher ____, Biega (OJ, and Brise in Utica) Move Tanev towards the TDL, recall Juolevi and run with: Edler, Hughes Hutton, Stecher Juolevi, Gudbranson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 46 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: It will be interesting to see how he does, physically, in the NHL. That is a small body people lol Hope he doesn't pi** off opponents with his skill. Lord knows he'd be on his own out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, -AJ- said: Edler will be 35 and probably not necessary to protect, but at just 31, Tanev will likely still be a valuable asset (assuming he's still on the team at that point) and worth protecting. Who knows where Hutton and Stecher will be and how good they'll be. I look at who is going to be part of our top 4 dmen in the future. Yes Edler but he will be too old for Seattle to waste a pick on. So that probably leaves Tanev,Hughes and Juolevi if he pans out is who we probably protect. Hutton, Stecher and Guddy are serviceable dmen but not going to be anyones top 4. The only wrench that can be thrown in the whole thing is if we somehow acquire a dman through free agency but we would probably know by then where we stand with Hughes. I think JB's got this under control, I'm not worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Regarding Edler, I wonder if the Canucks will push back on his camp regarding a NMC. I presume Edler will want a NMC since he will have to be considering the impact of expansion. With expansion in mind... If Edler still wants relatively high $, then I think the Canucks might be willing to do it if the trade-off is a short term deal. Maybe even a 1-year deal with a NMC. This gives the Canucks the flexibility of NOT having to protect him. If Edler primarily wants term, then I think the Canucks may offer it to him with a reasonable salary but without a NMC since that would force them to protect him in an expansion draft. They might be willing to give him a NTC still, but that will have to be the tradeoff as between the two sides. This makes the most sense to me in terms of the Canucks wanting to keep Edler to mentor the younger D as well as allow themselves the liberty to protect the younger D in expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Stamkos Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Nashville knows defencemen are at a premium, even unproven ones. There's no way they will take scraps for him. I understand this, I’m not suggesting we throw scraps at him either. We’d probably have to move a Virtanen plus a Madden/Dahlen/Lind plus probably a 2nd in a future draft or a 3rd in this draft to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 minute ago, EdgarM said: I look at who is going to be part of our top 4 dmen in the future. Yes Edler but he will be too old for Seattle to waste a pick on. So that probably leaves Tanev,Hughes and Juolevi if he pans out is who we probably protect. Hutton, Stecher and Guddy are serviceable dmen but not going to be anyones top 4. The only wrench that can be thrown in the whole thing is if we somehow acquire a dman through free agency but we would probably know by then where we stand with Hughes. I think JB's got this under control, I'm not worried. If I'm not mistaken, unless Tanev is re-signed, then he will be a UFA by the time expansion comes around. If the Canucks are active in the UFA and trade market this summer, then I could even see Tanev being shipped out this summer though I could equally see him being kept for his remaining year and then possibly moved at the trade deadline. The only D signed through expansion would be Gudbranson, Hughes, Juolevi and any D that the Canucks acquire between now and then. Hutton and Stecher would presumably be re-signed but who knows whether they would really impact the Canucks' expansion draft plans. Don't get me wrong, I like both of them, but if Hughes and Juolevi pan out, then really only one other D will be protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said: Regarding Edler, I wonder if the Canucks will push back on his camp regarding a NMC. I presume Edler will want a NMC since he will have to be considering the impact of expansion. With expansion in mind... If Edler still wants relatively high $, then I think the Canucks might be willing to do it if the trade-off is a short term deal. Maybe even a 1-year deal with a NMC. This gives the Canucks the flexibility of NOT having to protect him. If Edler primarily wants term, then I think the Canucks may offer it to him with a reasonable salary but without a NMC since that would force them to protect him in an expansion draft. They might be willing to give him a NTC still, but that will have to be the tradeoff as between the two sides. This makes the most sense to me in terms of the Canucks wanting to keep Edler to mentor the younger D as well as allow themselves the liberty to protect the younger D in expansion. 10 minutes ago, aGENT said: Edler will be what 35, going on 36 (if he's even under contract). He won't need protection, his age basically performs that function. 6 minutes ago, EdgarM said: Yes Edler but he will be too old for Seattle to waste a pick on. This ^^^ But otherwise, if Edler wants to guarantee where he plays past the 2 years mark, he signs a 2 year deal so he's not even available for the ED and goes from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 hours ago, aGENT said: My guess? Granlund. If we can find takers for some late picks etc - Schaller and Gagner. Long shot... Sutter Hot take long shot... Hutton I just don't see it happening. He's getting better and better as the season progresses and looks to be Green's most trusted defenseman (besides Edler) right now. Plus I just don't see how Bennng can afford to give him up with the state that our defense is currently in. I don't even know what a trade would look like? No one is giving up a top 15 pick for him and after that, what are the odds that we'll be able to draft a top 4 defenseman? It's a coin flip at best. I don't think we'd be interested in say a 2nd and 3rd round pick for him. Hutton provides much more value to us than that. I know Fabbro has been in the news today but Nashville doesn't need Ben Hutton. Hutton is also an RFA and due for raise, so that's something to consider when talking potential trade destinations. What do you think a Ben Hutton trade would/could/should look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Vanuckles said: Good, he can see how fast and big this league is and prepare accordingly in the summer. As long as he plays less than the number of games necessary for him to require protection in the Seattle expansion. Just not a smart move at all if he exceeds that threshold. I'm assuming we will protect 3D at the expansion draft... We don't have that many good defencemen to protect anyways. Hughs, Hutton, and Stecher? Tanev may already be gone via trade or UFA. Gudbranson's contract will be up. Edler may be around but he will be 35. I might be wrong but I don't think we have to be worried so much about using one of the expansion protection for Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Everyone has forgotten about Tryamkin. If he does come back he will need protection. The expansion draft will be the only time he actually does need protection... Hughes, Juolevi and Tryamkin would be the 3 D worth protecting. Seattle can fight over Hutton and Stecher assuming either are still around. My money is on Benning moving Hutton prior to the expansion draft for an offensive piece assuming he is still playing at the same level as today. With all the young D we have on the way Hutton could be sacrificed in a package for another top 6 winger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said: If I'm not mistaken, unless Tanev is re-signed, then he will be a UFA by the time expansion comes around. If the Canucks are active in the UFA and trade market this summer, then I could even see Tanev being shipped out this summer though I could equally see him being kept for his remaining year and then possibly moved at the trade deadline. The only D signed through expansion would be Gudbranson, Hughes, Juolevi and any D that the Canucks acquire between now and then. Hutton and Stecher would presumably be re-signed but who knows whether they would really impact the Canucks' expansion draft plans. Don't get me wrong, I like both of them, but if Hughes and Juolevi pan out, then really only one other D will be protected. We need a top 4 set of dmen and Hutton, Stecher, Gudbranson are NOT it. Tanev is a legit top 4 dman so why would we give him away when we need top 4 dmen? That makes no sense. Juolevi and Hughes more so, have the better possibility to become top 4 then the above mentioned. Edler is a legit top 4 also but will be aging out soon so not attractive to Seattle. Just look at what happens to this team when a player such as Edler is out of the line up. If this does not show how valuable these guys are then I don't know what will. The other guys are just fill ins(plugs) until we get legit top 4 dmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: I just don't see it happening. He's getting better and better as the season progresses and looks to be Green's most trusted defenseman (besides Edler) right now. Plus I just don't see how Bennng can afford to give him up with the state that our defense is currently in. I don't even know what a trade would look like? No one is giving up a top 15 pick for him and after that, what are the odds that we'll be able to draft a top 4 defenseman? It's a coin flip at best. I don't think we'd be interested in say a 2nd and 3rd round pick for him. Hutton provides much more value to us than that. I know Fabbro has been in the news today but Nashville doesn't need Ben Hutton. Hutton is also an RFA and due for raise, so that's something to consider when talking potential trade destinations. What do you think a Ben Hutton trade would/could/should look like? It's just spit balling but... 2 hours ago, aGENT said: If we're bringing back Edler, have Hughes on the way (and OJ and Brisebois)...is there room for all these guys? SOMEBODY has to go in the next year'ish. We could always fill the third pair LD spot with an inexpensive, expendable, short term UFA this summer should we move Hutton and want a bit more time for OJ/Brise to marinate. Edler, Hughes, 'UFA' (and OJ/Brise in Utica) is still pretty decent LD depth Does he get us that elusive top 6 LW with grit/size/skill we covet in trade (himself or packaged)....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: With all the young D we have on the way Hutton could be sacrificed in a package for another top 6 winger... Great minds and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Torts Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 In the 10 games he can play, is a possible 20 points. if he plays more he will need to be protected. still, 20 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Hughes, Juolevi and Tryamkin would be the 3 D worth protecting. Seattle can fight over Hutton and Stecher assuming either are still around. Also, so long as Hughes doesn't play 10+ games, he wouldn't need protecting. So that would be Juolevi, Tryamkin, Stecher with Hutton traded for our LW upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Just now, aGENT said: Also, so long as Hughes doesn't play 10+ games, he wouldn't need protecting. So that would be Juolevi, Tryamkin, Stecher with Hutton traded for our LW upgrade. That would be the best case scenario. Let's hope Michigan goes far in the playoffs, at least to the point where Hughes isn't signed until late March. But that would also require the Canucks not making the playoffs as playoff games also count towards the 10 games. Tough call on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, EdgarM said: We need a top 4 set of dmen and Hutton, Stecher, Gudbranson are NOT it. Tanev is a legit top 4 dman so why would we give him away when we need top 4 dmen? That makes no sense. Juolevi and Hughes more so, have the better possibility to become top 4 then the above mentioned. Edler is a legit top 4 also but will be aging out soon so not attractive to Seattle. Just look at what happens to this team when a player such as Edler is out of the line up. If this does not show how valuable these guys are then I don't know what will. The other guys are just fill ins(plugs) until we get legit top 4 dmen. My comments about shipping out Tanev this summer assume that the Canucks try to make moves to acquire top-4 D. I wasn't suggesting that Hutton, Stecher and Guddy would be the top-4. I think Benning has been clear that he wants to upgrade the D which is why I think he will try to do that this summer. It's clear weakness of the team and isn't just a depth issue. The top-end talent will be bolstered by Hughes (notwithstanding the uncertainty of his transition) but there's still a big gap. While it might seem odd to ship out Tanev in that process, I could see that happening if a team in cap trouble needs to unload a contract and would be willing to accept a package including Tanev who is only signed for one more year but with a reasonable cap hit. I would be a very unhappy fan if the Canucks rolled into next season with Hughes, Hutton, Stecher and Guddy as the top-4 (even if Juolevi plays as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 hours ago, aGENT said: One week to practice with team/get him up to speed = minus 2 games. Sit him one other game ( a back to back, after a bad game etc) and voila, 10 games. 'Problem' solved. Yes this woukd be perfect. I wasn't sure if it's games played or on the NHL roster. So if it's games played they could easily sit him 3 games . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, khay said: I'm assuming we will protect 3D at the expansion draft... We don't have that many good defencemen to protect anyways. Hughs, Hutton, and Stecher? Tanev may already be gone via trade or UFA. Gudbranson's contract will be up. Edler may be around but he will be 35. I might be wrong but I don't think we have to be worried so much about using one of the expansion protection for Hughes. But you're assuming we won't have any changes by 2020-21. That's still a long time and if I were to venture a guess JB will address the defense problem this summer or even before that through trade. There's also Juolevi, Brisebois, Rathbone, and Woo internally - I'm not sure what they're eligibility will be by that season. It's good to be on the safe side, and sitting Hughes a few games to avoid a big decision a few years down the road seems like a very small price to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: Yes this woukd be perfect. I wasn't sure if it's games played or on the NHL roster. So if it's games played they could easily sit him 3 games . That's only if we don't make the playoffs. If we do I highly doubt he would sit out. We could have 5-7 playoffs games at minimum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.