Sign in to follow this  
The_Rocket

[Rumour] huberdeau available

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:

Dipietro, Gudranson, Goldy, 2020 1st or Madden for Huberdeau

 

imo that’s fair and we can handle it, but what we need more is a winger or top D, both which we may be able to get in free agency. 

So a goalie prospect, an overpaid bottom pairing defenseman, a forward that puts up roughly a half PPG and is a massive defensive liability, and either a 1st rd pick in next years draft when we're likely to be a playoff team OR our 3rd rd pick from this last draft (wh'o' stock has admittedly risen) for a young, PPG top line forward?

 

I'm sorry, but FLA laughs and hangs up on Benning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The price tag will be massive. 1st, blue chip prospect and a very good roster player is my guess. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this seems like a psuedo-cap dump (no I am not saying Huberdeau is not worth his contract just that they want cheaper options so they can sign Bob and/or Panarin) they'll likely want guys on the cheaper end that are NHL ready. ELCs, bridge deals etc. I would imagine it'd have to include someone like Jake Virtanen, plus a really good prospect like Juolevi, and very likely a first round pick. Even that package doesn't look all that great unless we are also taking back Lu's contact.

 

According to Dailyfaceoff Brassard is 1st line RW and Hoffman is on the 3rd line RW. So they may very well value a Jake Virtanen as he can play 3rd line RW, still has some potential and they can replace Huberdeau with Hoffman. Then in the offseason sign Panarin to replace Brassard on the top line. Wonder if they'll try get a team to also take on Luongo's contract. If that contract is included the cost could drop quite a bit. But he's 25, 26 in June, is a PPG player this season, and has a very good contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

Show me an example of this happening.

Hall traded for Larsson. Seguin traded for Eriksson. Anything else?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Chiarelli trades really don't count.

Luongo for Bertuzzi.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, peaches5 said:

Hall traded for Larsson. Seguin traded for Eriksson. Anything else?

Those are terrible examples as hindsight is 20/20 and even still in BOTH cases the trades included top talent going each way. Larsson was supposed to solve ALL of their defensive woes and Eriksson came off a HUGE season.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, peaches5 said:

Luongo for Bertuzzi.

Both Eriksson and Bertuzzi were seen as strong players when they were moved. It was after the fact that those trades became lopsided.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are atleast  one year away from making a trade like this.  We need a couple of prospects to creat redundancies in our line up.  2 or 3 of Lind, dahlen, goldy, gaunce, madden,  juolevi, rathbone, Hughes, Mackewan, brisebois, deipetro, Demko. A good free agent signing as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

 Seguin traded for Eriksson. Anything else?

 

5 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

Luongo for Bertuzzi.

Just for some context, Eriksson had just put up 29 points in 48 games in the lockout shortened season, had put up 71 points in 82 games the year before, and was still in his late twenties at the time. Seguin had put up 32 points in 48 games in the lockout shortened season before he was moved and was seen as a locker room problem by Bruins staff.

 

At the time we moved Bertuzzi, he was in his his late 20's (maybe very early 30's...can't remember) and had just put up 71 points in 82 games for the Canucks before he was moved. Hardly chopped liver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

Those are terrible examples as hindsight is 20/20 and even still in BOTH cases the trades included top talent going each way. Larsson was supposed to solve ALL of their defensive woes and Eriksson came off a HUGE season.

The fact you thought Larsson was a fair trade at the time of the trade tells me you are not worth responding to further, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

"High firsts"?

 

We're not exactly a cellar dweller this year. Our pick is much more likely to be a mid-rd pick this year, and will likely to mid/late next season. A 10th-15th overall and a 15th-20th overall isn't exactly equivalent to 2 picks in the top 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

 

Just for some context, Eriksson had just put up 29 points in 48 games in the lockout shortened season, had put up 71 points in 82 games the year before, and was still in his late twenties at the time. Seguin had put up 32 points in 48 games in the lockout shortened season before he was moved and was seen as a locker room problem by Bruins staff.

 

At the time we moved Bertuzzi, he was in his his late 20's (maybe very early 30's...can't remember) and had just put up 71 points in 82 games for the Canucks before he was moved. Hardly chopped liver.

30-year-old power forward traded for arguably the best goalie in the league in his prime. The trade wasn't even close to fair. He played 7 games for Florida.

 

Seguin was 20/21 and already had a 29 goal season under his belt. The trade for Eriksson regardless of Seguin being a locker room cancer was awful. A young stud for an aging winger coming off his worst season to date. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

The fact you thought Larsson was a fair trade at the time of the trade tells me you are not worth responding to further, lol.

The devils wouldn't have traded Larsson for anything less though, that's my point.

Edited by Where'd Luongo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

30-year-old power forward traded for arguably the best goalie in the league in his prime. The trade wasn't even close to fair. He played 7 games for Florida.

 

Seguin was 20/21 and already had a 29 goal season under his belt. The trade for Eriksson regardless of Seguin being a locker room cancer was awful. A young stud for an aging winger coming off his worst season to date. 

Hindsight opinions. At the point of each trade, with everything considered, they weren't nearly as lopsided as you're implying. 

 

This is all being done to justify the hilariously lowball offers being thrown around here. The funny thing is, outside of our top 3 forwards, who are all untouchable, we don't even have anybody equivalent to Eriksson or Bertuzzi when they were traded. Not even close. 

 

edit: Maybeeeee Edler, if he weren't on an expiring contract with a no-trade clause and hadn't been injured.

Edited by 48MPHSlapShot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, garthsbutcher said:

Benning gets fired if he offers up two previous top 6 picks and two first round picks for Huberdeau

Both Virtanen and Juolevi's stock has fallen immensely since they were drafted. Don't get me wrong, I still have faith that Juolevi can be an NHL Dman and I like Virtanen as a player, but to pretend that they're still equivalent to anything close to top 5 picks just isn't being intellectually honest.

 

Regardless, that's what it would take, which is why it won't happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huberdeau would be a great player to target, but he would cost us a lot to acquire him. Maybe at the draft when we know our draft position? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see people valuing huberdeau as an elite, first line player; but I’m not sure that’s fair?

 

yeah he’s having a career year and he’s scoring almost a point per game, but let’s look and the good and bad here:

 

good:

still in his prime

locked in for term at a reasonable contract

top 6 level scoring

pp specialist

 

bad:

called out by his coach earlier this season for not trying

-23 (yeah yeah I know, plus/minus is a bad stat. Just thought I’d throw that out there)

30 even strength points in 54 games, 22 pp points. 

7 even strength goals in 54 games, 6 pp goals

 

 

He’s a very good player and worth more than the Canucks can likely afford (unless tallon gives him away for much less than he’s worth) but it’s not like we’re trading for gaudreau here or something. Honestly a 1st, a middle roster player on a cheap contract (maybe Baer if he wasn’t injured), and a prospect (woo maybe?) could get it done, imo. But then you have to ask yourself if it’s worth it

 

edit: also worth mentioning huberdeau has a NMC that kicks in on July 1st, so if FLA doesn’t trade home before then, they probably don’t trade him at all

 

 

Edited by The_Rocket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.