Recommended Posts

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hammertime said:

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

Sell high. 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JoshuaGuy said:

Sell high. 

Or just dont resign Toffoli. I like the player but theres always risk signing an aging skilled player

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hammertime said:

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

If we sign Toffoli and keep Boeser and if both Podkolzin and Hoglander make it we would have the following winger depth after next year:

 

Miller

Boeser

Toffoli

Podkolzin

Hoglander

Virtanen

Pearson

 

To me we would have great depth for the top 9 so we could just stay the course.  One extra forward when fully healthy so unless we move Boeser or Virtanen for a top D the easiest thing to do would be to trade Pearson once Pods and Hogs arrive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hammertime said:

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

Not really a conundrum, package Virtanen for a D at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hammertime said:

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

Why not?  Virtanen isn't going to be a high salary, an Podkolzin will be on a ELC. I don't see that Toffoli and Boeser will be much more than $5-6 mill wingers.  Unless they are pushed out be better/younger/cheaper wingers, why would we move one or more of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hammertime said:

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

Obviously a good problem to have. If all guys pan out and you’re worried about salary or space you just enjoy the riches for as long as you can keep them together then trade pieces for things you need or high draft picks.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aGENT said:

Not really a conundrum, package Virtanen for a D at that point.

Or Brock?, for  an even better defenceman, Brock will have a high cap soon

Jake is cheaper, has not been injured as much, and a different player than all the others

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Or Brock?,

Not opposed to it if it makes sense.

 

34 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

for  an even better defenceman, Brock will have a high cap soon

Jake is cheaper, has not been injured as much, and a different player than all the others

Jake's not going to be terribly cheap for much longer either if he manages to keep improving (as we all hope). Certainly more than we can afford to pay a 3rd liner long term. And this thread's name sake has a far more similar skill set to Jake's than Brock's.

 

AKA, Podkolzin could likely replace a lot of what Jake does, on an ELC in another year. Who in our prospect pool has the one shot scoring ability of Brock to replace him...? I'm in less of a hurry to dump our high character, 1st line W'er than others apparently. 

 

IMO, re-sign Toffoli, we have lots of W'er depth to fill in on the 3rd line for moving Jake next year (or simply wait until Vasily arrives the year following). As Vasily gets older/better, Toffoli ages out and gets moved for futures/other holes. And we eventually have guys like Lind, MacEwan etc to slide up the ladder in the bottom 6.

 

Similar to Pearson on the left. Keep him around until guys like Hoglander can bump him down to the 3rd and eventually move him for futures/other holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aGENT said:

Not really a conundrum, package Virtanen for a D at that point.

Boeser is a far more logical move.  Virtanen brings a lot to the table that don't show up on the scpre sheet, but keep his value much lower than Boeser.  TT can replace Boesers offense and BB will bring a pretty solid return.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, stawns said:

Boeser is a far more logical move.  Virtanen brings a lot to the table that don't show up on the scpre sheet, but keep his value much lower than Boeser.  TT can replace Boesers offense and BB will bring a pretty solid return.

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 5:50 PM, hammertime said:

Here is the conundrum for the Canucks I can't see a future where the Canucks have Toffolli, Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin at the same time for long.

If Pod shows he can contribute in the NHL right away I look to trade Boeser for a similar age dman who isnt as good yet but has more potential, think johansen for jones esque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeser and his agent priced themselves out of Vancouver, long term.  He's really the best one to trade as he'd fetch a high return and shave 7 mil/season of our cap. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, logic said:

If Pod shows he can contribute in the NHL right away I look to trade Boeser for a similar age dman who isnt as good yet but has more potential, think johansen for jones esque

I imagine with the style of game Pod plays it will probably take some time to adjust to the NHL much like it did for Bo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aGENT said:

He'd fetch a high return because he's a first line, 1 shot scorer with high character.

 

Will Pettersson be the next 'best one to trade' when his contract is up, for the same reasons?

 

Paying your top players for being top players is not the problem some here seem to think it is.

He is a good player !. but the question presented was having too many in that position

If we have young players that can earn a spot, why not trade Boeser for a positional player we need before he is hurt and earning 8+ mil and his value is weakened. When have the Canucks sold high? I don't think it has anything to do with Boeser not being liked or appreciated, I think its what might make the team stronger

As good as Boeser is, He is not a franchise player like EP or Hughes and wont be requests to trade them when their contract is up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just don't re-sign Toffoli.  Doesn't that solve this pending problem?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

He is a good player !. but the question presented was having too many in that position

If we have young players that can earn a spot, why not trade Boeser for a positional player we need before he is hurt and earning 8+ mil and his value is weakened. When have the Canucks sold high? I don't think it has anything to do with Boeser not being liked or appreciated, I think its what might make the team stronger

As good as Boeser is, He is not a franchise player like EP or Hughes and wont be requests to trade them when their contract is up

Who says he gets hurt again?

 

Why not keep him and trade someone else that's not a high character, one shot scoring 1RW that's far more difficult to replace?

 

45 minutes ago, Googlie said:

Just don't re-sign Toffoli.  Doesn't that solve this pending problem?

I'm fine re-signing Toffoli and moving a young F for a D and letting Podkolzin eventually take over for Toffoli down the line. Nothing wrong with the premise (even with Boeser should the return be suitable). In fact it would arguably be ideal asset management.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.