Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

[Trade] Kings trade Tyler Toffoli to Canucks for Tim Schaller, Tyler Madden, 2020 2nd-round pick, conditional 2022 4th-round pick

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, The Lock said:

I don't really think there's anything solid to base that on. I kind of see Madden as having a Gaudette-like mentality. Gaudette was more than willing to play wing., basically do anything to get into the league.

 

I'm sensing a lot of paranoia with college players here, and understandably so when you have players like Butcher, Fox, and Vesey just choosing what team they want to play for. However, keep in mind that's a small sample size of the overall number of NCAA prospects in the system. Nevertheless, I can't argue against thinking he might, but you also wouldn't be able to argue against me thinking he would sign here for the very same reason: we don't know. Period. lol

 

So I guess I'm of the mentality of why immediately think the negative about what would happen, despite the odds being against that?

How bad is the Tofu trade (hurts us while helping a rival) if we don’t sign Tofu, and he’s just a rental?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

And then suffers a career ending injury and realizes he left 30 million dollars on the table?  

Fair argument but, as I said; He'd be betting on himself.

Right now, I see him in that 5- 5.5 range which seems to be a trend here. 

Before he came to Vancouver Tofu averaged just over 0.50 ppg. 

Though a small sample, he dramatically raised his ppg to 1. 

That is a big jump but hardly enough for him to go after a big contract that sees him to the end of his career. 

If he can come into next season and produce 70+ pnts, my clients value goes up by a huge margin. 

It could also add more term at the other end of his career and buy him another season at max pay out.

As his agent, my job is to maximize his value and get him as many years as I can.

At the very least, he still maintains his current value but still buys more time at the other end of his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Alflives said:

IMO it was the wrong time to make the Tofu trade.  We are still rebuilding, and need all our top prospects and picks.  However, I also believe Madden would not have signed with us.  He’s a very light guy, 150 pounds, who wants to play centre.  He’d need to gain weight (physically mature) to compete for a spot on our team.  (Our centre depth is excellent)  That would mean he’d have to do this maturing physically in the AHL.  IMO, Madden would choose to develop in college.  He’d be able then to pick the team with his best chance to take a centre spot.  I think he’s extremely happy going to the Kings.  Now he can come out of college early, and do his maturing on an NHL club.  

Madden was on TSN after being traded.

 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alflives said:

How bad is the Tofu trade (hurts us while helping a rival) if we don’t sign Tofu, and he’s just a rental?  

I tend to be of the mentality that you can't really base trades on what may or may not happen in the future. Obviously, value probably changes somewhat depending on what you think you can or cannot do on acquiring a player, but at least we have first dibs on trying to sign him if that's the goal. We at least know that if he wants to stay here then he can (provided it doesn't break the bank for us of course).

 

It's really a similar mentality I have with Madden. We can't say whether he would have signed with us or not and the accusations to say he wouldn't are completely unfounded unless if evidence is brought forward to support them. I don't get why we expect our prospects to be like that automatically with no rhyme or reason, but I guess people like to jump to conclusions rather than think logically about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Lock said:

I tend to be of the mentality that you can't really base trades on what may or may not happen in the future. Obviously, value probably changes somewhat depending on what you think you can or cannot do on acquiring a player, but at least we have first dibs on trying to sign him if that's the goal. We at least know that if he wants to stay here then he can (provided it doesn't break the bank for us of course).

 

It's really a similar mentality I have with Madden. We can't say whether he would have signed with us or not and the accusations to say he wouldn't are completely unfounded unless if evidence is brought forward to support them. I don't get why we expect our prospects to be like that automatically with no rhyme or reason, but I guess people like to jump to conclusions rather than think logically about it.

I think the idea that Madden wouldn’t have signed with us is based on logic.  He’s very light, and clearly needs to physically mature before even competing for any NHL spot.  He can spend two years maturing in the AHL riding buses and getting paid 70,000.  Or he can stay in college, play fewer games, work out a lot more, be in a successful program, and then (after the two years) pick the team where he sees his best chance to play.  I think he’s happy to be a King.  That’s a team where he might have a chance to play after his junior year.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the idea that Madden wouldn’t have signed with us is based on logic.  He’s very light, and clearly needs to physically mature before even competing for any NHL spot.  He can spend two years maturing in the AHL riding buses and getting paid 70,000.  Or he can stay in college, play fewer games, work out a lot more, be in a successful program, and then (after the two years) pick the team where he sees his best chance to play.  I think he’s happy to be a King.  That’s a team where he might have a chance to play after his junior year.  

Apparently we should believe Benning saying that Madden not signing was never a  concern or issue in trading and Dhaliwal saying Maddens intent was always to be a Canuck

If they just saw that there was no room in the future of this team -fine

 

I really like Tyler, but his position isn't as big of a concern as defence and a big luxury (Kinda building like the Leafs,- Forwards, Goalie)

Could you imagine having traded for a defenceman like Tyler?

Canucks with the forwards and potential forwards coming, along with Quinn and another defenceman (equivalent of Tyler) would be better off, rather than stacking on forwards, and keeping D who have limits in creating offence

 As has been said before Defence wins Championships 

 

Defencemen with skill also make the forwards better

Another top dman for the 2nd line and putting the 2 on the PP together would be way more effective imo

 

I am not a big fan of trading picks and tradeable prospects, unless it's to improve positions you are weaker on

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


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

Apparently we should believe Benning saying that Madden not signing was never a  concern or issue in trading and Dhaliwal saying Maddens intent was always to be a Canuck

If they just saw that there was no room in the future of this team -fine

 

I really like Tyler, but his position isn't as big of a concern as defence and a big luxury (Kinda building like the Leafs,- Forwards, Goalie)

Could you imagine having traded for a defenceman like Tyler?

Canucks with the forwards and potential forwards coming, along with Quinn and another defenceman (equivalent of Tyler) would be better off, rather than stacking on forwards, and keeping D who have limits in creating offence

 As has been said before Defence wins Championships 

 

Defencemen with skill also make the forwards better

Another top dman for the 2nd line and putting the 2 on the PP together would be way more effective imo

 

I am not a big fan of trading picks and tradeable prospects, unless it's to improve positions you are weaker on

Hey that’s a great post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2020 at 9:02 AM, Alflives said:

How bad is the Tofu trade (hurts us while helping a rival) if we don’t sign Tofu, and he’s just a rental?  

how many times have you reposted this?

you're becoming a broken record of premature glooming

give it a rest?  wait until - if - it becomes a worthwhile whining point?

  • Hydration 1
  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, oldnews said:

how many times have you reposted this?

you're becoming a broken record of premature glooming

give it a rest?  wait until - if - it becomes a worthwhile whining point?

Even Mrs Alf says I worry too much.  I just want us to win a friggin’ Cup at some point.  Let’s sign Tofu then. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Apparently we should believe Benning saying that Madden not signing was never a  concern or issue in trading and Dhaliwal saying Maddens intent was always to be a Canuck

If they just saw that there was no room in the future of this team -fine

 

I really like Tyler, but his position isn't as big of a concern as defence and a big luxury (Kinda building like the Leafs,- Forwards, Goalie)

Could you imagine having traded for a defenceman like Tyler?

Canucks with the forwards and potential forwards coming, along with Quinn and another defenceman (equivalent of Tyler) would be better off, rather than stacking on forwards, and keeping D who have limits in creating offence

 As has been said before Defence wins Championships 

 

Defencemen with skill also make the forwards better

Another top dman for the 2nd line and putting the 2 on the PP together would be way more effective imo

 

I am not a big fan of trading picks and tradeable prospects, unless it's to improve positions you are weaker on

This might be a valid point - if it weren't a hypothetical in a vacuum.  Otherwise, there's so much wrong with it.

 

First - your comparable of 'kinda building like the Leafs' is absurd.   This team has Markstrom, Demko, DiPietro - it's own pipeline of goaltenders - and no shortage of D prospects.

 

Second, can I imagine if they'd traded for a defenseman like Tyler?  Yeah - I can - and that sure as hell wasn't happening for a 2nd round pick and prospect.  When was the last time you saw a legitimate top 6 D dealt for that price?    Let's be real - and look at D who were actually available and dealt at the deadline = Skjei cost a 1st round pick (and he has 23 pts - in other words, a few more points than Tanev or Myers - and not really someone that would improve this blueline).  Sami Vatanen - likewise - and again - cost a high end prospect (Kuokkanen). 

 

Third - the Canucks added Toffoli - because Boeser's health is/was an uncertainty - and you need to combine that - in context - with the fact they've also lost Ferland, lost Leivo, and have suffered primarily losses to their forward group this year.   Benning bought early and arguably low relative to the way the market played out.  Imagine the present team - without Toffoli, and without Boeser (his health could not be presumed) - and without the forwards already noted - and you have huge holes on the wing.   They addressed a real, existing need, not a hypothetical one - and are not a front, top heavy built team in any event - that is a flippant mischaracterization.

 

And that is coming from someone that is borderline categorically opposed to rentals.  I make an exception in this instance for the reasons the team cited - first, they had a glaring need emerge that threatened to tank their otherwise very successful season.  They sent a message that this group was worth the expenditure - people can debate that - but arguably, they also represent a good opportunity for Toffoli, to play with high end team-mates who can uptick his career (as has been evident), they have his best friend on the roster, and they are a rising team = no reason to believe/presume he's simply going to walk.  If he re-signs, he came at an extremely reasonable cost.  Two things were entirely unpredictable - Markstrom's injury - and a virus outbreak.   Those, really, are the two contingencies that put the Toffoli acquisition in a different light - and neither of them can be predicted - or ignored -when it comes to the eventual benefits/wisdom of having acquired this player - and again, that calculation would be merely dependent on the assumption that he does not sign here, or that the team does not make the playoffs.

 

On that last note - if the season does not progress - Toffoli still played a signficant role in hanging onto the 3rd seed in the division - which impacts the value of the pick that moves in the Miller deal - so arguably the closure on a late 1st itself has some value.

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Even Mrs Alf says I worry too much.  I just want us to win a friggin’ Cup at some point.  Let’s sign Tofu then. 

I have no idea how Toffoli would/will feel about re-signing here.

 

However:

1) he has scored 6 goals and 10 pts in 10 games here - which translates over 82 to about a 50 goal season and ppg production.  I would assume he doesn't mind the impact/effect of playing with guys like Miller and EP.   Toffoli has has one 30 goal season in his career, and 2 x 20 goal seasons - and broke 50 pts once. He could sign a mid range value deal presently (based on being a 40-50 pt player/large sample performance to this point of his career) , or sign a 2 or 3 year deal and then go to the bank with his next contract after having spent a few years riding with Miller and EP.

 

2) In spite of Boeser's presence/return, there remains a spot in the top 6 for Toffoli - a spot otherwise occupied by LE on Horvat's line.   The team has youth RW like Virtanen pushing - and Podkolzin - however, that does not preclude re-signing a player like Toffoli - and Virtanen has proven a versatile, two way young forward who can be effective up and down the lineup.  

 

3) His best friend is here (Pearson) - who is having a career year playing with Horvat - already surpassed his career best production (in 69 games) - and has done so, arguably in conditions that leave more room for uptick.  Pearson has had 45.8% ozone starts this year, has 32 even strength pts in spite of Horvat's line being drawn into matchup/shutdown roles (in the absences of Sutter and Beagle) - and the Horvat Pearson line has had a relatively unproductive empty-net-specialist on their opposing wing - as a shutdown complement (LE has 13 pts this year).   Hard to imagine that Pearson's production, too, would not have been better had he been playing with a Boeser or Toffoli throughout the season.

 

So - who knows - but that looks like a pretty solid foundation to sell as a good landing spot to re-sign.

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ba;;isticsports said:

Apparently we should believe Benning saying that Madden not signing was never a  concern or issue in trading and Dhaliwal saying Maddens intent was always to be a Canuck

If they just saw that there was no room in the future of this team -fine

 

I really like Tyler, but his position isn't as big of a concern as defence and a big luxury (Kinda building like the Leafs,- Forwards, Goalie)

Could you imagine having traded for a defenceman like Tyler?

Canucks with the forwards and potential forwards coming, along with Quinn and another defenceman (equivalent of Tyler) would be better off, rather than stacking on forwards, and keeping D who have limits in creating offence

 As has been said before Defence wins Championships 

 

Defencemen with skill also make the forwards better

Another top dman for the 2nd line and putting the 2 on the PP together would be way more effective imo

 

I am not a big fan of trading picks and tradeable prospects, unless it's to improve positions you are weaker on

Why are you using first names?

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, oldnews said:

This might be a valid point - if it weren't a hypothetical in a vacuum.  Otherwise, there's so much wrong with it.

 

First - your comparable of 'kinda building like the Leafs' is absurd.   This team has Markstrom, Demko, DiPietro - it's own pipeline of goaltenders - and no shortage of D prospects.

 

Second, can I imagine if they'd traded for a defenseman like Tyler?  Yeah - I can - and that sure as hell wasn't happening for a 2nd round pick and prospect.  When was the last time you saw a legitimate top 6 D dealt for that price?    Let's be real - and look at D who were actually available and dealt at the deadline = Skjei cost a 1st round pick (and he has 23 pts - in other words, a few more points than Tanev or Myers - and not really someone that would improve this blueline).  Sami Vatanen - likewise - and again - cost a high end prospect (Kuokkanen). 

 

Third - the Canucks added Toffoli - because Boeser's health is/was an uncertainty - and you need to combine that - in context - with the fact they've also lost Ferland, lost Leivo, and have suffered primarily losses to their forward group this year.   Benning bought early and arguably low relative to the way the market played out.  Imagine the present team - without Toffoli, and without Boeser (his health could not be presumed) - and without the forwards already noted - and you have huge holes on the wing.   They addressed a real, existing need, not a hypothetical one - and are not a front, top heavy built team in any event - that is a flippant mischaracterization.

 

And that is coming from someone that is borderline categorically opposed to rentals.  I make an exception in this instance for the reasons the team cited - first, they had a glaring need emerge that threatened to tank their otherwise very successful season.  They sent a message that this group was worth the expenditure - people can debate that - but arguably, they also represent a good opportunity for Toffoli, to play with high end team-mates who can uptick his career (as has been evident), they have his best friend on the roster, and they are a rising team = no reason to believe/presume he's simply going to walk.  If he re-signs, he came at an extremely reasonable cost.  Two things were entirely unpredictable - Markstrom's injury - and a virus outbreak.   Those, really, are the two contingencies that put the Toffoli acquisition in a different light - and neither of them can be predicted - or ignored -when it comes to the eventual benefits/wisdom of having acquired this player - and again, that calculation would be merely dependent on the assumption that he does not sign here, or that the team does not make the playoffs.

 

On that last note - if the season does not progress - Toffoli still played a signficant role in hanging onto the 3rd seed in the division - which impacts the value of the pick that moves in the Miller deal - so arguably the closure on a late 1st itself has some value.

 

I didn't read all of you post, just the first paragraph

 

You are so right

 

If we are to trade for a top 4 dman we are looking at Virtanen, a second and likely Woo. Anything below that we have in spades. 

 

Also, if we were to trade for a dman I would prefer to entertain the idea of trading Boeser and something to get a minute munching 2 way/defensive guy who can play top pairing, on the right side and in any situation

 

Edit-

Went back and finished reading, worth it

 

Great point on basically using madden and a second to devalue the first we have up

 

Another thing I can see happening is if toffoli re-signs maybe in 3 years he's dealt at the trade deadline for picks. Same with Miller

Edited by Wanless
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wanless said:

I didn't read all of you post, just the first paragraph

 

You are so right

 

If we are to trade for a top 4 dman we are looking at Virtanen, a second and likely Woo. Anything below that we have in spades. 

 

Also, if we were to trade for a dman I would prefer to entertain the idea of trading Boeser and something to get a minute munching 2 way/defensive guy who can play top pairing, on the right side and in any situation

 

Edit-

Went back and finished reading, worth it

 

Great point on basically using madden and a second to devalue the first we have up

 

Another thing I can see happening is if toffoli re-signs maybe in 3 years he's dealt at the trade deadline for picks. Same with Miller

I like your post, but don’t completely understand the concept of devaluing the first to Tampa, by giving up Madden and a second to get Tofu.  Yes, that does make that first to Tampa a lower pick, but how does that help us other than we can say, “see, we got Miller for a great price”?  When we connect the two trades together like you’re suggesting, isn’t It  like we added Madden and a second to get Miller?  Apologies but I don’t get the connection.  

Share this post


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

I like your post, but don’t completely understand the concept of devaluing the first to Tampa, by giving up Madden and a second to get Tofu.  Yes, that does make that first to Tampa a lower pick, but how does that help us other than we can say, “see, we got Miller for a great price”?  When we connect the two trades together like you’re suggesting, isn’t It  like we added Madden and a second to get Miller?  Apologies but I don’t get the connection.  

The thought, from what I interpreted of what old news said, is that instead of the first being 17th overall it could be more like 20th overall 

 

This because Tyler came in a put up points to keep us 3rd in the division based on points/game

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The thought, from what I interpreted of what old news said, is that instead of the first being 17th overall it could be more like 20th overall 

 

This because Tyler came in a put up points to keep us 3rd in the division based on points/game

I understand that part, but don’t see how giving up Madden and a second to devalue the first to Tampa helps us?  I’m hoping we sign 

Tofu, and then we got Miller and Tofu for a (not in the lottery) first, a second, a third, and Madden.  That would be great!  If we don’t sign Tofu, then we gave up all that for Miller.  Still, I think Miller is worth that.  He’s a fabulous player, in his prime, and on a great contract.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I understand that part, but don’t see how giving up Madden and a second to devalue the first to Tampa helps us?  I’m hoping we sign 

Tofu, and then we got Miller and Tofu for a (not in the lottery) first, a second, a third, and Madden.  That would be great!  If we don’t sign Tofu, then we gave up all that for Miller.  Still, I think Miller is worth that.  He’s a fabulous player, in his prime, and on a great contract.  

I see

 

I think because toffoli makes us a better team. A 17th is technically worse than a 15th.

 

Either way. If we can keep toffoli and somehow get our d systems sorted out I can see us having a good chance to make it to the Conference finals 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I see

 

I think because toffoli makes us a better team. A 17th is technically worse than a 15th.

 

Either way. If we can keep toffoli and somehow get our d systems sorted out I can see us having a good chance to make it to the Conference finals 

That’s what I’m hoping for too!  :towel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, oldnews said:

This might be a valid point - if it weren't a hypothetical in a vacuum.  Otherwise, there's so much wrong with it.

 

First - your comparable of 'kinda building like the Leafs' is absurd.   This team has Markstrom, Demko, DiPietro - it's own pipeline of goaltenders - and no shortage of D prospects.

 

Second, can I imagine if they'd traded for a defenseman like Tyler?  Yeah - I can - and that sure as hell wasn't happening for a 2nd round pick and prospect.  When was the last time you saw a legitimate top 6 D dealt for that price?    Let's be real - and look at D who were actually available and dealt at the deadline = Skjei cost a 1st round pick (and he has 23 pts - in other words, a few more points than Tanev or Myers - and not really someone that would improve this blueline).  Sami Vatanen - likewise - and again - cost a high end prospect (Kuokkanen). 

 

Third - the Canucks added Toffoli - because Boeser's health is/was an uncertainty - and you need to combine that - in context - with the fact they've also lost Ferland, lost Leivo, and have suffered primarily losses to their forward group this year.   Benning bought early and arguably low relative to the way the market played out.  Imagine the present team - without Toffoli, and without Boeser (his health could not be presumed) - and without the forwards already noted - and you have huge holes on the wing.   They addressed a real, existing need, not a hypothetical one - and are not a front, top heavy built team in any event - that is a flippant mischaracterization.

 

And that is coming from someone that is borderline categorically opposed to rentals.  I make an exception in this instance for the reasons the team cited - first, they had a glaring need emerge that threatened to tank their otherwise very successful season.  They sent a message that this group was worth the expenditure - people can debate that - but arguably, they also represent a good opportunity for Toffoli, to play with high end team-mates who can uptick his career (as has been evident), they have his best friend on the roster, and they are a rising team = no reason to believe/presume he's simply going to walk.  If he re-signs, he came at an extremely reasonable cost.  Two things were entirely unpredictable - Markstrom's injury - and a virus outbreak.   Those, really, are the two contingencies that put the Toffoli acquisition in a different light - and neither of them can be predicted - or ignored -when it comes to the eventual benefits/wisdom of having acquired this player - and again, that calculation would be merely dependent on the assumption that he does not sign here, or that the team does not make the playoffs.

 

On that last note - if the season does not progress - Toffoli still played a signficant role in hanging onto the 3rd seed in the division - which impacts the value of the pick that moves in the Miller deal - so arguably the closure on a late 1st itself has some value.

Sorry Old News

I was uninformed that the Leafs had no prospects

My point was, like the Leafs we both have good goaltending, high end forwards, but not the same abundance in dmen 

How many of those Unproven prospects will be offensive talent?

Why is it so hard  to think they couldn't have got a dman similar to Toffoli?

Toffoli wasn't producing like was with us, maybe we could have reacted early like we did with TT and got a similar player in a D You don't grab a top line player for what we got one could argue, so why not have it be a dman?

I never thought it was a good idea to be chasing after injuries late in a season to replace players that will return , I even said what happens if one of our elites go down, what will we give up then to save a season? Luckily the trade deadline stopped in Markstroms case (Dempster hopefully will grow from this experience, maybe he thought he was already there before this)?

 

They sent a message to the group it was worth the expenditure?

Will the players at contract time send a message to the group as well, in taking less to be a part of this?

IMO (lol) I believe it was more a business decision and get into the playoffs than what your opinion is

 

Not sure why you believe your opinion is the right one?

Everyone takes something from what they see, hear and feel and base an opinion on that

It does not make it 100 % factual, I doubt you are personally in contact with any players or management on the team 

So your opinion is no more right or wrong, it is just your opinion, that others may share

Notice how i never attacked your opinion?

Neither of our opinions mean anything or change anything

Were just sharing them without the need to control the other 

I take in what some say (on both sides of an issue) and helps form an opinion

My opinions change as I don't have 1st hand knowledge from the horses mouth

Much bigger issues in life than putting down someones opinion to worry about don't you think?

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

 

  • Confused 1

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.