Notable Canuck Trades That Almost Happened (Discussion)

[GhostsOf1994]

16 hours ago, luckylager said:

He said Canucks, not Grizzlies 

 

Fun fact, I made Big Country Reaves cry. 

I did too! Junior Grizzlies camp?

[drummer4now]

Raymond

Ballard

1st 

 

That's all 

 

 

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, peaches5 said:

Okay, why are you saying top defensive "pairing" in 2011 when this offer was years before that? Burrows was coming off one good year playing with the Sedins. He was a bottom 6 forward. Bieksa was having a solid year but he was a 3/4 dman and definitely not top 2 material. Our pick was the 22nd overall, not a great 1st. It was 11+ years ago but I do remember Yzerman making comments he never considered trading the Hedman pick. Hedman was seen as a lock for a number 1 dman by most scouts.

Sorry bad wording - they became that was the point.  Hedman was considered a "candidate" for the first overall in 2009 - most scouts had Tavares as a slam dunk but as usual had to find someone to make it a bit of a story between the consensus top two players.   I have piles of prospects mags dating back to before Ohlund was drafted...yes he was considered a slam dunk and highly touted too.  The point was Burrows and Bieksa plus our first was not a deal that Tampa Bay would ignore which was what I was posting against .... Burrows and Bieksa in 2009 were showing what they had to offer and both had upside.  Hamhuis and Bieksa a few years later were considered our top pairing in 2011...here is what THN had to say in their book ranking the top 50 players by franchise - ranked number 23, one spot above Burrows " One of the NHL's meanest mugs and had rough game to match.  Formed great top pair with Hamhuis in run to 2011 final."  2005-15...he'd been in our system for a while then and personally I felt he was always underused on the PP, yet still put up good numbers - one season led the league in even strength points - in the four years he'd been there by then he put up over 40 points his rookie season and again in 2009....how many defenseman manage that?  Burrows was just cutting his teeth in the NHL and within three years worked his way to the top line...his story of perservence was already an incredible one and hockey people took notice - not exactly chopped liver.   I stand by thread - which is that was a good offer by the Canucks - and personally despite Hedman finally becoming what he should be I'm glad we didnt' make the trade.  No 2011 with a 20 year old Hedman and no Bieksa and Burrows....

 

BTW.  Hedman started young but his first four years his high water mark was 26 points.  

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by IBatch

[lmm]

49 minutes ago, HC20.0 said:

Perhaps. Tampa wouldn't bite though because they wanted either Edler or Kesler in the deal, so I don't know how far we get in 2011 without either of them,as they were both key contributors in that run. Plus if we trade Schneider to Tampa, we wouldn't have our captain today. 

I would trade Horvat today for a Cup in 2011

Richards had 2x 15 pts , a 14 and a 12 pt playoffs since 2008, as well he was a Conn Smythe winner, and he would have been a tradable asset, so we might have got Bo anyway.

Kesler was good in 2011 though

But while Richards was slightly higher ppg in the playoffs than Kesler, he did have a 1 point in 10 game season, and Canuck luck suggests that might have been 2011 had we traded for him.

I think he would have killed our cap, $2.8 over the cost of Kesler, so some loss of depth

[lmm]

upon further inspection, Richards contract was up after 2011.

So, either we lose him to the Rangers with no return, or we match and sign him for $6.666 until this season (with ful NMC, because that's what we did back then) and he becomes Loui E at +$.666/yr.

on a possitive note that contract is up this year, woot

[IBatch]

5 minutes ago, lmm said:

I would trade Horvat today for a Cup in 2011

Richards had 2x 15 pts , a 14 and a 12 pt playoffs since 2008, as well he was a Conn Smythe winner, and he would have been a tradable asset, so we might have got Bo anyway.

Kesler was good in 2011 though

But while Richards was slightly higher ppg in the playoffs than Kesler, he did have a 1 point in 10 game season, and Canuck luck suggests that might have been 2011 had we traded for him.

I think he would have killed our cap, $2.8 over the cost of Kesler, so some loss of depth

I would trade any of our players all-time for a cup in any year.  Sure would be nice to be talking about the good old days and the parade and the hero's from that run right now instead of whatever comes up....not that it's that bad just wish we win one so badly .   The video showing EP's greatness on a different thread (simulation) made my day.  Over 1700 career points ( putting him in the top ten all-time), wins the Hart, Lindsay, Art Ross and Lady Byng in one year (pulling a "Gretzky"...must be a little embarrising walking up to the podium and collecting half the hardware in one awards ceremony ha ha)....and later  a Selke...over 100 points one year in his mid-thirties...and the best part is two cups along the way (and maybe a Smythe or two to top off his possibly waiving the three year waiting period HHOF career).   Whomever designed that simulation must have some high hopes for EP,...  As far as Richards goes he was an incredible player for a couple years - if we got him during that period you just never know - and he wasn't that bad when he regressed either - just no longer a top player.  Stupid cap ruins some things about hockey - vanilla - parity...no more dynasties and all-star teams.  That said throwing money at it never worked for TO and especially the NYR ( check out their all-star teams of the early 2000's...crazy crazy good on paper)...but it did make it a lot easier on GMs and clubs with deep pockets.   MG did an admirable job of navigating the cap to try and win right then - and thats exactly what GM's should do when you teams number one in both special teams and wins the Presidents trophy.   Its also why I don't really care about the 3 million re-capture penalty - ridiculous contract the league should have stepped in and stopped it though (aside from the point).  

 

Detroit won two of their cups with an average payroll- then bought one in 2002.  COL and NJ also weren't top spenders - but no cap meant less barriers...off topic but after over a decade I wish they make some ammendments to it and gave a little back to teams and GM's.   McDavid could of asked for the max but didn't so his team could afford an extra third liner or bottom pairing defenseman.  Honourable really - and hes making peanuts compared to the top players in the big three.  The league keeps rolling back the split - and its gone too far IMO.  The league would make more money if we had great rivalries again...and that can't happen and hasn't happened other then a bit with age old PHI and PIT since there was no cap.   The hate is built by great teams going hammer and tong on each other for several years.  Otto and Messier...Lemuiex and Draper...Potvin and Robinson etc...ugh so off topic this isolation is starting to mess with me a little ha ha.

 

[86Viking]

2 hours ago, lmm said:

upon further inspection, Richards contract was up after 2011.

So, either we lose him to the Rangers with no return, or we match and sign him for $6.666 until this season (with ful NMC, because that's what we did back then) and he becomes Loui E at +$.666/yr.

on a possitive note that contract is up this year, woot

true, but Richards produced 0.72ppg with the Rangers in the years, LoserSSon has posted 0.36ppg since he signed here. Apples to Oranges I know, but Richards was far more productive vs LE.

 

Yes, Richards got bought out by NYR after he posted a 51pt season

[Smashian Kassian]

Reading that Gretzky stuff makes me sad.

 

I don't know who this Stan guy is, but he should be right up there with Messier & Marchand amongst most hated in Canuck land. 

[theo5789]

On 4/3/2020 at 10:24 PM, lmm said:

yup,

I remember a story about Brasheer getting a speeding ticket and using the "Do you know who i am?" line

 

it was a tough time to be a fan, that is for sure.

 

But it is funny cuz its in this thread, and over in the Judd Brackett thread the sentiment is Brackett is easily replacable.

I know its a stretch, but it shows how easily things go wrong when you lose one or two important pieces and replace them with the wrong pieces.

 

hey I just looked Messier up on HockeyDB, it says he was traded from Edmonton to NYR and from the Rangers to San Jose in 2003. Its like his time here didn't happen.

We should have been so lucky.

Remember that time we ALMOST signed Messier?

whew Lucky that never happened!!!

haha

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=3688

He's not on the trade history because we (unfortunately) signed him as a UFA rather than trading for him.

 

As for the Brackett issue, seems pessimistic to think we will replace him (if at all) with the wrong piece. We could just as simply find a suitable replacement and all will be well (or we retain him with the same result). Comparing this to the Messier situation is like believing we will replace Brackett with a watermelon (with the watermelon having a more positive net effect than Messier).

[theo5789]

On 4/3/2020 at 9:22 PM, Kevin Biestra said:

If we had acquired Gretzky in 1988, not sure what we would have had to give up...

 

LA gave up Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelinas, and 1st rounders in 1989, 91 and 93.

 

We didn't really have anyone on the roster at the time with the youth and scoring accomplishments of Carson...  I guess a slightly older Tanti / Skriko might have done the trick.  My guess is they would have wanted Brian Bradley in the package.  He was probably showing the most promise as a young scorer.

 

As to those first round picks, we could still get Linden and we still steal Bure in the late rounds at the draft.

 

Our 1989 / 91 / 93 picks ended up being Jason Herter, Alek Stokjanov and Mike Wilson.  I don't mind losing those guys to get Gretzky at all.

 

Given that it was the Gretzky Kings that gave us trouble in 91 and 93, and Edmonton in 1992...  It's pretty fair to suggest that we could have won multiple Cups in the early 90s with Gretzky on the roster and giving up players that we lost anyway by 1990 and draft picks that never did anything on our team.

 

With Gretzky on our team, we probably wouldn't have been bottomfeeders enough to draft Linden...but we could definitely still have traded for McLean, Ronning, Courtnall, Adams, Lumme, etc.

LA also gave up a large sum of cash and took on a couple of players (not sure if for salary reasons) which may have been integral in the trade as well.

 

It's interesting because we acquired Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelinas and one of those first round picks in Martin Rucinsky later on.

 

Without Stojanov, we don't have the WCE era (of course this meant acquiring Bertuzzi as well when Linden got traded due to the Messier signing). Sure is nice to dream of Gretzky here, but it would be interesting to see what the butterfly effect that would've caused and if it would've led to a Cup indeed which makes all the now known future moot to get the elusive Cup for this franchise.

[grandmaster]

Wayne Gretzky

 

This is the one most talk about and I was a huge fan of his but, I’m not so sure acquiring him would have earned the Canucks the Cup.

 

1988 - The Coilers got 3 firsts, 15M, a and a top end young player (Carson). The Canucks didn’t have the money and no one on the team that was to the level of 100 point man Jimmy Carson (it’s ironic how we got him a few years later on a reclamation project that never panned out).

 

1996 - free agency was blown by McIdiot’s take it or leave it offer in the middle of the night but would this have been a smart move by ownership in getting him at this stage? Gretzky wanted a piece of ownership and only ended up playing just 3 more seasons with a much lower level of play.

[Kevin Biestra]

4 hours ago, grandmaster said:

Wayne Gretzky

 

This is the one most talk about and I was a huge fan of his but, I’m not so sure acquiring him would have earned the Canucks the Cup.

 

1988 - The Coilers got 3 firsts, 15M, a and a top end young player (Carson). The Canucks didn’t have the money and no one on the team that was to the level of 100 point man Jimmy Carson (it’s ironic how we got him a few years later on a reclamation project that never panned out).

 

1996 - free agency was blown by McIdiot’s take it or leave it offer in the middle of the night but would this have been a smart move by ownership in getting him at this stage? Gretzky wanted a piece of ownership and only ended up playing just 3 more seasons with a much lower level of play.

 

1988...  The Griffiths tended to find a way to leverage their wealth to take risks (e.g. Grizzlies).  Had they acquired Gretzky, they certainly would have had a better shot at recouping their investment than they did with an NBA team.  Our 1989, 1991 and 1993 first round picks (the ones LA gave up) were ALL complete duds.  They never helped us at all, except for us being able to swindle PGH for Naslund with Stojanov.  We didn't have a Jimmy Carson, true, but I think Tanti or Skriko plus Brian Bradley might have done it.  I have us at a way over 50% chance of winning a Cup with Gretzky in the lineup from 1988 onward.

 

1996...  Gretzky between Bure and Mogilny with no dickhead Messier to screw everything up?  He definitely leads the league in assists like he actually did from 1996-98, but by a FAR greater margin.  I think he also fares much better in 1988-99, gets 80 or 90 points instead of 60, ends up 2nd to Jagr in assists, and decides to play another year.

 

In both situations, it would have been a great investment and well worth it.  I can't guarantee a Cup 100%...but the odds look very, very good.  For one, we don't have to fight our way through the Kings in the 90s...they still suck now, instead of becoming a dominant team.  And we're also far better suited to take out Edmonton in 1992.

 

 

[250Integra]

Raymond, Ballard, and a 2nd round pick for anyone.

[GB5]

On 4/3/2020 at 9:46 PM, Kevin Biestra said:

 

We actually did trade Tanti to Pittsburgh.  Tanti and Pederson for McBain and Quinn.  Four good players, all of whom had very little left in the tank.

 

But Quinn did get us Ronning and Courtnall, etc...

That trade was all about Garth but I'll give some credit to Quinn

[Fanuck]

On 4/3/2020 at 9:22 PM, Kevin Biestra said:

If we had acquired Gretzky in 1988, not sure what we would have had to give up...

 

Our 1989 / 91 / 93 picks ended up being Jason Herter, Alek Stokjanov and Mike Wilson.  I don't mind losing those guys to get Gretzky at all.

 

With Gretzky on our team, we probably wouldn't have been bottomfeeders enough to draft Linden...but we could definitely still have traded for McLean, Ronning, Courtnall, Adams, Lumme, etc.

Stojanov eventually got us Naslund though.  Now that's a really good question - would we have been better off with Gretzky for however many years we could sign him for (lots of rumors at that time that he never liked our franchise), or Naslund for the incredible decade he gave to our organization......?

[WeneedLumme]

12 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Stojanov eventually got us Naslund though.  Now that's a really good question - would we have been better off with Gretzky for however many years we could sign him for (lots of rumors at that time that he never liked our franchise), or Naslund for the incredible decade he gave to our organization......?

Trading for Gretzky would have been like the Lindros trade. We would have needed to gut our team's talent and depth to the point that he would have been surrounded by nobody capable of supporting him.

 

There used to be a saying, "Put a fire hydrant on Gretzky's wing and it will score 25 goals." But it would not work as well to ice a team consisting of Gretz plus 19 fire hydrants.

[Kevin Biestra]

24 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Trading for Gretzky would have been like the Lindros trade. We would have needed to gut our team's talent and depth to the point that he would have been surrounded by nobody capable of supporting him.

 

There used to be a saying, "Put a fire hydrant on Gretzky's wing and it will score 25 goals." But it would not work as well to ice a team consisting of Gretz plus 19 fire hydrants.

 

I don't really think so, not based on the LA trade that actually happened.  It was about Carson and three first rounders.  Our three first rounders for those years turned out to be complete junk and never helped us at all, but we still made it to the Final in 94 without them or Gretzky, and as for Jimmy Carson...I think Skriko or Tanti plus Bradley probably gets the job done there, maybe another throw in.  And Skriko, Tanti and Bradley were all gone anyway by 1991 or so.

 

Giving up the three first rounders sounds like a huge price when looking at in 1988...but we essentially gave them up for nothing anyway by drafting guys that never contributed at the NHL level.  And we still did pretty well on the ice from 91-94 without them.  Trading them for Gretzky is just like a massive, massive, massive bonus.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Kevin Biestra

[Kevin Biestra]

13 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Stojanov eventually got us Naslund though.  Now that's a really good question - would we have been better off with Gretzky for however many years we could sign him for (lots of rumors at that time that he never liked our franchise), or Naslund for the incredible decade he gave to our organization......?

 

I am almost positive we'd have been better off with Gretzky.  We never made it past the second round with Naslund, as much as I hold him in high regard as a person and a player.  It was very impressive watching Nazzy and Bert in the regular season for a couple years, but we're talking about Wayne Gretzky here.  He won three more Art Ross Trophies with the Kings.  And he'd have been on our team instead when he eliminated us in 1991 and 1993, and on our team for 1994.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Kevin Biestra

[lmm]

A little off topic, but ones that got away, in the same draft, 

1979 Jake Milford did a pretty good job in rounds 1 and 2 selecting Rick Vaive and Brent Ashton. NOt the best players in their rounds but solid picks.

Round 3 Ken Ellacot, 1 pick before the Oil took Mark Messier

Round 4 Art Rutland, 1 pick before Glenn Anderson

 

Rutland scored 139 points in the Soo playing with Paul Coffey but 0 nhl games

[Kevin Biestra]

34 minutes ago, lmm said:

A little off topic, but ones that got away, in the same draft, 

1979 Jake Milford did a pretty good job in rounds 1 and 2 selecting Rick Vaive and Brent Ashton. NOt the best players in their rounds but solid picks.

Round 3 Ken Ellacot, 1 pick before the Oil took Mark Messier

Round 4 Art Rutland, 1 pick before Glenn Anderson

 

Rutland scored 139 points in the Soo playing with Paul Coffey but 0 nhl games

 

One of the ones that really got away was Mike Rogers.  We drafted him, but he was also drafted in the WHA.  They signed him, we didn't, and then a few years later he had three straight 100 point seasons in the NHL.  He would have probably been our greatest player pre-Bure.

 

We drafted a superstar and then had nothing to show for it.