Mikebeezy
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Mikebeezy
-
-
It’s not a bad proposal. Too bad Novak wasn’t bigger and a right shot. I guess it comes down to how good you believe Raty will become and was the partial season Novak had a sign of things to come or a one off? We need cap space and the help in the bottom 6 so I would consider it for sure.
-
1
-
-
Only If you said Braden Schneider instead.
-
If Canucks don’t pick at 11 tonight here are 3 possible options/proposals. Do you like any of them? Do you have a different proposal for tonight?
To Philly
11 OA
Lehkermaki
To van
7 OA
proposal 2
to predators
11 OA
Hoglander
To Canucks
15 OA
Fabro
Proposal 3
to rangers
11 OA
Round 3 pick 89 Oa
lehkermaki
to Canucksk’Andre Miller
Lafreniere
myself I’m hoping to pick the best d man available at 11 but Alvin yesterday said they are not shopping the 11 pick and with his track record of lying I’m expecting us to trade it. If that’s the case I like proposal 2, but I could see Canucks pushing hard for a trade for Lafreniere.
-
If PLD agrees to an extension with the Canucks before the trade happens I would be ok with it. Lowry would be a great 3c for the Canucks and Dubois is just getting better. But I don’t see it happening. And since it won’t happen I would ask for Dillon also.
-
3 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:
BPA is the answer.
but seriously
I thought the thread title meant "pick 11 players", so:
1. Bedard
2. Fantilli
3. Carlsson
4. Michkov
5. Smith
6. Leonard
7. Dvorsky
8. Benson
9. Wood
10. Reinbacher
11. Sandin Pellikka
Any one of these players and I'll be happy.
I can see how you read it that way.I Probably could of made it more clear.
-
3 minutes ago, Coconuts said:
Probably a human male in their teens
? Not I if that’s who you are referring to. Been a fan since the beginning. My grandkids are Canucks fans. And not sure why you would think that? Maybe I’m too old not to young.
-
1
-
-
If the Canucks do use the 11 pick for themselves , who do they pick? The pick likely won’t pay for a few years and our team needs will change by then, even so I don’t think picking a dman or a Center is a bad thing.
Possible picks at 11
if michkov or benson slip to 11 I think you grab either one if they don’t slip listed are I think the best options
for D
reinbacher
pellika
simashev
willander
all 4 have top 4 potential just depends on the style of player your looking for but I can see simashev being the Canucks pick at 11 if they go the D man route.
For C
Dvorsky
Leonard
Moore
all 3 have top 6 potential. I think if Dvorsky is available at 11 and Canucks going with a C this will be their pick. Obviously some of the players will be drafted before Canucks pick at 11 but some of these will be there for sure. Or do Canucks trade down and pick up another pick. If so someone from above might still be available at say 19 pick. And if not you could probably get one of
Honzek
Yager
Wood
Danielson
Ritchie
between these 5 you have middle 6 potential and every team needs good players to play on the third line. Plus you would get a second round pick also. What would you do? Keep or trade the pick? Pick a different player than listed above?
My proposal is pick 11 and take one of simashev or Dvorsky.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:
Why are people so keen to offer up Hoglander. He's a good prospect. At least the new regime has the balls to do the right thing; let him marinate in the minors until he is ready
I’m not overly keen to offer him up but he has some value and you have to add value to a trade to get value back. And with the Canucks bounty of wingers I’m not sure he fits in the plan.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:
Garland Hoglander and Rathbone
Every. Single. Proposal.
lol I hear ya. Honestly I think hoglander has some value and teams would like to get him. And you have to add something of value for teams to consider trading with you. But garland can be switched out with any contract we are trying to move imo . And I threw rathbone in just because I can’t see us using him and he could use a fresh start somewhere. Maybe take Logan Stanley back in the deal he’s in same spot as rathbone in Winnipeg.
-
With Winnipeg rumoured to be blowing things up, what do you think of going after Adam Lowry for our 3c spot? I think he would be perfect for the Canucks. Do you think Winnipeg would consider trading him? What do you think the cost would be? Probably many teams bidding if he’s available.
to jets11 oa
garland
hoglander
rathbone
to Vancouver
18 oa
Lowry
Is this even close? 11 pick and hoglander are good pick ups if your rebuilding. Clearing cap from garland is worth something to Canucks and rathbone is a throw in that might get to play in Winnipeg. Canucks get a really good 3c under a good contract plus still pick in first round.
-
Regardless of the actual return, I really think there is a trade to be had between these two teams. (Ok not regardless) but there is something for both teams to consider.
-
2 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Garland had value. Hogs has value. Peeke has negative value. They would need to add. And a lot.
You could be right but garland doesn’t have value anymore and we need cap space. When your backs are against the wall sometimes you have to lose a trade to gain cap space to move ahead. The ole 1 step back 2 steps forward approach. And I’m only suggesting these trades based on the direction the team wants to go rebuilding on the fly instead of tearing it all down. Not necessarily what I’ve would have done but in the situation we are in I would seriously consider a move similar to this.
-
1
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Peeke was a -41. He’s terrible. CBJ would be adding.
Cbj taking on one of our bad contacts is a plus for us. Plus our d coaches can work with him plus he’s just rounding out his game. I feel he’s better than his stats suggest. And Quinn was a minus 24 in 56 games a few years ago. Not suggesting Peeke is Quinn but also not suggesting Quinn had negative trade value either.
-
I’m in for either garland or Boeser. Take your pick Columbus. And I’ll admit I didn’t look into Peeke plus minus but he was I believe their top minute d man maybe their second but playing on the top pair and just starting to figure out his role.
-
To cbj
11 OA pick
hoglander
garland
to van
22 OA pick
Andrew Peeke
why Columbus does this. They get another top pick. They need middle 6 help more than anything. And they have 2 quality rhd prospects coming up.
Why Vancouver does this. A top 4 shot blocking stay at home rhd , hopefully a good partner for Quinn. We maintain a first round pick while shedding some salary in Garland.
i think it’s a fair trade for both teams, thoughts?
Oh I’m running on the big assumption we can trade Meyers after his bonus is paid. I’m also assuming real gm has a good feel one way or the other on moving Meyers before they would make this trade.
-
1
-
-
I think there is a trade to be made with Columbus. Just not the one you are suggesting. The Canucks would have to give up. Multiple firsts and a top prospect or 2 on top of that. Instead I think a trade like this would work for both teams.
To Columbus
11 OA pick
Garland
Hoglander
to Vancouver
22 OA pick
Andrew Peeke
I think both teams benefit from this trade. Columbus gets another high first round pick and the middle 6 help they need. Canucks get a top 4 stay at home tough rhd in peeke and still maintaining a first round pick while shedding some salary in garland.
-
I agree a trade with Columbus is there but I think Roslovic makes too much money for what he offers. A defence liability is not what we need for our 3rd line Center. But I like the thinking behind the trade just not the player so much. And graves would be good depending on cost and term.
-
lol I’ma really old guy , no video games here. I’ve been a fan since the beginning and I’m sick of mediocre teams last 10 years. I’m ok swinging for the fences this is probably the last core I’ll watch grow up together and hopefully win.
-
4
-
-
To Columbus
van 1st ( lottery protected)
hoglander
garland
To Vancouver
Rhd Andrew Peeke
la first ( about 23)
Columbus 2nd (34th pick)
especially if Columbus wins lottery they can use our 11 pick to grab bedard best friend cristall, they get there version of Hank and Danny and we get a top pairing shut down rhd coming into his prime.
Trade 2
To coyotes
La first we got in first trade
lehkermaki
rathbone
To Canucks
Barrett Hayton
Juuso Valemaki
It’s not that I’m giving up on lehkermaki it’s Hayton is going to be very good , and you don’t get something very good by not giving up something of equal value. He could be our third line Center next season then take over second line Center and Miller moves to the wing. Or even do that this season and try out Raty as third line Center and move Miller to the wing on second line. And valemaki rounds out our top 4 D for the foreseeable future. Obviously we need to clear cap space but trading garland above helps I think beuvillier and after Meyers bonus paid both those 2 are tradable clearing up more cap space.
Kuzmenko petey Mikheyev
Miller Hayton Boeser
Podz Raty Kravstov
Joshua Aman Digesepie
Hughes Peeke
Valemaki Hronek
Oel (sigh) Schenn?
Hirose Burroughsunfortunately I think oel is here for a few more seasons anyways. I would bring back Schenn to mentor Hirose in hopes he can be a tanev like player in a couple years . And with the second round pick we get from Columbus I would hope Bonk is still available.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Barrett Hayton if you can convince Arizona to let him go.
-
With the direction management has went it’s not a bad idea at all. I was thinking along the same lines especially if Columbus wins bedard. I would consider trading our pick to Columbus so they can draft bedard best friend cristtal.
to Columbusour first, garland, hoglander
to Vancouver
Top 4 rhd peeke , La first (about 24th) and Columbus 2nd round(about 34)
then I would try and trade with Arizona
to coyotes
La first , lekkerimaki and ratbone
Vancouver gets
Barret Hayton and jusso valemaki
a top 6 22 year old Center and top 4 lhd
i realize we have to get rid of some contracts but this is part fantasy so I’ll guess they figured some stuff out
Kuzmenko petey mikahyev
Miller Hayton beuviler
podz raty kravtz
Joshua aman pdg
Hughes peeke
valemaki hronek
then take your pick for last pair d. I’m not opposed to bring Schen back for a 2 year deal. Realize you have to have some weakness to get cap compliant. But I think in a couple years together this group could be very good. Hayton is going to be a beast in a couple years. And with Columbus second we picked up draft Oliver Bonk .
-
I agree we would be losing out on all are forward depth. But are we going to pay Bo big bucks to be a 3c? Or move Petey to the wing so Bo is 2c? If that’s the case Boeser could be gone? I still like the parameters of my first 2 proposals ( maybe a Little more coming back or giving a little more to make it work). If we pulled off something crazy and traded both trades ( not saying I would do it myself )
Kuzmenko Peterson podkolzen
debrusk Miller mikheyev
hoglander Chytil kakko
lazar Joshua Lockwood
Hughes Carlo
oel Meyers
Schen Schneider
and you would be under the cap maybe bring back motte and still have room to add at the deadline if your in a position to add.
i love me some Bo and would rather keep him but it would open up some interesting possibilities, that’s all I’m saying. But I don’t see how we can pay Bo top $ to be a 3c and still be competitive.
-
Boston
Boeser and garland
Canucks
Carlo and debrusk
money about even
nyr
Bo and Pearson (half retain on Pearson)
Canucks
Schneider kakko Chytil
Colorado
Bo
Canucks
byrum
-
1
-
but seriously
[Proposal] Final piece to solidify defense
in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Posted
That’s a tough one. We need to get rid of some wingers and open cap space so I like that. A top 4 rhd who can play physical and possibly be a partner for Hughes, I like that also. But he’s coming off back surgery at 30 years old and still has 7 more seasons under contract. I don’t like this much lol. Oh and he has a full no trade clause that just a few days ago he said he would use to nix any trades, he plans on staying a blue. There’s that to.