Hindustan Smyl
-
Posts
1,124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Hindustan Smyl
-
-
On 11/19/2019 at 5:46 AM, JayDangles said:
Also, wtf is up with Nylanders head? He always looks like he's smuggling the team playbook under there. Or is it just me?
Nylander is...........very feminine looking.
-
Calgary will not trade Matthew Tkachuk to Ottawa unless Thomas Chabot is coming back the other way.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, IjustNEEDaTROYgamble said:
Canucks trade Brandon Sutter, Kole Lind, Olli Juolevi to the NYR for Chris Kreider
Kreider is the type of player that Horvat needs, he’s fast, has a history of scoring, has playoff experience and fits in with the Canucks speedThe NYR do this for Juolevi who can still be a top 4 NHL defense pairing, Lind can turn into a decent NHL 3rd line winger in the future and then they can trade Sutter at the trade deadline for draft picks.
For the Canucks; Juolevi still has value as trading chip and Lind we have other centers in the organization that will be moving into the AHL next year or fight for spot with the Canucks so this is just clearing the logjam of prospects. This will also make room for Gaudette to have a permanent spot in the lineup by trading Sutter away and also the Canucks don’t trade away any more draft picks.
Boeser Pettersson Miller
Kreider Horvat Pearson
Leivo Gaudette Virtanen
Schaller Beagle Erickson/Graovac
Let’s hear everyone rip this proposal apart
I can’t see the Rangers making this deal. They trade a good roster player for an expensive injury prone cap hit, a prospect that is headed towards bust territory, and a complete question mark? I don’t see it happening.
I also don’t like the idea of playing Pearson on his off-wing. He’s far more effective as a LW’er.
-
5 hours ago, kenhodgejr said:
How about Stetcher + Virtanen for Tony Deangelo from NYR
It's a nice thought, but I can't see the Rangers agreeing to that.
-
1 hour ago, BrockBoester said:
Do you do anything other than sit there thinking of Canucks trade proposals?
I teach business 101 lecturers to Chinese students in China, and use Russian escort services. Other than though, yeah.......you’re pretty much right. :-p
-
1
-
2
-
-
[proposal] Troy Stecher + a forward for an upgrade on right defense
I think the Canucks’ defense would be considered elite if they had the following set-up:
Edler-[NewGuy]
Hughes-TanevBenn-Myers
Tryamkin (when he returns). (maybe Tryamkin takes the #6 spot while Benn becomes the extra).
You’d have great depth, and also 5-6 guys that wouldn’t look out of place on the top 4. In this regard, our defense would be at or near our 2011 levels.
Up front, the Canucks do have a glut of forwards even with injuries.
with this in mind, I think the Canucks could atleast explore the idea of packaging Stecher and one of their forwards for an upgrade on defense.
Pettersson, Bo, and Brock are obviously untouchable. Guys like Eriksson, Beagle, Sutter, Baertschi, Ferland, Roussel, Leivo, Motte, and Schaller are either unmovable or would peak little to no interest. Moving the developing Gaudette would be downright foolish at this point. So that all this in mind, Virtanen would likely be our best bargaining chip as far as forwards go.
Stecher + Virtanen for an upgraded right side defenseman.
Two defensemen that come to mind are Tyson Barrie and Rasmus Ristolainen. Barrie would give us two very dangerous offensive defensive pairings, while Risto would give us some size back there. I think the Leafs will hold onto Barrie for now since they’ll try and see if he fits in better with the new head coach’s system, but maybe a guy like Risto could be had?
I’m personally not a huge fan of Risto, and am not sure if he’d fit well with Edler on a top pairing, but perhaps I’m wrong.
I would absolutely do a Stecher and Virtanen for Barrie however. Barrie likely won’t sign in TO after this season anyways, and Barrie would fit our system well. Hughes and Barrie on different pairings would give the Canucks a significant jolt on offense.
I haven’t checked the cap, but would a Stecher and Virtanen for a Barrie swap + sending Eriksson to the minors, keep us cap compliant?
Anyway - that is what I would try and do. If Barrie continues to struggle in TO for whatever reason, make the pitch.
-
Toronto ain’t moving Matthews.
-
1
-
-
Stecher+ for Barrie would give me a 4.7 inch woodie, but that “plus” would likely have to be massive from our end.
Barrie would fit our system well and I think we’d see Barrie return to his Colorado-esque form if he came back here.
Only thing we can’t do is move Tanev for Barrie since Tanev is our top 4 defensive defenseman option.
Perhaps Stecher + Virtanen gets errr done?
-
Lots of hurt feelings towards Kesler still (if this thread is of any indication).
I’m honestly over the whole Kesler leaving Vancouver thing. In his prime, Kesler was a beast for us come playoff time. It’s not uncommon for players to request trades if they are no longer happy. Bure did it in the 90’s and we all still love him.
I look forward to hearing this. And yes - since Schneider isn’t doing anything these days, perhaps he can reach an “oral agreement” of some kind with Bieksa and Kesler so that he can make a few appearances on the show.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, J-23 said:
Lol. Is the first part of this post serious?
Lol, no. Just me trying to be funny (and likely failing as usual with my attempts at humour-:-p).
-
1
-
-
Did anyone else besides me think of Bane when reading the title of this thread?
“Now’s not the time to panic.......that comes later!” -
1 hour ago, Dats hockey said:
Uhhhh Morgan Rielly begs to differ
Fair enough.
-
10 hours ago, rekker said:
Babcock or Green. I'm not a huge Babcock fan but are Green's systems working? Opponents zone entries are easy, odd man rushes against the Canucks are plenty. Canucks don't "start on time". Maybe its time for a change.
The last thing I want to see is Mike Babcock coaching the Canucks while Mike Commodore slobbers all over his balls on his Twitter and then starts trashing Vancouver by association.
No to Babcock. His style is outdated and his coaching style would have a negative impact on Quinn Hughes.
-
20 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:
It's an honest question. When do you think the Canucks will become dominant contenders? A top team in the NHL? Stanley Cup favorites?
2021-2022 is the year that I have circled:
-Boeser, Horvat, and Miller will still be on cap friendly deals.
-One or both of Podkolzin and Hoglander will be impact players.
-Hughes will likely be on Zack Werenskish bridge deal (similar cap percentage not cap hit)
-Edler, Myers, and Tanev will be older, but won’t be old enough to the point where their games will be noticeably worse than it is now (Edler and Tanev will sign short term deals).
-Pettersson will get his 8 years and big money, but we won’t be in any cap crunch.
-I think Eriksson and the Canucks will to mutual termination either after this season or next season. After July 1st 2020, Eriksson will have pocketed 31 of his 36 million.
-Gaudette will be an impact player and will give the Canucks three good scoring lines.
2020-2021 will be our return to elite hood.
these next two years will be us being at or near wildcard contender status, followed by narrowly missing the playoffs or swallowing man porridge in the first round.
-
In all seriousness though, Puljiujarvi might be the perfect guy to buy relatively low on.
I’m not sure what Edmonton’s asking price would be, but I’d love to see Benning kick the tires here.
One thing an “alpha” center can do is turn a half decent player into a great one. We saw this with Sakic and Valeri Kamesnky way back in the day. We saw Mario Lemieux do it for Kevin Stevens. The Sedins’ with Anson Carter. Numerous examples. Can you imagine if a guy like Pettersson ignited someone like Puljiujarvi?
What’s the worst that could happen if Puljiujarvi didn’t pan out? What would we have given up? Josh Levio?
I’m genuinely curious to see what Edmonton’s asking price is.
JP is a big bodied playmaker..........which, on paper, is a great fit for Horvat.
-
2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:
You know what guys...out of respect for Jacob and his family, I think we need to let this be for a while
It's a great discussion for a month from now...IMO
Everybody, just think about their Dads and Mom's for one minute...…..
Fair enough.
I do admit that trading Markstrom right *now* would reflect very poorly on the Canucks, but it’s not going to happen *right now* anyways. I was thinking maybe somewhere in the not-so-distant future, the Canucks could pull something like that.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, 70seven said:
Personally I’d trade Marky... Vancouver won’t be winning much this season. It’s about asset management in this case. I’m clearly a Demko believer.... Shop for a veteran backup... turn Marky+ into a top 6 F, or picks
I’m not sure if I agree with “Vancouver not winning much this season,” (all seasons have ebbs and flows), but I do agree that the complications of the cap and the expansion draft will force our hand.
I would strongly consider a deal with Calgary. Calgary is a team that’s looking to upgrade their goaltending. We do a Markstrom for Talbot swap where Demko and Talbot can do a 50/50 split. We then trade either one forward or one defenseman along with Markstrom to Calgary, so that we receive an upgraded forward or defenseman into return (so essentially, the difference in the downgrade from Markstrom to Talbot would be the equivalent in the upgrade from our defenseman to Calgary’s defenseman.......or one of our forwards for their forwards).
For example - Markstrom and Stecher for Talbot and Rasmus Andersson?
-
1
-
-
This is a well thought out and good idea. Kudos to the OP.
Having said that, I’m quite confident that Eriksson will call it a career after July 1st 2020 (that, or him and the Canucks will find a way to mutually terminate the contract). Eriksson will have 31 of his 36 million paid out to him after July 1st 2020, and I’m not sure if Eriksson would be willing to ride buses in Utica for two years just to collect 5 million. It’s possible that he might since 5 million is still 5 million, but I think the chance of mutual contract termination will also be high.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
But clearly thats not Jims goal, otherwise he would;t' have traded for Miller.
I'm not opposed to moving Marky, but only in the case where we are definitely out of the playoff hunt at the TDL.
Not necessarily.
Benning likely didn’t trade for Miller because he thought they could win the cup this year. Benning traded for Miller because he knew that at some point over these next few years, as the Canucks core continued to grow, Miller’s extremely cap friendly contract would be a huge benefit to us.
Ideally, the Canucks would be able to keep both Markstrom and Demko but the truth of the matter is that they’ll have to choose one due to the expansion draft........and they might have to make that choice sooner than later since Markstrom will be a UFA at the end of season.
Would you want to possibly lose Markstrom for nothing? Would you want to give up a great young asset in Demko?
As it looks right now, Demko doesn’t really seem to be much of a downgrade from Markstrom........if at all. It’s a short sample size, but Demko definitely looks like he’s more than ready to Atleast be a “1A” goalie splitting duties.
If the Canucks do things correctly, there will come a time when.......
1) Miller will still be on his sweet heart cap friendly deal.
2) Boeser will still be on his bridge.
3) Hughes will be on a cost effective bridge (similar to Zack Werenski’s deal, in term of the overall cap percentage that Hughes’ contract takes up)
4) One or both of Hoglander and Podkolzin will be significant impact players on ELC’s.
5) Horvat will still be on his 5.5 million dollar deal (which would likely still be considered relatively cap friendly at that time).
6) Demko will be extended and as is the case with most RFA deals, will be on a cost controlled contract.
7) With 31 of 36 million having been paid to Eriksson after July 1st 2020, I think retirement *might* be a more realistic option for Eriksson.
8) Pettersson will be our only “big” 8 year contract.
That’s one of the reasons why I personally have 2021-2022 circled on my imaginary calendar. Looking at our cap and analyzing who might be extended to what, and who might and should be let go, I think the Canucks’ best shot at winning a cup will be in 2021-2022, and I also suspect that management has a similar time frame in mind.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
the original idea pretty much allows Calgary to knock us out of the playoffs. No thanks.
Maybe NJ could use Marky but we're not getting a Hall for him.
Why would Holland want an injured Juolevi?
So many questions.
If the goal is to build for the future and not now, then moving Markstrom for a younger long term asset as the center piece (ie a young defenseman), while allowing for Demko to take on a “1A role” with a guy like Talbot (something that Demko appears to be ready for), would arguably be the better choice.
Holland might take on Juolevi to throw the dice on a long shot prospect with high upside (much like Puljiujarvi is right now). In my proposed deal, we’d also give them a decent NHL player in someone like Leivo. The Canucks would take back JP and one of their long shot prospects on D to even out the odds.
Basically, it would be an exchange of two former high draft picks that might benefit from a change of scenery.
-
Honestly, I’d just take a flier on Puljiujarvi.
It wouldn’t cost much to acquire him (relatively speaking), and if he ever lived up to his enormous potential........boom goes the dynamite and this Canucks team takes off.
Trading for other good and young PROVEN top 6 forwards would cost an arm and a leg.
JP is a PPG player in Finland and has more assists than goals. I think JP’s game would mesh well with Horvat’s.
-
37 minutes ago, Drakrami said:
just wondering... How is Andersson an upgrade over Stecher?
He’s bigger and has a much better shot, and I’ve heard people mention that his upside is similar to that of Edler. Again, I have no idea how accurate that is or not.
Like I said in my post above, I’m more interested in the CONCEPT of what I’m proposing rather than the actual players.
Markstrom + one of our defensemen for a very good back-up/1A goalie + a defenseman.
The trade off being that we downgrade our goaltending (good starting goalie for a 1A) while upgrading whichever dman we trade (however that manifests itself).
-
2 hours ago, Pears said:
How often do midseason trades happen between division rivals? Especially one where one team is significantly upgrading the other? Hard pass.
Not often if ever.
It doesn't have to be Calgary by the way. I'm more interested in exploring the idea of trading Markstrom to a team that could use an upgrade in net. In return, we'd get a very good back-up/1A type goalie, plus a better defenseman (assuming that we'd package Markstrom with one of our dman).
Markstrom + dman for downgrade in net + upgrade on d.
That's what I had in mind.
-
1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:
Did you see Talbot’s last game? Or the last season? Don’t answer that cause clearly you didn’t. No. Not just no. Hell no. F no feels a bit light. I couldn’t no this any harder even if I channeled my inner Steve Carrell and went Super Saiyan.
You’re welcome fellow nerds for the Dragon Ball reference. I’m sure all two of you enjoyed it.
It's one game dude. Everyone has a bad game every now and then.
When you look at Talbot's entire body of work though, the logical conclusion that one can come to is that he's an extremely good back-up goalie.........and a decent 1A goalie that wouldn't look completely out of place if the starter on the team was out with an extended injury.
IF Demko is the future of this team, and IF there would be a benefit in giving Demko more games this season (40-50% of the games as opposed to 15-20%), then maybe you consider a deal like this.
You take the downgrade in net (Markstrom to Talbot) with the expectation that you'd be upgrading your defense (for example, a Stecher for an Andersson.........or something to that effect).
As far as level goes, there hasn't been that much of a difference between Demko and Markstrom if any. Canucks will have to cut ties with one of those guys in the future anyways. It might not hurt to explore options.
[Discussion] How is Eriksson Not Waived?
in Canucks Talk
Posted
My guess is that they don’t want his lackluster attitude to negatively influence the kids. Once Roussel returns, and if the Canucks have a 100% healthy line-up at some point during the year, then I think you’ll see Eriksson get sent down.