Highstickin

So we have one target? How many other teams will be looking to fill a RHD spot this off season as well? Maybe 10, so we have a 10% of landing the free agent we want and we have not factored in what Manson is looking for in his next contract or where he prefers to play. I also think if Manson is our top pair RHD target, we are aiming far to low. Since getting to Colorado he is -11 on a top 5 offensive team in the league. Colorado plays a fast paced high skill game which I believe the Canucks leadership group wants to play too, so could it be that Manson is not equipped to play in that type of environment? He looked ok in Anaheim where they play a slower paced heavy game but is he really a top pair? To wait another year on a group of maybe RHD is just being passive. You have to give it get in this league. A top 4 can be traded for if we really want one. Some that have been traded for that come to mind Justin Faulk, Erik Karlson, Jacob Trouba and PK Subban (although we all know how that one has turned out) and this is just the RHD. Several LHD top pairing guys have been traded in the past as well.

Ok so how many top pair RHD are free agents? And which top pair RHD would you target out of the free agents this year?

Maybe that works for some guys but I don't think I would bank on it. Given the option of playing with Hughes or playing in a low/free tax market or a warm climate, I'm sure there are many that would choose the latter. As good as Quinn is, I don't think we can rely on him to draw players in.

I like having the available cap space for roster flexibility but I would be concerned over trying to fix our RHD through free agency. How many top 4 RHD are free agents at the end of this season? How many teams out there are also looking for a top 4 RHD? Vancouver has had a tough time attracting free agents in the past without having to over pay, so what has changed that would allow us to sign a top 4 RHD to a reasonable contract especially when the supply/demand ratio is not in our favour? I think we will have a hard time find the solid RHD you suggest let alone a top 4 that fits into our core age group. I would go so far as to say our chances of fixing the RHD through FA is about the same as fixing it through the draft. Too much left to chance for my liking, fix the RHD by getting the right piece in a trade.

I was assuming we were bringing Rathbone into the lineup on the third pair when we move on from hunt. That would leave Hughes, OEL and Rathbone on the left for next season.

Ok fair I agree with targeting the players that cap strapped teams can't afford to keep. Unfortunately for the canucks roster, I don't know how many players we have that those types of teams would want in a trade. If you were running Tampa and were up against the cap needing to move some talented young players what would you be asking for in return? I'm thinking probably picks, prospects, ELC players, productive vets on team friendly contracts? In terms of Van, I don't think we really have any of these available to use as trade bait.

There is only one reason to use cap space to take advantage of other teams, gain assets during a rebuild, and I don't think that is the case for this team. Getting other teams out of cap issues means taking on bad contracts they signed for players that are underperforming which is just what we are digging ourselves out of now. I would much rather use our cap dollars to pay players that can actually produce the way we need them to. Other than Florida, who will pay for their dead cap shortly, no other contender has much retained or buried. Just ask the Yotes how that strategy is working out for them.

I have wondered about a similar package for Ryan Pulock in Long Island. We maybe need to upgrade draft pick or another sweetener but Pulock comes with a lot more experience than Marino. Pulock is a bit older than Marino, but at 27 he has lots of hockey left and fits into the age group of our core. I could see NYI wanting to retool a bit after this season and start to get younger plus they will need to pay Dobson. Moving Pulock might thin the D more than they want but it might be worth checking into.

I think any trade that involves Boeser at this point needs one of two things to happen, either he signs a new contract prior to the trade or he has negotiated terms with the team we are trading him to. Otherwise, I agree with you his value is substantially lowered.

Right the selection order goes back to pre lottery order as you pointed out. But in the NHL, if you make the playoffs I don’t believe you pick higher on any round than a non-playoff team. What I see with the WHL is that in the second round. playoff bound teams will pick ahead of non playoff teams due to then technically having less regular season points.

The WHL held their draft lottery today and for the most part the lottery is similar to the NHL. With so few teams being left out of the playoffs there isn't as much opportunity to move up like the NHL but the format is roughly the same. Where I see a difference from the NHL draft is in all the rounds after the first. The order after the first round defaults back to total regular season points. So this year as example, three teams that made the playoffs (Vancouver, Spokane & PG) will all pick higher than three teams that did not make the playoffs (Calgary, SC & Regina) after the first round due to less points being needed in the west to make the playoffs. I don't know if it will make a big difference in the end considering your trying to project how good 15 yr olds will be but just something I find odd about the WHL.

I agree in trying to find a RD as opposed to LD but I wonder what it would take to move up a few spots if one of Nemec of Jiricek starts to slide down. As it is Jiricek has been put in the 9th slot by a recent sportsnet mock and in January Bob McKenzie had Nemec at 9th. I think I would be looking into what Buffalo would take for the 8th pick. They just selected Owen Power and have Dahlin as an anchor on D. Maybe they would be willing to move to 15th with the right pieces attached (not sure what they would be). Obviously this is dependent on who moves up or down in the lottery but might be worth having a deal in the back pocket for draft day.

When it comes to prospects I like quality over quantity. If we are talking about moving down a few spots in the first round to pick up a late second or third than fine, especially if the scouting staff feels the quality is even on picks 14-20. I wouldn't want to move a mid first pick for a package of picks outside the first round. Yes it brings prospects into the cupboard but a cupboard full of fringe NHLers is not nearly as useful as a cupboard with a few mid-top 6 forward or 3-5 D prospects.

I agree that replacing Miller is not something I really want to do either. He brings more than just point production for this team. I would be concerned with thining the scoring from the wings too much if we are simply hoping out top line wingers can bring 15 goals a season. If we move Brock out who will play top line wing minutes and produce goals? Garland is a good player but only has one 20 goal season, Podz I'm sure will get there but no need to put that kind of pressure on his game yet. That leaves the two players you mentioned and I don't know that a contending team can only hope of 15 goals from a top line winger. We witnessed at the start of this season what happens when Petey is not scoring, there isn't much support to pick up the slack. I don't know if we can expect 30 goals from Bo every year so I would be nervous about trading a scorer like Brock for third line depth.

The 6.25 per for Brock can certainly be debated but I don't think he is as easy to replace as you make it seem. There are only 23 RW in the NHL right now with 20 goals on the season (to this point) one of which is Brock. We all wish Brock was faster, won more board battles, etc., etc. but at the end of the day he is a proven 20 goal guy. You mention going after Nichuskin and I see this as rehashing the old management plan. Pick a guy that just put up a big year on an expiring contract and hope he can keep it up. I'm guessing Nuke is going to want a heavy raise (maybe even in the 4.5-5M range) based on the year he has had and I wouldn't want to take that gamble on a guy that previously had a career best 13 goals and 27 points. When we add in that Nuke is 2 yrs older than Brock, I think I will stick with the guy we know. As for Mikheyev, his story is much like Nuke. These two guys play on the two of the most offensive teams in the league and have not put up that much more production than Brock. I will agree that Mikhevey should come in much cheaper. I can see him getting a bump in pay but not to the extent I see Nuke or Brock. If you look at the list of RW with more goals than Brock this year and them look at their salaries, I don't know that 6M per is out of line.

Agreed that if we were to entertain moving Quinn, the Devils will be pushing hard to get him and we better make them pay. Although I'm thinking NJ is closer to a rebuild mode than we are so rather than going after so many picks what if we target players that can help us now? maybe something like: VAN: Hughes Boeser (extension in place) NJ: Hischier Severson Smith I doubt NJ is interested in moving Hischier but Van is also not really interested in moving Hughes so something has to give if they want an untouchable. In Hischier being better than Boeser enough to offset Quinn being better than Severson/Smith?

Haven't watched him much but I like the size and numbers he's put up so far. The problem for Vancouver will be money. The only way I see Toronto moving on from Mikheyev is if he asks for a large salary increase. If that happens, I think that takes Van out of the running as well. Do you see him playing a similar role to what Motte was prior to the TDL? If that's the case remember that reports indicated Motte's next contract ask was the issue and a big reason for the trade. If they weren't willing to pay Motte that much to play on the third line and kill penalties they likely won't for Mikheyev either.

There could still be something there, you will just have to get creative as they are cap strapped, have no high picks and trying to compete. I'm just still trying to process how Chicago is able to turn a player they signed out of junior (without having to draft him) into two young roster players and two first round picks.

Might be tough as Tampa doesn't have a 2023 or 2024 1st and I wouldn't be interested in their 2022. Waiting until 2025 to try and cash in on Miller unfortunately doesn't really fit our window either. I don't think the Hagel trade is going to age well for Tampa. Raddysh already has more points in Chicago than Hagel does in Tampa plus they gave up two straight 1st rounders.

Agreed that quality and consistence of linemates can impact overall stats, I just think for the money being spent we need a bit more value. Your right that Garland has not been on PP1 but he does still have 104 minutes of PP time, which is a significant amount. To only have 2 points and a points/60 on the powerplay of only 1.2 (lowest of his career) is a bit rough. You could argue that there is a difference in PP2 vs. PP1 units but there is an equal difference between PK1 and PK2 of the other teams as well. I hope your right about his production increasing with consistent linemates. Hopefully to end the season they can find a line that works for him and gauge his value prior to the offseason.

Ok on Schenn, but I don't think I would say Garland is having a good year given the expectations that come along with his salary. His game this season hasn't necessarily been bad but for nearly $5M a season I expect more than .56 ppg especially when you are undersized and physicality isn't a big part of your game. Pearson has basically given us the same output for $1.5M less on the cap.

Moving one third line winger is not ripping a team apart, no matter who that winger is. Honest question, do you feel the NHL should just stop the draft at the 3rd round?

1 I think the fact that motte was the only deal done today probably sends that message to other teams. We likely could have moved Miller/Boeser/Schenn if we were to just take what ever others were offering 2. also see above. Just because management made one trade that was a business decision does not mean the whole team will suddenly be on pins and needles about being moved. If the player made it clear they won’t stay with the team unless they get a dollar amount the team isn’t willing to spend, than how is that any different? 3. just because he is popular does not mean he will help the team develop over his remaining time here.

For what purpose though?

Funny because we currently have a 10.1% chance of making the playoffs too. So essentially your swapping a 90% chance of a nothing prospect for a 90% chance we onyhl get 20 regular season games?>