Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Patel Bure

Members
  • Posts

    3,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Patel Bure

  1. The book is out on the Canucks? The book seems to be out on the Canucks right now, ever since that Boston game. Slow down the pace, take away time and space for the Canucks, and collapse around the net. This is how teams have been playing against the Canucks since that Boston game and the Canucks have been swallowing some serious man juice ever since. Green and the coaching staff better make some adjustments otherwise the Canucks could be headed for a tough February and March........again.
  2. Miller-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Leivo Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Sutter Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tryamkin Fantenberg-Myers Demko New1AGoalie Probably still gets you into the playoffs, and would still keep morale high. -Markstrom moved for an elite prospect or a 1st. -Tanev moved for a 1st -Tryamkin’s contract gets broken after his season in Russia is finished and he comes back here. -Maybe the Canucks move a low pick to Ottawa for someone like Craig Anderson to help out Demko. End result: Short term = minor downgrade long term = major pieces added to the pipeline.
  3. Dude, My dad could beat the living monkey piss out of your dad so I just want to be upfront and clear with that. Now, onto business: Here’s what we need to ask ourselves: 1) Do we want the Canucks to be a contender for a short time, (ie like we were during the Gillis era) OR 2) Do we want to build a core full of young players that will be signed to good long term “bargain” deals, and will keep the Canucks as a contender for a long time? I think the answer is obvious. Look man - I love Markstrom and I love Tanev, but how much longer are these guys going to be elite for? Markstrom is 30 years old already. He’ll likely be “elite” for 4 more years before he starts trending downwards. Ditto for Tanev. By contrast - you could have Demko for the next 10 years! Stecher isn’t a world beater by any means, but he’s a young and decent 3rd pairing guy that could stick around with us for awhile. Tryamkin is also young enough to be an integral part of our core for many years. People think that I want to make these moves to rebuild or tank, but I don’t. The Canucks can still be a playoff bound team this year AND be a long term contender, while filling the pipeline with more draft picks. By signing guys like Demko, Tryamkin, Virtanen, Stecher, and Leivo to longer term contracts, you create the potential to have “bargain value” contracts as these players improve with age. It also helps set an internal cap structure which could really help the team long term (and prevent us from becoming like Toronto).
  4. Moving Markstrom and Tanev could allow the Canucks to sign guys like Tryamkin, Virtanen, and Demko to long term contracts that could turn out to be bargains midway through. IF the Canucks were to move Markstrom and Tanev, it would give them more “play money,” and perhaps you could use that money to sign Tryamkin, Demko, and Virtanen to long term contracts........contracts that may appear to be above market value at the start, but turn out to be huge discounts/great “bang for the buck” as said players grow their games. These players could end up being great “value” players for a long period of time, and these are the types of contracts that teams build multiple cup winners with (think - Chicago, LA, etc.).
  5. Dear 6string, Thank you for your polite manners and I respect your decision. I will be using the side door and exit, and will now be making my way to your mom’s house. Sincerely.
  6. To be honest, I’ll admit fault here. Marky won’t get as much as I originally stated, but who knows. Maybe a team like Edmonton would give us Mike Smith and a 1st? (Or Mike Smith + a good prospect). Pittsburgh’s goaltending isn’t exactly stellar right now is it? There are a few handful teams out there that that great teams, but have average to below average goaltending.
  7. I’m not serious. If you had read my original post more closely, you’d realize that I was playing Devil’s Advocate and that if I was GM, I’d likely hold onto Marky and Tanev. I cannot be blamed for your 3rd grade reading comprehension level. While I’m on the subject of Marky, the guy is a Vezina trophy candidate right now. We’d likely be able to land a small fortune for him and *still* have a good young long term asset in Thatcher Demko.
  8. And seriously - if we were able to move Tanev for a 1st AND bring back Tree this year (contract break), couldn’t we agree that this would be a BIG gain for us long term, while only a very minor loss in the short term? Same thing with moving Marky (for what I imagine what would be a huge return). Moving Marky for an elite prospect or a mid to high 1st rounder + a “1A goalie” would be a BIG gain in the long term, while only resulting in a minimal loss short term (Markstrom is awesome obviously, but Demko is no spring chicken either. This kid is the goods).
  9. Not necessarily. I was thinking something along the lines of this: -1st or an elite prospect + “1A goalie” for Markstrom -low 1st for Tanev -3rd for Simmonds -we help break Tryamkin’s contract when his season finishes and we bring him back over here immediately. New roster: Miller-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Virtanen Roussel-Gaudette-Simmonds Motte-Beagle-Sutter Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tryamkin Fantenberg-Myers Demko 1A goalie End result: 1) Canucks still likely make the playoffs with the above line-up (and get much needed playoff experience for their young core). 2) Canucks clear massive long term cap space and would have more than enough to sign Pettersson, Hughes, Virtanen, Stecher, and Leivo long term. 3) The Canucks get more prospects in their pipeline. Having Markstrom and Tanev is nice, but we also can’t forget where they are with respect to their age and careers. The Canucks need to have a mindful eye for both the short term and long term. How many good years does Tanev have left? Do we want Markstrom for 4-5 more “good” years, or Demko for the next 10-12? Again, I re-iterate the following: 1) My post isn’t a lame reactionary post to our loss earlier tonight (as I stated in my original post). 2) I likely wouldn’t go this route as I’d be far more inclined to hold onto Marky and Tanev.
  10. [proposal] Moving Markstrom and Tanev for picks and/or prospects I don’t want people to think that I’m making this post in light of our loss earlier today. The Canucks are obviously competing for a playoff spot this year and are likely to make the playoffs at this point, but is there something to be said about accumulating draft picks and not dishing out long term contracts to players that are at or near 30 years of age? Markstrom is a legit Vezina candidate this year and should be able to land a 1st rounder at minimum, or even an elite prospect of some kind. Tanev could probably net a low 1st rounder as well. Would I personally trade Markstrom and Tanev? Probably not. I’m definitely in the “sign both of them” camp, but the other side of the coin is quite compelling as well.
  11. Defensemen and centers are more important than wingers. If you have a chance to trade a promising winger for a promising defenseman, that’s a deal that you make almost every single time.
  12. I can’t see Toffoli coming to Vancouver, as the asking price will be *way* too high. Would’ve been nice though. I think it’s very likely that we’ll see Wayne Simmonds here quite soon. Ps - I heard a really funny joke earlier today, but it’s quite dark and it would likely offend many people. Again - I’m a sick bastard however. The joke involves Quinn Hughes, Tyler Myers, and Wayne Simmonds. If you want to hear the joke, and you’re thick skinned, you’re more than welcome to PM me, but I won’t be posting it publicly.
  13. Bogosian sucks boners. I’d rather trade Baertschi in the off-season (going as high as 50% retention), shortly before the start of next season once teams have pretty much figured out their cap and have signed their prioritized players (and would then be in a position where they could add some spare parts). Trade Baertschi and Sutter before the start of next season (retaining as much as 50% if necessary), and free up cap space. Don’t trade $&!# contracts for $&!# contracts.
  14. Trading Boeser right now would reflect poorly on the Canucks’ organization. You don’t trade a guy who’s been your top scorer for the better part of the last three years, and is now struggling emotionally due to his father’s illness. If you’re a GM of a team, you can’t treat your players and do operations like it’s an assembly line. You just can’t. Now having said that, IF Brock makes some kind of request to the team to be traded so that he could be closer to his father and family (ie Brock to Minnesota), then yes..........perhaps a Boeser for Dumba type deal would be appropriate.
  15. More balanced lines = anecdote? I don’t have the stats and the analytics in front of me, but perhaps it’s a case of our bottom 6 being too weak? What if that was addressed by the following: Pearson-Horvat-Eriksson (Simmonds) Roussel-Pettersson-Boeser Miller-Gaudette-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Sutter
  16. And it’s a win for the puck bunnies in Vancouver because once the Canucks trade for Wayne Simmonds (3rd rounder) with their newfound cap space, people can start debating as to who has the biggest egg-roll on the team: Tyler Myers or Wayne Simmonds?
  17. Miller-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Simmonds Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Leivo Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tanev Fantenberg-Myers Markstrom Demko
  18. Completely agree. As much as I care about Ferland helping us, I care more about Michael the husband and the family man. I want the guy to have a long and healthy life.
  19. If Benning phoned up Buffalo’s GM offering Gaudette for Risto, the Sabres GM would laugh, fart in the receiver, and then hang up.
  20. I’d definitely make that deal. Not sure if Buffalo would bite on that though. I think they’d have their sights set higher with regards to a Risto return.
  21. Hey guys, I do apologize for my Graham James comment. My buds and I in real life have a really dark sense of humor and are incredibly thick skinned, and so I sometimes forget that not everyone is like that. Everyone in real life knows that we’re just messing around but I do realize that you can’t just go around saying outlandish $&!# if people don’t know you. Lesson learned, and I won’t make those kinds of comments again.
  22. To New York Islanders: Jake Virtanen To Vancouver Canucks: Noah Dobson Islanders get someone that can be more of an immediate help (JV) which will suit them since they are legit dark horses, while the Canucks get a great young long term piece in their biggest long term positional need (ND on right side defense). I do want to make a few things clear here: 1) I don’t hate Virtanen. Quite the contrary, I love the young man. I’m just smart enough to know that in order to receive, you gotta give. I think Graham James may have said that once. 2) Losing Virtanen would suck since he’s had a strong year and seems to be taking his game to the next level, but the Canucks should still be strong on the right side with Boeser, Eriksson, a returning Leivo, Ferland (if they Nucks use him there), or even a guy like Wayne Simmonds if the Canucks decide to go that route.
  23. Trading Boeser and Stecher for Ristolainen would be Corky Thatcher levels of retarded. Our depth on RW would be very questionable even at 100% health. You’d honestly want Virtanen and Leivo as your top two RW’ers?
  24. But alas child - I’m actually “getting lucky” as I’m typing this message!
×
×
  • Create New...