What are our short term plans (Discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

It seems that when ever I read a post here. The trade discussion is always to trade youngsters away or to decline trading veterans away. This has brought me to the conclusion, that we (CDC) really don't know what we should do beyond waiting to see how the season lays out.

Here are my points and questions..........

#1. We have an abundance of veteran tweeners in Higgins, Burrows, Matthais, Richardson, Bonino, and Hansen that have all spent time on the 2nd line, all are aging, all really do not appear to be ligit 2nd liners and all still have good value.

With the likes of Horvat, McCann, Gaunce, Cassels, Jensen, Shinkaruk, and Virtanen all potentially being able to come up within the next 2 years, what is our plan? What should we do?

#2. With Richardson, Matthais, and Dorsett all being UFA's at the end of the year, do we try and resign them, trade them, or let them walk? Keeping in mind that we have the above rookies all pushing for the big club.

To me, Richardson will bring good return as a rental at the deadline and would be a decent replacement player for an injury for a player on a contending team as well as a bubble team. I believe we can replace him internally with either Horvat, Gaunce, or Matthais if not traded.

Realistically, we will have a traffic jam, if we don't move someone by the end of the year, or we will just simply loose assets, as their contracts expire and they walk.

Basically, I would just like to know, who, when and where? As just allowing it to happen will cost us.

Just interested in your opinions..who goes, and when do we move them? Or do we just not do anything?

I am willing to wait until Jan, Feb.....but that will not change the situation.

[Warhippy]

Step 1. Short term, win tonight.

Step 2. Slightly longer term enter new year.500 or better.

Step 3 ???

Step 4. Profit

[Rex425]

Bonino's old?

We lose one game and everyone gets hostile...

[Phil_314]

Step 1. Short term, win tonight.

Step 2. Slightly longer term enter new year.500 or better.

Step 3 ???

Step 4. Profit

Step 3 should be obvious: hoist the C_p!

Not sure why the second line gets hate tonight, Bones and Burr each had 4 shots and Higgins and the 1-1 goal. Richardson's one of the better F.O. men on this team at the moment, and Bones and Matthias are only 24 and 26 respectively. Not sure why we'd talk about moving these guys. It's ONE game in which we out-shot a strong team (they were out-shot for the FIRST time this season!).

[48MPHSlapShot]

Tread water until the prospects are ready....

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

I have 1 wish, trade hansen! okay in all seriousness if this team is out of the race come deadline. trade some veterans and maybe the sedins if the right offer is there.

[Gollumpus]

It seems that when ever I read a post here. The trade discussion is always to trade youngsters away or to decline trading veterans away. This has brought me to the conclusion, that we (CDC) really don't know what we should do beyond waiting to see how the season lays out.

Here are my points and questions..........

#1. We have an abundance of veteran tweeners in Higgins, Burrows, Matthais, Richardson, Bonino, and Hansen that have all spent time on the 2nd line, all are aging, all really do not appear to be ligit 2nd liners and all still have good value.

With the likes of Horvat, McCann, Gaunce, Cassels, Jensen, Shinkaruk, and Virtanen all potentially being able to come up within the next 2 years, what is our plan? What should we do?

#2. With Richardson, Matthais, and Dorsett all being UFA's at the end of the year, do we try and resign them, trade them, or let them walk? Keeping in mind that we have the above rookies all pushing for the big club.

To me, Richardson will bring good return as a rental at the deadline and would be a decent replacement player for an injury for a player on a contending team as well as a bubble team. I believe we can replace him internally with either Horvat, Gaunce, or Matthais if not traded.

Realistically, we will have a traffic jam, if we don't move someone by the end of the year, or we will just simply loose assets, as their contracts expire and they walk.

Basically, I would just like to know, who, when and where? As just allowing it to happen will cost us.

Just interested in your opinions..who goes, and when do we move them? Or do we just not do anything?

I am willing to wait until Jan, Feb.....but that will not change the situation.

Comments, thoughts and observations:

1.) If the team is still in a win now, and continue to win into the future mode, they will need guys like Higgins, Burrows, etc.

2.) Trading away younger, unproven talent (or picks) for "older", experienced talent often helps a team looking to improve their chances for staying competitive in the now. I'm not necessarily in favour of trading a high pick or a decent prospect for a 30-something veteran in order to achieve this goal. This being said, not all of the older pick-ips are old. I'm thinking of Vey in this case.

3.) The comment has been made (by Benning?) that he believes young players should come up in a "winning atmosphere". I take this to mean that the team might not be Cup winners, but that they are competitive and this is better than playing prospects in an environment where they get demolished on most nights for several years.

4.) Team management likes to win. It keeps them employed. Will winning a Cup improve their job security? Sure. But being the GM of a team in a competitive market, that sucks badly for 3 or more years in a row doesn't improve your job security (this does not apply to Edmonton, etc).

5.) Team management answers to ownership. Owners like to make money. A complete blow-up/re-build like some are asking for (and may or may not be needed, not arguing one way or the other) is not something which they see as a desirable financial option. Veteran players usually improve a team's chances of winning. Yes, talented rookies are good to have, but they should be developed before being thrown to the wolves or you wind up being another Edmonton.

6.) You gotta' give something to get something.

7.) Bonino and Matthais are only 26. I suspect someone will ask you how you figure they are aging? (Too late ) Bonino is still under 200 games played in the NHL. I'm willing to give him some time before I decide that he is not a legit 2C.

8.) Fan desire to see prospects at the NHL level =/= team desire to manage assets, develop players and so on. The argument is, "Player X is too good not to be in the NHL". The counter is, "What ice time is Player X going to get?" Is it better to have a prospect spend a year in the NHL getting less than optimal minutes, or do you leave him to play a lot (even if it is against lesser competition).

9.) Prospects are also easier to trade as they don't normally have a NTC of some form in their contract.

The better prospects will get here, and room will be made (insert snide comments from some posters about that promise already being made and broken), Chances are that Matthias and Richardson (both of whom I would like to keep) will be traded at the deadline. Sestito and Dorsett may, or may not still be here next year. There's four spots which might be able to be filled by Canucks prospects. Which prospects they will be, and the amount of ice time they get is another matter. I would prefer that these positions were filled as much as posible with Canuck prospects who likely will have bottom-6 role as their career path (Mallet, Archibald etc) rather than the Bo Horvat's of the world.

regards,

G.

[sinphase]

Lets comeback to this discussion in after November.

[J.I.A.H.N]

Comments, thoughts and observations:

1.) If the team is still in a win now, and continue to win into the future mode, they will need guys like Higgins, Burrows, etc.

I agree totally with your comment and wonder why Edmonton has does not understand this, NYI has seen the light and their team looks pretty solid now......something Lowe should look at

2.) Trading away younger, unproven talent (or picks) for "older", experienced talent often helps a team looking to improve their chances for staying competitive in the now. I'm not necessarily in favour of trading a high pick or a decent prospect for a 30-something veteran in order to achieve this goal. This being said, not all of the older pick-ips are old. I'm thinking of Vey in this case.

Nor am I

3.) The comment has been made (by Benning?) that he believes young players should come up in a "winning atmosphere". I take this to mean that the team might not be Cup winners, but that they are competitive and this is better than playing prospects in an environment where they get demolished on most nights for several years.

See comment #1 reply

4.) Team management likes to win. It keeps them employed. Will winning a Cup improve their job security? Sure. But being the GM of a team in a competitive market, that sucks badly for 3 or more years in a row doesn't improve your job security (this does not apply to Edmonton, etc).

Agree, it is usually the fans that demand the cup, yes I would love one, but look at Toronto and I would rather have 10 years of high end hockey. Still would like a cup in my lifetime!

5.) Team management answers to ownership. Owners like to make money. A complete blow-up/re-build like some are asking for (and may or may not be needed, not arguing one way or the other) is not something which they see as a desirable financial option. Veteran players usually improve a team's chances of winning. Yes, talented rookies are good to have, but they should be developed before being thrown to the wolves or you wind up being another Edmonton. Agree and understand

6.) You gotta' give something to get something. Absolutely

7.) Bonino and Matthais are only 26. I suspect someone will ask you how you figure they are aging? (Too late ) Bonino is still under 200 games played in the NHL. I'm willing to give him some time before I decide that he is not a legit 2C. Yes, I should not have call Bonino and Matthais aging, I was thinking more of UFA in Matthais's case, but on those two, I will admit my age mistake. I don't see it in Bonino, but I would love it if he proves me wrong!

8.) Fan desire to see prospects at the NHL level =/= team desire to manage assets, develop players and so on. The argument is, "Player X is too good not to be in the NHL". The counter is, "What ice time is Player X going to get?" Is it better to have a prospect spend a year in the NHL getting less than optimal minutes, or do you leave him to play a lot (even if it is against lesser competition). I don't nesseary think young prospects should just come up right away, I think prep is important, and they are all still young still, but the league is getting younger...or seems so?

9.) Prospects are also easier to trade as they don't normally have a NTC of some form in their contract. yes prospects are easier to trade, but veterans usually have shown their peak and have plateaued or are falling by the time they are traded.....prospects you never know.......what I would like to see is Benning do an Center prospect for a Dman prospect if he can find a team who is willing to move a prospect for prospect to even out their prospect pool between forwards and Dman.....but you seldom see that, as any dman prospect that is worth anything could turn out to be an elite dman, as they are later to develope

The better prospects will get here, and room will be made (insert snide comments from some posters about that promise already being made and broken), Chances are that Matthias and Richardson (both of whom I would like to keep) will be traded at the deadline. Sestito and Dorsett may, or may not still be here next year. There's four spots which might be able to be filled by Canucks prospects. Which prospects they will be, and the amount of ice time they get is another matter. I would prefer that these positions were filled as much as posible with Canuck prospects who likely will have bottom-6 role as their career path (Mallet, Archibald etc) rather than the Bo Horvat's of the world.

I agree totally with Matthais and Richardson being moved.......that is what I was getting at.......probably Hansen too

regards,

G.

"G" Thanks for commenting, you are usually bang on and I like your comments and how you put things, even if I disagree! A much better writer than I.......My style is to put out a thought and see what comes back.......sometimes, they prove me wrong, occassionally I make a decent point or ask a good question... but I enjoy all the ligit comments....and the funny ones......respect here is a big thing for me.......doesn't matter what age or experience level...you never know until you ask...thanks again!

[J.I.A.H.N]

Step 3 should be obvious: hoist the C_p!

Not sure why the second line gets hate tonight, Bones and Burr each had 4 shots and Higgins and the 1-1 goal. Richardson's one of the better F.O. men on this team at the moment, and Bones and Matthias are only 24 and 26 respectively. Not sure why we'd talk about moving these guys. It's ONE game in which we out-shot a strong team (they were out-shot for the FIRST time this season!).

No hate...the Canucks played well against a strong team......Henrick couldn't handle Stamkos on the first 2, no shame on that, if you look at skating abilities.....I actually haven't written them off, but alot of teams improved this year, so who knows, can't gauge anything by playing Calgary and Edmonton.........

I just honestly don't know how Benning will handle the log jam of players that will happen if some players don't move....had nothing to do with the game.....I think "G" is right and Richardson and Matthais are gone at the deadline or sooner.......I will put Hansen into that mix.....maybe Benning signs one of the 2...maybe..........probably Matthais.......that makes Richardson and Hansen gone at the deadline....just my OP....wanted to know what you thought about it..

[J.I.A.H.N]

Step 1. Short term, win tonight.

Step 2. Slightly longer term enter new year.500 or better.

Step 3 ???

Step 4. Profit

Phil is right on step 3.....hoist the cup , would be a good answer.

Unfortunitly, I was looking for a deeper answer from you LOL

[KassianBeastMode]

Comments, thoughts and observations:

1.) If the team is still in a win now, and continue to win into the future mode, they will need guys like Higgins, Burrows, etc.

2.) Trading away younger, unproven talent (or picks) for "older", experienced talent often helps a team looking to improve their chances for staying competitive in the now. I'm not necessarily in favour of trading a high pick or a decent prospect for a 30-something veteran in order to achieve this goal. This being said, not all of the older pick-ips are old. I'm thinking of Vey in this case.

3.) The comment has been made (by Benning?) that he believes young players should come up in a "winning atmosphere". I take this to mean that the team might not be Cup winners, but that they are competitive and this is better than playing prospects in an environment where they get demolished on most nights for several years.

4.) Team management likes to win. It keeps them employed. Will winning a Cup improve their job security? Sure. But being the GM of a team in a competitive market, that sucks badly for 3 or more years in a row doesn't improve your job security (this does not apply to Edmonton, etc).

5.) Team management answers to ownership. Owners like to make money. A complete blow-up/re-build like some are asking for (and may or may not be needed, not arguing one way or the other) is not something which they see as a desirable financial option. Veteran players usually improve a team's chances of winning. Yes, talented rookies are good to have, but they should be developed before being thrown to the wolves or you wind up being another Edmonton.

6.) You gotta' give something to get something.

7.) Bonino and Matthais are only 26. I suspect someone will ask you how you figure they are aging? (Too late ) Bonino is still under 200 games played in the NHL. I'm willing to give him some time before I decide that he is not a legit 2C.

8.) Fan desire to see prospects at the NHL level =/= team desire to manage assets, develop players and so on. The argument is, "Player X is too good not to be in the NHL". The counter is, "What ice time is Player X going to get?" Is it better to have a prospect spend a year in the NHL getting less than optimal minutes, or do you leave him to play a lot (even if it is against lesser competition).

9.) Prospects are also easier to trade as they don't normally have a NTC of some form in their contract.

The better prospects will get here, and room will be made (insert snide comments from some posters about that promise already being made and broken), Chances are that Matthias and Richardson (both of whom I would like to keep) will be traded at the deadline. Sestito and Dorsett may, or may not still be here next year. There's four spots which might be able to be filled by Canucks prospects. Which prospects they will be, and the amount of ice time they get is another matter. I would prefer that these positions were filled as much as posible with Canuck prospects who likely will have bottom-6 role as their career path (Mallet, Archibald etc) rather than the Bo Horvat's of the world.

regards,

G.

good post

[KassianBeastMode]

No hate...the Canucks played well against a strong team......Henrick couldn't handle Stamkos on the first 2, no shame on that, if you look at skating abilities.....I actually haven't written them off, but alot of teams improved this year, so who knows, can't gauge anything by playing Calgary and Edmonton.........

I just honestly don't know how Benning will handle the log jam of players that will happen if some players don't move....had nothing to do with the game.....I think "G" is right and Richardson and Matthais are gone at the deadline or sooner.......I will put Hansen into that mix.....maybe Benning signs one of the 2...maybe..........probably Matthais.......that makes Richardson and Hansen gone at the deadline....just my OP....wanted to know what you thought about it..

Last night was the type of game, where dare I say it, we really saw the value Kesler brought..His role would have been to shut down Stamkos.

Right now we're lacking that player who can shut down a player like that and also potentially score...

We still have alot of holes on this team and last night showed it....not that the effort wasn't there but realistically we do have holes.

1. We don't have a strong 2c with size who can play that role Kes did

2. We don't really have a second line we have 2 3rd lines...

3. Defense still needs help, positioning doesn't seem very sound yet, and we really need a guy who can move the puck under pressure to balance off our pairings...

We are in transition but will be competitive...and if we are to make any sort of push, its going to take a group really working together, playing hard every night and some real scoring by committee by the 2/3rd lines...

Personally, as well as the twins and Vrbata are playing, I'd prefer to see him on the 2nd to balance off the lines a bit more...

Sedin Sedin Kassian

Vey Bonino Vrbata

Higgins Horvat Burrows

Matthias Richardson Dorsett/Hansen

[DefCon1]

It seems that when ever I read a post here. The trade discussion is always to trade youngsters away or to decline trading veterans away. This has brought me to the conclusion, that we (CDC) really don't know what we should do beyond waiting to see how the season lays out.

Here are my points and questions..........

#1. We have an abundance of veteran tweeners in Higgins, Burrows, Matthais, Richardson, Bonino, and Hansen that have all spent time on the 2nd line, all are aging, all really do not appear to be ligit 2nd liners and all still have good value.

With the likes of Horvat, McCann, Gaunce, Cassels, Jensen, Shinkaruk, and Virtanen all potentially being able to come up within the next 2 years, what is our plan? What should we do?

#2. With Richardson, Matthais, and Dorsett all being UFA's at the end of the year, do we try and resign them, trade them, or let them walk? Keeping in mind that we have the above rookies all pushing for the big club.

To me, Richardson will bring good return as a rental at the deadline and would be a decent replacement player for an injury for a player on a contending team as well as a bubble team. I believe we can replace him internally with either Horvat, Gaunce, or Matthais if not traded.

Realistically, we will have a traffic jam, if we don't move someone by the end of the year, or we will just simply loose assets, as their contracts expire and they walk.

Basically, I would just like to know, who, when and where? As just allowing it to happen will cost us.

Just interested in your opinions..who goes, and when do we move them? Or do we just not do anything?

I am willing to wait until Jan, Feb.....but that will not change the situation.

So you want to be like the Oilers team that is full of prospects yet they haven't made the playoffs in a decade?

I'd rather just have a mix of young and old and still keep winning while developing prospects. No point in having a fire sale with how finicky the fans in Vancouver are. I doubt the fan base could wait a decade without making the playoffs.

[DefCon1]

Last night was the type of game, where dare I say it, we really saw the value Kesler brought..His role would have been to shut down Stamkos.

Right now we're lacking that player who can shut down a player like that and also potentially score...

We still have alot of holes on this team and last night showed it....not that the effort wasn't there but realistically we do have holes.

1. We don't have a strong 2c with size who can play that role Kes did

2. We don't really have a second line we have 2 3rd lines...

3. Defense still needs help, positioning doesn't seem very sound yet, and we really need a guy who can move the puck under pressure to balance off our pairings...

We are in transition but will be competitive...and if we are to make any sort of push, its going to take a group really working together, playing hard every night and some real scoring by committee by the 2/3rd lines...

Personally, as well as the twins and Vrbata are playing, I'd prefer to see him on the 2nd to balance off the lines a bit more...

Sedin Sedin Kassian

Vey Bonino Vrbata

Higgins Horvat Burrows

Matthias Richardson Dorsett/Hansen

We are waiting for Horvat and Gaunce to become the shut down centers. We are also waiting on Virtanen and Shinkaruk to provide more scoring. I think in a couple of years, we won't have any problems with our forwards if the Sedins are still here.

[stawns]

Last night was the type of game, where dare I say it, we really saw the value Kesler brought..His role would have been to shut down Stamkos.

Right now we're lacking that player who can shut down a player like that and also potentially score...

We still have alot of holes on this team and last night showed it....not that the effort wasn't there but realistically we do have holes.

1. We don't have a strong 2c with size who can play that role Kes did

2. We don't really have a second line we have 2 3rd lines...

3. Defense still needs help, positioning doesn't seem very sound yet, and we really need a guy who can move the puck under pressure to balance off our pairings...

We are in transition but will be competitive...and if we are to make any sort of push, its going to take a group really working together, playing hard every night and some real scoring by committee by the 2/3rd lines...

Personally, as well as the twins and Vrbata are playing, I'd prefer to see him on the 2nd to balance off the lines a bit more...

Sedin Sedin Kassian

Vey Bonino Vrbata

Higgins Horvat Burrows

Matthias Richardson Dorsett/Hansen

I actually think that was on WD and misreading the matchup of the top lines. He should have known the twins wouldn't be able to handle the speed of the Bolts top line and matched Bonino's line against them. I'm actually finding that Bonino is a very capable defensive fwd, and Burr and Higgy are both excellent in that regard.

[J.I.A.H.N]

So you want to be like the Oilers team that is full of prospects yet they haven't made the playoffs in a decade?

I'd rather just have a mix of young and old and still keep winning while developing prospects. No point in having a fire sale with how finicky the fans in Vancouver are. I doubt the fan base could wait a decade without making the playoffs.

No I don't and I am not asking for our young players to come and fill in today. What my question is really, what do we do with our pending UFA , because if we are going to sign them, they certainly are not going to sign 1 year contracts, when they can hit Free Agency and sign for longer and more. IMO

But we also have to admit reality and understand that our top prospects really aren't that far of some of our vets in talent and sooner than later, they will be pushing for jobs on the big club.

So I think you have to ask the hard questions regarding players like Horvat who won't be that far off Richardson's skill level now, do you resign Richardson? or trade him for additional asset...aka a pick.....IMO he has value short term...that's all

Same with Gaunce and Matthais....very simular players, with the exception of skating, although Gaunce has improved in that regard, Gauce may have more offensive upside and his IQ is much higher.

Hansen is not a UFA and is the middle of his contract with a no trade clause, but he is slowly getting squeezed out and as much as he can play on either of the 2 bottom line, as much as he is a good PKer, he is expendable, and is worth asset. I don't see him in the same light as I saw him 2 years ago. I would like to see him traded before that become apparent through the league, as again I still think he has value. But he is replacable at the moment.

So, by the time the deadline comes, I would expect some of these players to be on the move, simply because there is no room. Also if you are really concerned about verteran leadership, you can always replace one with another UFA...these are not 1st and 2nd line players........but the assets we would recieve from them would be benificial.

Please note that I did not say anything about the Sedins, Vrbata, Higgins, Burrows, Edler, Hamhuis, Bieska, Tanev, Miller, Lack etc...that is more than enough veteran leadership and character

Cheers.............again I agree with "G" on this one completely

[J.I.A.H.N]

No I don't and I am not asking for our young players to come and fill in today. What my question is really, what do we do with our pending UFA's , because if we are going to sign them, they certainly are not going to sign 1 year contracts, when they can hit Free Agency and sign for longer and more. IMO

But we also have to admit reality and understand that our top prospects really aren't that far of some of our vets in talent and sooner than later, they will be pushing for jobs on the big club.

So I think you have to ask the hard questions regarding players like Horvat who won't be that far off Richardson's skill level now, do you resign Richardson? or trade him for additional asset...aka a pick.....IMO he has value short term...that's all

Same with Gaunce and Matthais....very simular players, with the exception of skating, although Gaunce has improved in that regard, Gauce may have more offensive upside and his IQ is much higher.

Hansen is not a UFA and is the middle of his contract with a no trade clause, but he is slowly getting squeezed out and as much as he can play on either of the 2 bottom line, as much as he is a good PKer, he is expendable, and is worth asset. I don't see him in the same light as I saw him 2 years ago. I would like to see him traded before that become apparent through the league, as again I still think he has value. But he is replacable at the moment.

So, by the time the deadline comes, I would expect some of these players to be on the move, simply because there is no room. Also if you are really concerned about verteran leadership, you can always replace one with another UFA...these are not 1st and 2nd line players........but the assets we would recieve from them would be benificial.

Please note that I did not say anything about the Sedins, Vrbata, Higgins, Burrows, Edler, Hamhuis, Bieska, Tanev, Miller, Lack etc...that is more than enough veteran leadership and character

Cheers.............again I agree with "G" on this one completely

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

Comments, thoughts and observations:

1.) If the team is still in a win now, and continue to win into the future mode, they will need guys like Higgins, Burrows, etc.

2.) Trading away younger, unproven talent (or picks) for "older", experienced talent often helps a team looking to improve their chances for staying competitive in the now. I'm not necessarily in favour of trading a high pick or a decent prospect for a 30-something veteran in order to achieve this goal. This being said, not all of the older pick-ips are old. I'm thinking of Vey in this case.

3.) The comment has been made (by Benning?) that he believes young players should come up in a "winning atmosphere". I take this to mean that the team might not be Cup winners, but that they are competitive and this is better than playing prospects in an environment where they get demolished on most nights for several years.

4.) Team management likes to win. It keeps them employed. Will winning a Cup improve their job security? Sure. But being the GM of a team in a competitive market, that sucks badly for 3 or more years in a row doesn't improve your job security (this does not apply to Edmonton, etc).

5.) Team management answers to ownership. Owners like to make money. A complete blow-up/re-build like some are asking for (and may or may not be needed, not arguing one way or the other) is not something which they see as a desirable financial option. Veteran players usually improve a team's chances of winning. Yes, talented rookies are good to have, but they should be developed before being thrown to the wolves or you wind up being another Edmonton.

6.) You gotta' give something to get something.

7.) Bonino and Matthais are only 26. I suspect someone will ask you how you figure they are aging? (Too late ) Bonino is still under 200 games played in the NHL. I'm willing to give him some time before I decide that he is not a legit 2C.

8.) Fan desire to see prospects at the NHL level =/= team desire to manage assets, develop players and so on. The argument is, "Player X is too good not to be in the NHL". The counter is, "What ice time is Player X going to get?" Is it better to have a prospect spend a year in the NHL getting less than optimal minutes, or do you leave him to play a lot (even if it is against lesser competition).

9.) Prospects are also easier to trade as they don't normally have a NTC of some form in their contract.

The better prospects will get here, and room will be made (insert snide comments from some posters about that promise already being made and broken), Chances are that Matthias and Richardson (both of whom I would like to keep) will be traded at the deadline. Sestito and Dorsett may, or may not still be here next year. There's four spots which might be able to be filled by Canucks prospects. Which prospects they will be, and the amount of ice time they get is another matter. I would prefer that these positions were filled as much as posible with Canuck prospects who likely will have bottom-6 role as their career path (Mallet, Archibald etc) rather than the Bo Horvat's of the world.

regards,

G.

Mallet...Mallet! instead of Horvat... Nothing against Mallet but he didn't even make the Comets this year, he is in the ECHL.

Wow.

[aqua59]

It seems that when ever I read a post here. The trade discussion is always to trade youngsters away or to decline trading veterans away. This has brought me to the conclusion, that we (CDC) really don't know what we should do beyond waiting to see how the season lays out.

Here are my points and questions..........

#1. We have an abundance of veteran tweeners in Higgins, Burrows, Matthais, Richardson, Bonino, and Hansen that have all spent time on the 2nd line, all are aging, all really do not appear to be ligit 2nd liners and all still have good value.

With the likes of Horvat, McCann, Gaunce, Cassels, Jensen, Shinkaruk, and Virtanen all potentially being able to come up within the next 2 years, what is our plan? What should we do?

#2. With Richardson, Matthais, and Dorsett all being UFA's at the end of the year, do we try and resign them, trade them, or let them walk? Keeping in mind that we have the above rookies all pushing for the big club.

To me, Richardson will bring good return as a rental at the deadline and would be a decent replacement player for an injury for a player on a contending team as well as a bubble team. I believe we can replace him internally with either Horvat, Gaunce, or Matthais if not traded.

Realistically, we will have a traffic jam, if we don't move someone by the end of the year, or we will just simply loose assets, as their contracts expire and they walk.

Basically, I would just like to know, who, when and where? As just allowing it to happen will cost us.

Just interested in your opinions..who goes, and when do we move them? Or do we just not do anything?

I am willing to wait until Jan, Feb.....but that will not change the situation.

I don't see any young players being traded at this point. If things go south I think they'll bring players up from Utica for the purposes of development. The fan base with put up with young players developing as to watching the likes of Hansen, who I might add has topped out and heading downward quickly. No finish.

At least a young player has the potential to improve, guy like Hansen won't get better.

I see a youth movement coming.