Vrbata Trade Bait at the Deadline?

[KING ALBERTS]

We won't get a 1st but we could get "whatever else". I'm guessing a 2nd rounder is more likely.

If Perron is worth a first Vrbata sure as hell is.

Fact is we have no second line players, this team needs a rebuild. Badly. How long can we be a middle of the pack draft pick while not being able to legitimately compete for a cup?

We have a new GM and coach who aren't emotionally tied to our aging core... Time to make moves as soon as possible to set us up to be competitive over the long run

[GreyHatnDart]

I agree, I don't want Verby gone but I would trade him if we could get a potential 1st line player and get younger. I imagine in a couple of years, Shinkaruk and Virtanen might make the team as regulars. Now if we got another top line prospect like Ritchie, I would be all over that.

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Virtanen-Bonino-Ritchie

Matthias-Richardson-Vey

Dorsett-Horvat-Hansen

That would not be a bad lineup, plus whatever we get for Kassian and Higgins.

I really and truly hope that by the time those prospects make that leap, the Sedins are 2nd liners.

[Ronalds.Kenins41]

IF Vrbata is so good, how come he is barely on pace to equal Burrows stats while playing with the twins? Trade Vrbata reunite the top line and fill in Alex's spot on the 2 or 3 or 4 line- easy .

Burrows is half the player he was without AV and lost his speed/ tenacity in front of the net.

Vrbata on the other hand plays at a speed faster then the sedins, protects the puck really well and has a good shot. Also has the sedins on pace close to point per game.

"If it aint broke don't fix it".

[CptCanuck16]

I could totally see that happening OP. Maybe throw the twins in their and get even more draft picks!!! We don't really need any offense anyway. Next year WD can go with a top line of Jensen/Shinkaruk/Kassian and we'll win the Stanley Cup for sure!!!!!

/sarcasm

No way Vrbata goes. He's our leading goal scorer and has good chemistry with the twins. He is a finisher, something that they desperately need in a line mate. The twins are play makers not goal scorers. They each making $7m a season and without a finisher on their line they aren't really bringing a good return on investment. So from a business standpoint it would make no sense to trade Vrbata. It's like the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[apollo]

IF Vrbata is so good, how come he is barely on pace to equal Burrows stats while playing with the twins? Trade Vrbata reunite the top line and fill in Alex's spot on the 2 or 3 or 4 line- easy .

W0t? Burrows makes any line he's on better. He doesn't have to be restricted to the top line. Vrbata fits well there. Burrows fits well anywhere.

Burrows is arguably one of the most versatile canucks of ALL TIME

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

[apollo]

Burrows is half the player he was without AV and lost his speed/ tenacity in front of the net.

What a bone headed comment. Lost his tenacity in front of the net?

HE'S PROVIDED THE SCREEN ON THE PAST 5 OF 7 POWER PLAY GOALS

[48MPHSlapShot]

Only way Vrbata goes is if we somehow fall completely out of a playoff spot before the deadline (almost zero percent chance of happening) and management is content with the idea of tanking the rest of the season.

[tyhee]

I could totally see that happening OP. Maybe throw the twins in their and get even more draft picks!!! We don't really need any offense anyway. Next year WD can go with a top line of Jensen/Shinkaruk/Kassian and we'll win the Stanley Cup for sure!!!!!

/sarcasm

...

Capitan, I think you could assume this was one of those comments that even those of us who don't think sarcasm first would have been able to catch. )

If Perron is worth a first Vrbata sure as hell is.

Fact is we have no second line players, this team needs a rebuild. Badly. How long can we be a middle of the pack draft pick while not being able to legitimately compete for a cup?

We have a new GM and coach who aren't emotionally tied to our aging core... Time to make moves as soon as possible to set us up to be competitive over the long run

Ah, a post that I disagree with most of. (I agree that the team needs a rebuild.)

1. Perron is younger, slightly cheaper (4.5 million, same expiry date on the contract) and actually out-pointed Vrbata last season. This year he has played in various situations but largely with Mark Arcobelli and Teddy Purcell (see is a far cry from playing regular with the Sedins. Essentially, though, both players are goal scorers with good shots and both play intelligently. There isn't a huge difference between what Perron and Vrbata bring to the game right now. Vrbata might have a very slight edge.

Perron is 7 years younger.

Granted, the age difference doesn't mean as much as it did in the days before free agency, but that is a huge age difference. In Perron's case, next October when dealing on an extension his age will be at most a minor cosideration-he'll be 28 at the time the extension would become effective. Vrbata would be 35 when his next extension becomes effective, making age a major consideration.

It may seem strange given their output this year, but given their ages I consider Vrbata's trade value to be clearly less than Perron's.

2. "We have a new GM and coach who aren't emotionally tied to our aging core... Time to make moves as soon as possible to set us up to be competitive over the long run"

While you speak of management not being tied to the core, aren't you arguing though that the Canucks do something totally inconsistent with what Benning said in his interview with TSNRadio on Friday, where he said that (while he wasn't going to trade prospects or draft picks) he'd do everything he could to help the Canucks made the playoffs?

I realize the Canucks management has several directions they could go.

(a) trade prospects and picks for immediate help-which JB has said specifically they won't do

(b ) trade the veterans for prospects, picks and younger players at the expense of how the team does now, which is inconsistent with what the management has been saying all along that they wanted the team to be competitive and the goal was to make the playoffs, and which is also what JB said on Friday he wouldn't do

(c ) look for moves that don't hurt now but can bring help for the future, which means essentially staying the course except when a good long-term hockey trade becomes available and otherwise trying to get players as free agents or waiver pickups.

The downside of this for management is twofold-it takes patience (which means years) to properly build up the team's roster and farm system and meanwhile those that favour a different approach with more trades will say that management "isn't doing anything." (It would be hard for people to make that complaint about the Canucks for a while after the changes of last summer, but, for example, if the Canucks don't make a major move before the deadline and miss the playoffs by a point or get swept in the 1sr round, there will be people saying Canucks management could have done more.)

I'd suggest that the Canucks' management has clearly picked (c ).

I also happen to think that's the correct choice.

Blowing the team up so that prospects play without having to earn their ice time (including having to keep earning future ice time) on a losing team without role models who have played in a winning environment has some obvious problems-it's neither the best way to develop prospects nor would being uncompetitive keep the fans who are paying high ticket prices satisfied.

Trading picks and prospects for immediate help mortgages the future, making it more likely that the Canucks spell in the wilderness will be long and painful.

I think the Canucks have decided they aren't choosing (a) or (b .) That being the case, don't expect them to trade the team's top goal scorer for prospects and picks-there would have to be enough coming back that the Canucks wouldn't be made weaker in the present, either.