Canuck Surfer Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 There have been crazier thoughts; To Buffalo: Kevin Bieksa, Jensen, 1st, Gaunce? To Van: Tyler Myers - KB3 is from just north of Niagara, just 45 odd minutes away? He might waive to be at home and be part of a massive upswelling in young talent. He would offer their team a toughness and stability they would need. Note Buffalo losing Meszaros and Myers, will want at least one true NHL vet. - Buffalo already needs wingers, its not the strength of their otherwise good prospect pool and will be losing Stafford. Jensen, a big scoring winger is a perfect fit. Buffalo will have scouted Jensen in Utica. - 2015 first in a deep draft has value. - Gaunce is the big young defensive center to compliment Reinhart, Eichel or McDavid and all the offensive talent they will have. Feel free to try and swap Jensen with Kassian in this proposal as well, lol. * This is competitive with concepts like Theodore, Rakell or Karlsson and a first I have seen? I admit Theodore is attractive in the package. For us Bieksa is quasi redundant now. Will certainly be with Myers. We do have Horvat, Cassels and McCann as 2 way young centers. So its an explainable loss with Gaunce. Although it creates about a 2 year void between Gaunce and Cassels. JB is good at filling such voids. So the real cost is Jensen and a first. In a year, maybe two; Danny / Horvat / Virtanen Shinkaruk / Hank / Kassian Kenins / McCann / Burrows Dorsett / UFA / Hansen Higgins But the D is big, fast, sound defensively, mobile and talented... Edler / Myers Hamhuis / Clendening Hutton / Tanev Sbisa / McNally (My belief is Hamhuis & Dorsett will be re-signed) The real purpose of this discussion is to determine anyone wants to pay the price for a Myers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Plow Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Gross overpayment, Isn't Gaunce playing really well in the AHL? Bieksa means a lot more to our team leadership wise then people think. Jensen has an NHL shot, but still hasn't figure it out. I wouldn't want to give up on him yet, and dealing a 1st is not going to happen. Like Myers though, just don't like him at this high of a cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I still don't think they need Gaunce with all the center depth they have, and I don't want to give up our first on top of everything else we pay in that trade. Bieksa may not waive for a team in a rebuild either, no matter how close to home it is. It's hard to move 3 contracts for 1 quite often as well, so maybe we could move it around a little. It's too hard to say Bieksa would or wouldn't waive, so for values sake we can leave him in: Bieksa, Jensen, Grenier, 2nd (or 2016 1st?) for Myers, Grigorenko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Plow Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I still don't think they need Gaunce with all the center depth they have, and I don't want to give up our first on top of everything else we pay in that trade. Bieksa may not waive for a team in a rebuild either, no matter how close to home it is. It's hard to move 3 contracts for 1 quite often as well, so maybe we could move it around a little. It's too hard to say Bieksa would or wouldn't waive, so for values sake we can leave him in: Bieksa, Jensen, Grenier, 2nd (or 2016 1st?) for Myers, Grigorenko I'm pretty sure Gaunce has been converted to LW in the AHL this year and has been playing very solid. I also like the idea of Grigorenko, he's more appealing to me then Myers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 He could well be a wing in the NHL if he makes it so he could still be included, but the suggestion originally was that he'd be a center for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I don't think Sabres do it. I know the other posters in this thread think the Canucks overpay in that scenario, but I think we'd need to add/upgrade a prospect to get Buffalo to accept. I'd like to get him, but I don't think we could out-bid Anaheim or Detroit without giving up too much for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 I still don't think they need Gaunce with all the center depth they have, and I don't want to give up our first on top of everything else we pay in that trade. Bieksa may not waive for a team in a rebuild either, no matter how close to home it is. It's hard to move 3 contracts for 1 quite often as well, so maybe we could move it around a little. It's too hard to say Bieksa would or wouldn't waive, so for values sake we can leave him in: Bieksa, Jensen, Grenier, 2nd (or 2016 1st?) for Myers, Grigorenko Guys like Myers typically command that top young player, top prospect, top pick package? Bieksa aside, we are slightly lower in the initial proposal, in that both Gaunce and Jensen are still prospects. Not established young players yet. So I added a sweetener to attain that value, plus be the potential winning bid over competitors. Bieksa was both the sweetener and a necessary cap inclusion to make the deal work. The way I read your response, swapping to Grenier, downgrading to a 2knd, and asking for a high value inclusion, a recent top 10 pic, is that; -either you are not interested in Myers in the first place? - Or kinda making wishful thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Anaheim has 4(?) picks in the first 3 rounds I believe and one of the deepest prospect pools in the league. Offering a couple picks including this and next years 1sts, a prospect like Vatanen/Theodore for the D and Etem, Ritchie or someone for the forward core is something we cannot match. Like at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Gross overpayment, Isn't Gaunce playing really well in the AHL? Bieksa means a lot more to our team leadership wise then people think. Jensen has an NHL shot, but still hasn't figure it out. I wouldn't want to give up on him yet, and dealing a 1st is not going to happen. Like Myers though, just don't like him at this high of a cost. I am not sure I would do the deal either. I could be swung either way. In the OP I simply presented what I felt logically it would take? My own worry, looking at the resulting lineup, having given up Jensen and Gaunce (plus a first), there is not a whole lot of wingers knocking on the door. But it does really solidify the D for years. I really do not think it would be an overpayment as u suggest. Just my opinion, but I feel he will command that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Anaheim has 4(?) picks in the first 3 rounds I believe and one of the deepest prospect pools in the league. Offering a couple picks including this and next years 1sts, a prospect like Vatanen/Theodore for the D and Etem, Ritchie or someone for the forward core is something we cannot match. Like at all. The overall logic is good. But I seriously doubt Vatanen would be in any package? He's on track for 49 points and nearly 20 goals as a 23 year old D man. No way they are giving that up! They also held out pretty good with us. We did not manage to get the 10th or Theodore. (I cling to hope that JB did not pick Sbisa over Theodore just because Sbisa was already in the league). So I wonder what an Anaheim package might be? Going to be a first plus two of: Smith-Pelly, Etem, Theodore, Rakell, possibly Karlsson? Just an issue of which two. My educated guess is only one of DSP, Theodore and Etem. My best guess would be Theodore, because he gives a replacement D, Rakell and a first? Edit: And I believe Rakell, Theodore and a 1st > Jensen, Gaunce and a 1st. Hence the Bieksa addition. Do we have the appetite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrChill Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 He isn't worth that. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 LOL, so far no one wants Myers for the price! No compelling argument he is actually worth less. But still no interest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanghai owey Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I think value wise, its actually not a bad trade. And i think a package like that among other team packages could be tempting to Buffalo. However, to give up some of our older good prospects like Jensen and Gaunce isn't ideal as these players are nearing the point where they can become full time NHLers and be able to step into the line up. The significance of that is this will provide the framework for our rebuild as we slowly insert youth into the lineup and start to have a younger quicker look as these guys take over from existing vets. Giving up these two players I think we'd have to wait a bit longer for our other players to step in, therefore allowing our veteran core to age and decline. And as mentioned in other threads about trading away players like HIggins, and Mathias and burrows etc, I dont know if that will actually happen, but if it does, a player like Gaunce and Jensen will be the firsts to replace them in the future. I hope Jensen can become a top six winger capable of scoring 20+ goals a season, as well he's fast and has good size at 6'3. And i think Gaunce will become a very strong 3rd line player. and i believe having a strong third line is necessary for a winning team. This potential trade would mean giving up 3 First round picks, for Myers who isn't even on pace to pass the 20 point mark this season. And although he would look great in our top 4, I think we give up the pieces that are sparking our rebuild. However I do think benning is constantly looking to strengthen our D but Instead of giving up those pieces, I'd rather draft, while we can with do with our D for now, especially having hamhuis back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 LOL, so far no one wants Myers for the price! No compelling argument he is actually worth less. But still no interest... Well, I"m not going to be the first, but you're raised a really interesting question. I'll set aside the question of Bieksa waiving to go to the Sabres, since that isn't really the point of your post. This is a very high risk, potentially very high reward proposal. Myers did really well early in his career, earned a big 7 year contract with a cap hit of $5.5 million (with a higher front end salary, unusual for a young player) through 2019. He then produced well under the level of his contract until, possibly, this year when he's been Buffalo's most-used and probably best defenceman. Given what Buffalo is this year that may be faint praise. If Myers hits his potential, you do well with this trade. If he doesn't, you may not. The suggestion is Bieksa + 3 pieces, 2 good prospects and a 1st round pick, for Myers. Looking for the future I won't include discussion of Bieksa but Jensen, Gaunce, a 1st rounder (or something similar) for Myers. This will be obvious enough but each prospect and pick is a chance at a player. Some of those chances will work out, some won't. Jensen/Gaunce/1st rounder could yield the Canucks nothing at all, or 3 good pieces. Usually it will be something in between. Having 3 pieces instead of 1 increases the chance you'll have something useful, and you may have something good. With 1 piece instead you're down to 1 piece but you have a really good chance he'll be a useful player (he already has been,) a reasonable chance he'll be a good player and a chance that he'll be outstanding. If something goes wrong, you've thrown away 3 pieces plus you're paying $5.5 million a year in cap space until 2019. If you are in an organization that drafts and develops poorly, you might as well swing for the fences and take the deal. If you think you can draft and develop well, there's more to lose if the 1 piece coming back doesn't pan out for any reason (illness, injury, or just mediocre play, for example) so the potential reward doesn't change but the risk level is higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Guys like Myers typically command that top young player, top prospect, top pick package? Bieksa aside, we are slightly lower in the initial proposal, in that both Gaunce and Jensen are still prospects. Not established young players yet. So I added a sweetener to attain that value, plus be the potential winning bid over competitors. Bieksa was both the sweetener and a necessary cap inclusion to make the deal work. The way I read your response, swapping to Grenier, downgrading to a 2knd, and asking for a high value inclusion, a recent top 10 pic, is that; -either you are not interested in Myers in the first place? - Or kinda making wishful thinking? No, rather that the high value inclusion top 10 pick has been a bigger source of contention for the Sabres than Kassian is here, and is redundant with having Girgensons leap over him in the depth chart and recently drafting Reinhart. They'll likely draft one of McDavid or Eichel this year as well so that leaves Grigorenko as an extra piece they haven't even been fully using this year with all their rebuilding talk. And I'm interested in Myers, but only for the right price. He's a big, big defenceman who can play a lot of minutes, but there was always a question about whether he had enough of a mean streak to be effective as a big man. Add to that his early success, followed by the big contract, followed by the drastic downturn in play and there are question marks about him to the point I wouldn't rush to give up a lot of pretty good pieces for him. He may still be worth it, but we have other needs as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Elvis, I agree that KB likely wouldn't waive for Buffalo. How 'bout a couple of players that likely will never play here, or at least for long. One of Lack or Markstrom, Subban, then your two of Grenier and a 2nd or next years 1st. They get a good goalie, at least able to hold down the fort until they develop/acquire a top notch one, a Dman that looks like he will fit in the East better than here and has loads of offensive potential (along with being closer to his bro), then the big man you suggested and a fairly high pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Doubtful the Sabres want Bieska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Goblin Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 We should have drafted him when we had the chance. *sigh* Hodgson... Now they have both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHodgson9 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 We should have drafted him when we had the chance. *sigh* Hodgson... Now they have both of them. They can keep Hodgson, I have no interest in bringing him back. ...Also, I realize the irony given my name... In a market where people are looking to make "hockey deals" and top-4 dmen with size, skill, and upside are available, it will generally grant a favorable return for the team trading the dman. Right now, I don't think the canucks could outbid Anaheim or Detroit if he becomes available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Elvis, I agree that KB likely wouldn't waive for Buffalo. How 'bout a couple of players that likely will never play here, or at least for long. One of Lack or Markstrom, Subban, then your two of Grenier and a 2nd or next years 1st. They get a good goalie, at least able to hold down the fort until they develop/acquire a top notch one, a Dman that looks like he will fit in the East better than here and has loads of offensive potential (along with being closer to his bro), then the big man you suggested and a fairly high pick. Grenier, Subban etc are not going to command a top minute munching D man. Nevermind getting a high pick thrown in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.