Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If true that the Rangers turned down the Sabres' offer of 2 early 2nd round picks; would everyone be ok with that for Lack? I think I would, even a combo of early 2nd and Grigerenko. In fact, Sabres fan if you're here. Would you do a lack for 2 seconds or a 2nd and Grig?? Absolutely. Lack for Dunn and Andersson... although I don't know if Rasmus will still be there at 51. There'll certainly still be other good prospects available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The yak of the moment on Sabres HF is the rumoured "young d" in the rumoured "Lack package" and some drooling for Edler or Tanev. Not seeing either of those go to Sabreland though... To Buffalo: Lack Bieksa ($4.00 cap) Burrows ($5.00 cap) To Vancouver 21 (31 if stars don't all align ) Hodgson ($4.25 cap) Grigorenko's rights Seriously. Buffalo gets the goalie, veteran top 4 D while kiddies mature, and a very versatile heart-on-sleeve in veteran Burrows. Vancouver gets the pick it needs as desperately as the cap relief, along with 1 young reclamation project and 1 young prospect project for bonus extras. Bieska & Hodgson are basically cap swaps, but that $5.0m relief from Burrows has gotta be worth not getting another 2nd pick for Lack - opens up the means to unload Higgins and sign a quality top 6 wing.... Ugh, I'd rather let Burrows and Bieksa retire here than take Hodgson's useless cap back and have Grigs run to the KHL. Having the extra cap space and the 21st would be good, but at least Bieksa and Burrows can still contribute (not to mention maybe we could move them in a separate deal and I doubt they waive for Buffalo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 All the other crap about him being a mentor, stability in net blah, blah is just P.R. to make the pill a little easier to swallow for the folks allowing themselves to believe it. We've tried to explain, oh how we've tried. But those tinted shades are just bolted to your skull... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Get this done quick, JB. My head's starting to hurt from all these Cody fanboys swarming out from the abyss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Why would it? X number of teams wanting a goalie, Y number of goalies available. Subtract 1 from Y and demand goes up from X to try and get one of the remaining goalies, particularly the top end ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Lack for 31 and 58 OA would be unbelievable. Somehow it still seems unlikely, though. If it ups the ante on Dallas so we get Oleksiak straight up for Lack, that's still excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 X number of teams wanting a goalie, Y number of goalies available. Subtract 1 from Y and demand goes up from X to try and get one of the remaining goalies, particularly the top end ones.If Y > X, and it is, then this formula doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If Y > X, and it is, then this formula doesn't matter. Yeah it does. If you're one of six kids and there's 10 cookies, you're still going to try and get as many cookies as you can for the best possible experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If I was JB I would make 1 move before the draft. 1 move at the draft move before the draft: Eddie Lack + Nicklas Jensen for 31st overall + Rights to grigorenko ( Condition is that he has to sign or nucks get a 2016 3rd round pick) at the draft Kevin Bieksa for 71st overall + Stefan Elliott Nucks shed cap while getting Eliott who has potential to be an offensive D and would be more than capable of being the 7th D over Weber. Col shores up their Back end with a good top 4 D something they are missing. 23rd overall- Joel Eriksson 31st overall- Vince Dunn 71st overall- Filip AHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If they traded Markstrom and went with Lack and Miller they could try trading Miller at the deadline next spring. With only a year left in his contract at that time he would be more tradable, especially if he was playing well. That moves Lack into #1 and the net yield of moving Miller and Markstrom probably exceeds a straight Lack trade. Either way in 2 seasons Canucks will walk away from Miller and they will have either Markstrom or Lack as their #1. Millers market to trade him is this season with SJ needing a goalie. By this time next year no California team will need a goalie and that means Miller isn’t waiving his NTC. Which translates into 10 million being locked up in goal tending next season, if Lack doesn't decide to try his luck and hit the bank as a UFA with a guarantee to be a teams #1 Vancouver getting paid, 3-4 million, playing a 50-30 split with Miller now as the backup or Any team of his choice, getting paid, 4-5 million with guarantee of 60+ games. We could end up with Miller for two years and both Markstrom and Lack gone for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Do people forget the drama with Hodgson when he was here? I believe his issue was he wanted to be a top 6 centre but Kesler had that slot. He threw a bit of a tantrum and had his agent help him get moved to a team that needed his top 6 centre services. Well, how did that turn out for him? Bringing him back to Vancouver where he'd have to battle it out with Horvat and Bonino for that 2nd line centre spot, is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Ugh, I'd rather let Burrows and Bieksa retire here than take Hodgson's useless cap back and have Grigs run to the KHL. Having the extra cap space and the 21st would be good, but at least Bieksa and Burrows can still contribute (not to mention maybe we could move them in a separate deal and I doubt they waive for Buffalo). Bieska and Burrows are two of my all-time favs, but if the Canucks wanna get younger and make cap room, the core changes - and those two equate to $9.0 in old vets. They also, in my opinion anyway, have the most "veteran value" that the Canucks can trade (Higgins sure ain't gonna get much of a return ). So sure, they can still contribute, but something's gotta give and if they'd waive... Gee and the Sabres need to take on... what $9.0-ish to reach the floor? Whether or not Hodgson or Grigorenko were added to the package doesn't really matter to the Burrows/Bieska rationale, but either would be interesting.... Hodgson's a proven producer with 3 of 4 seasons in the top 6 league-wide (despite being on a bottom dweller) with his defensive woes exacerbated by insane mismanagement (ranked 29th among forwards last year for d-zone start percentage? wow, talk about a setup to fail the advanced stats test, lol). Benning proved at the trade deadline that he's not adverse to taking on young reclamation projects with offensive upside and sad two-way games who have hit a disconnect with management. Grigorenko projects to have a higher ceiling, is on the cusp of NHL ready with a power body that plays it physical, and the KHL rumour is not only a rumour, but highly unlikely to happen if he's not looking at an NHL life locked forever behind Eichel and Reinhart. Word on the street is that the kid's mother has actually moved to Canada (Montreal, I think?) to be close because Grigorenko hasn't been rushing 'home' to Russia in the off-season - kid wants an NHL career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpennyCanuck Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Lack for 31st + Coho 1 mil retained LOL, or they can buy him out and we sign him for a mil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlsson`s Flo Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Chances are if Lack does get traded to Buffalo straight up, it will be for the NYI 2nd rounder rather the 31st overall. As much as we like Lack, he is still a backup trying to prove he can handle a starting position in the NHL. If there's a bidding war going on and the teams like Lack that much, perhaps we can get that 31st overall but with other goalies out there I'm doubtful we'd get it. I hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If Y > X, and it is, then this formula doesn't matter. There are a number of goalies out there, sure, but how many are actually drawing interest and a possible starter on an NHL team? Talbot, Lack, one of Lehner/Anderson and maybe Jones as well. There's certainly at least three teams in the hunt, with Edmonton, Buffalo and San Jose wanting a goalie. Other teams could use an upgrade as well (i.e. who will the Devils' back up be?). Who do you want, your pick of the goalies available, or whoever is left over once the other teams have gotten their trades done? Are you willing to pay a fair price or more as less goalies are available to you to get the goalie of your choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 There are a number of goalies out there, sure, but how many are actually drawing interest and a possible starter on an NHL team? Talbot, Lack, one of Lehner/Anderson and maybe Jones as well. There's certainly at least three teams in the hunt, with Edmonton, Buffalo and San Jose wanting a goalie. Other teams could use an upgrade as well (i.e. who will the Devils' back up be?). Who do you want, your pick of the goalies available, or whoever is left over once the other teams have gotten their trades done? Are you willing to pay a fair price or more as less goalies are available to you to get the goalie of your choice? Devils have Scott Wedgewood. Who will a pretty good goalie. Also Kinkard had a good season last year for NJD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Chances are if Lack does get traded to Buffalo straight up, it will be for the NYI 2nd rounder rather the 31st overall. As much as we like Lack, he is still a backup trying to prove he can handle a starting position in the NHL. If there's a bidding war going on and the teams like Lack that much, perhaps we can get that 31st overall but with other goalies out there I'm doubtful we'd get it. I hope I'm wrong. Reports are coming out that Lack = Talbot in BUF's minds. We could probably score both, or a 2nd, 3rd, and Grig's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Bieska and Burrows are two of my all-time favs, but if the Canucks wanna get younger and make cap room, the core changes - and those two equate to $9.0 in old vets. They also, in my opinion anyway, have the most "veteran value" that the Canucks can trade (Higgins sure ain't gonna get much of a return ). So sure, they can still contribute, but something's gotta give and if they'd waive... Gee and the Sabres need to take on... what $9.0-ish to reach the floor? Whether or not Hodgson or Grigorenko were added to the package doesn't really matter to the Burrows/Bieska rationale, but either would be interesting.... If the Sabres need to reach the cap floor, they can just keep Hodgson and sign a better free agent player. And it absolutely matters who is added to the 21st overall pick, since Hodgson is negative value (he's made his own bed, don't blame that all on the Sabres) and Grigs is a flight risk. Bieksa and Burrows aren't going to waive to Buffalo so it's moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Reports are coming out that Lack = Talbot in BUF's minds. We could probably score both, or a 2nd, 3rd, and Grig's rights. Slow down there bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Do people forget the drama with Hodgson when he was here? I believe his issue was he wanted to be a top 6 centre but Kesler had that slot. He threw a bit of a tantrum and had his agent help him get moved to a team that needed his top 6 centre services. Well, how did that turn out for him? Bringing him back to Vancouver where he'd have to battle it out with Horvat and Bonino for that 2nd line centre spot, is a bad idea. Media driven speculation enhanced over time by gossiping fans. But whatever, we're talking a proven NHLer who has only ever been humble, whose own GM calls him a "good soldier" in dealing with the adverse (and toxic) situation of last season, and an entirely new Canuck management - one that includes a GM who doesn't exactly shy from trading for young offense projects with two-way issues and needing a new home. Bonino is whatever. Sedin followed by Horvat & Hodgson, depending on the game, which line is hot, etc. would give the Canucks genuine secondary scoring + capacity to take harder minutes. By trade deadline Canucks are flipping the freshly improved trade value in Hodgson for a 2nd in next draft just as Horvat is well into his sophomore year and has been properly seasoned (not rushed along ala Hodgson/Buffalo to the detriment of the player). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.