aGENT Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Franson put up 36 points. He's hardly a marginal free agent. Obviously it would be sily to give him 5+, but 4.5 on a short term deal would help bridge the gap until we have young guys that are actually ready to step into the top 4 permanently. I'd rather have either McQuaid or Ehrhoff for less money than Franson. And frankly you're dreaming if you think he'll sign for $4.5 or only 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I would be okay with signing Franson if it wasnt higher than 4.75 million, and there wasnt a NTC and if we traded both Bieksa and Corrado than I would be okay with signing Franson Since our D would be: Edler-Tanev Hamuis-Franson Sbisa-Clendening Weber or Stanton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The assessment of Lack's play dropping is correct, and I am pretty sure if Vancouver had Brodeur or Roy in their prime yes they would have helped the Canucks win that series. ....or Miller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The question nobody is asking is that if we DO indeed package for the 9th overall, what other assets do we have that will be used to acquire 2nd and 3rd round picks? Higgins and Kassian. + Matthias's rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestlockWarrior Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Franson put up 36 points. He's hardly a marginal free agent. Obviously it would be sily to give him 5+, but 4.5 on a short term deal would help bridge the gap until we have young guys that are actually ready to step into the top 4 permanently. It's his free agent year...he isnt going to take less money and less years . Who would be dumb enough to do that ? This is his chance to make the guaranteed money and have his family set for life ! Concussions and injuries happen all the time, why would he sign for 3 years 4.5 a year when you know a team like Edmonton will throw around 5 years at 5 million. That's a 11 million dollar difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The assessment of Lack's play dropping is correct, and I am pretty sure if Vancouver had Brodeur or Roy in their prime yes they would have helped the Canucks win that series. Nope. Lacking context. The last two years he played the equivalent of a prorated 70+ game schedule and even then still only showed small signs of cracking under the immense fatigue that even the league's best goalies aren't asked to cope with. All this in front of highly questionable defense both years and a complete gong show the year of Torts. I'd argue that it's commendable how well he did play under those circumstances and I'd wager a lot of GM's see that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Pratt saying Bieksa has agreed to waive for two teams. San Jose and an Eastern team (Boston?). He seems to think it will be for the 39th. It's Pratt though. If the 39th gets us one of Dunn/Pilon/Meloche/Andersson it's a success. Don't know where Benning's at, but would think one of those should be what he's targeting, especially if he goes with a forward at 23. We need a replacement for Juice. He's a BC guy and has a connection with Hamhuis. I could definitely see it happening. We need a PPQB/PMD, but losing Bieksa means we need grit even more badly. Rather try to pick up McQuaid, even if Franson is brought in. Could then move Corrado out for other assets. For what they bring, McQuaid is a Bieksa replacement. Edler - Tanev Hamhuis - Clendening Sbisa - McQuaid Hamhuis would be a great partner/mentor for Clendening, and McQuaid with Sbisa would be a nice physical combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekey Pete Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Not sure if it's been posted by just hearing now Bieksa has agreed to waive for San Jose Source: TSN 1040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If the 39th gets us one of Dunn/Pilon/Meloche/Andersson it's a success. Don't know where Benning's at, but would think one of those should be what he's targeting, especially if he goes with a forward at 23. We need a PPQB/PMD, but losing Bieksa means we need grit even more badly. Rather try to pick up McQuaid, even if Franson is brought in. Could then move Corrado out for other assets. For what they bring, McQuaid is a Bieksa replacement. Edler - Tanev Hamhuis - Clendening Sbisa - McQuaid Hamhuis would be a great partner/mentor for Clendening, and McQuaid with Sbisa would be a nice physical combo. Corrado is a player the team is moving forward with not moving out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireGillis Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'd be jumping over the moon if we get the 9th from sj, but I think that's just too much of a pipe dream to be true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If Markstrom has the talent, is coveted by a team and is given an opportunity, he could very well satisfy those "team needs", therefore he would have value. Look at the trend right now in goaltending, teams are running with younger, unproven goaltenders over more veteran, experienced goaltenders. Look at Bishop and what he's accomplished after going to TBay, look at Boston kicking Thomas out the door after 2011 and giving the reigns to Rask. Schneider was largely unproven at one point and he dethroned Luongo. Any move for Markstrom right now is buying low, and if SJ is confident in his ability (I'm quite sure they've had scouts at the AHL playoff games) would it not make sense to depart with fewer assets now than have to pay more after he's proven himself? You take a far too simplistic point of view when determining your arguments, what's on the surface is merely the tip of the iceberg. More often than not, more circumstances than you or I can conceive as being relevant play more into a decision. At the end of the day, we're all spectators and just speculating on what we think. There's a reason we're not in the positions they are to make these kinds of decisions, so enough with the strawman arguments and just focus on healthy discussion and debate. None of us are in a position to be an ultimate authority, I'm simply espousing my opinion in as objective a manner as I can. Here’s what you’re not understanding. It’s not about Markstrom’s talent level. SJ if they want to be competitive within their window need to sign a #1 goalie, something they don’t currently have. With Stalock and young backup already in the system, SJ doesn’t have room to take Markstrom. Acquiring Markstrom either means they will lose him later to waivers or have to flip him to another team, thus not having value to the SJ. If Sharks are interested in a goalie from Vancouver, it’s for someone who’s already proven at the NHL level. Someone who complements the teams holes and needs to be competitive while they have Thornton and Marleau. Canucks have two goalies that SJ could be interested. Markstrom isn’t one. It makes about as much sense for SJ to want Markstrom as it does Vancouver wanting to trade Horvat for Marleau. or canucks going out and giving up our first for Lehner It doesn’t line up with the direction of the team. Sure we’re just speculation, but let’s use our brains just a little bit. Think things through and think about it from the other teams point of view. Does this team have a need for this player? If not, why would they give up assets to acquire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Not sure if it's been posted by just hearing now Bieksa has agreed to waive for San Jose Source: TSN 1040 If a deal can be worked out. Clearly nothing is agreed to yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I wonder if we could see a juice for 39th then flip 39th and lack for 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I wonder if we could see a juice for 39th then flip 39th and lack for 16 Rather have two seconds, draft two D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkre Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Maybe San Jose is showing interest in Bieksa in an attempt to pry Miller away from Benning. Lack and Markstrom are both big risks for San Jose if they still consider themselves to be contenders and there is no reason to get Bieksa if they don't think they are contenders for the cup. Bieksa + Miller for the 9th pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'm sure you wanted Willie Mitchell back after he left the Canucks. People are going to realize that Bieksa is a valuable defenceman after he is gone, the same reason so many teams are after his services at the moment. Totally agree. This team is f------d if they let Bieksa go. Too many fantasists imagining our prospects to be a t a higher level than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Here’s what you’re not understanding. It’s not about Markstrom’s talent level. SJ if they want to be competitive within their window need to sign a #1 goalie, something they don’t currently have. With Stalock and young backup already in the system, SJ doesn’t have room to take Markstrom. Acquiring Markstrom either means they will lose him later to waivers or have to flip him to another team, thus not having value to the SJ. If Sharks are interested in a goalie from Vancouver, it’s for someone who’s already proven at the NHL level. Someone who complements the teams holes and needs to be competitive while they have Thornton and Marleau. Canucks have two goalies that SJ could be interested. Markstrom isn’t one. It makes about as much sense for SJ to want Markstrom as it does Vancouver wanting to trade Horvat for Marleau. or canucks going out and giving up our first for Lehner It doesn’t line up with the direction of the team. Sure we’re just speculation, but let’s use our brains just a little bit. Think things through and think about it from the other teams point of view. Does this team have a need for this player? If not, why would they give up assets to acquire him. Perhaps they plan to re-sign Niemi or a similar goalie and have a separate deal to move Stalock already in place? They feel Markstrom can be their future #1 after a couple years of backing up Niemi and that Stalock's a good backup but not their future starter. Who the hell knows what they're thinking/plans are? I don't. You don't. So let's just assume that sure, them wanting Markstrom is less likely but it's not out of the realm of possibility either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Totally agree. This team is f------d if they let Bieksa go. Too many fantasists imagining our prospects to be a t a higher level than they are. If we draft Werenski they will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkoshack Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Canucks fans living in a dream world if they think 1) Canucks are getting the 9th pick 2) Markstrom is getting traded 3) Miller is getting traded 4) Lack will get more than a 2nd round pick 5) Bieksa will get more than a 2nd round pick Why do we do this every year? Create fantasy unrealistic returns for our players? Then when the actual deal goes down, you come on here and see people freaking out the Canucks got ripped off because they didn't get what everyone was hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekey Pete Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If a deal can be worked out. Clearly nothing is agreed to yet. Yes, but he agreed to waive for that team. I know there is no deal yet, as far as we all know. Sounds like they are close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.