bigpush Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Once again the pacific division has added size and physicality to thier rosters and while the Canucks aqcuired some in Prust, they also lost some in both Kassian and Bieksa. Do I think size trumps skill? no, but it is an important aspect to the game and can effectivly create space. Bryan Bickell is the player that I am targetting because he should be availible at a reduced price because of cap implications, has good size and has displayed decent offensive abilities in the past. Currently the Canucks have ~ 2.8 in cap space but need to resign Baertschi, further space would be required to be able to acquire the player I targeted in Bickell. Trade #1 Canucks trade Chris Higgins to the Penguins for Ben Lovejoy Pens have an abundance on Dmen ready to play in the NHL and need to find some effective forwards at a reasonable salary. This trade frees up 1.37 million in cap space for the Canucks (4.17) Chicago needs to resign Marcus Kruger who made 1.4 last year and they only currently have 900K availible. For the sake of simplicity I am saying they need 2.5 million to sign him. They also need to add 2 depth Dmen. Trade #2 Canucks Trade Ben Lovejoy and either Adam Clendening or Frank Corrado (~2million) for Bryan Bickell and a 4th round pick in 2016 (4 million) Vancouver know has ~2.25 million remaining to resign Baertschi, Chi has ~2.9 remaining to resign Kruger. Sign Baertschi to 2 year 2.6 million contract. Sign Stanton to a 1 year 575K contract Sedin Sedin Burrows Baertschi Bonino Vrbata Bickell Horvat Vey Dorset Prust Hansen Kenins Edler Tanev Hamhuis Weber Sbisa Bartkowski Stanton Corrado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Bryan Bickell at 4 mil to play the third line? At 29 and showed he wasn't even a factor in the playoffs this past post season...no thanks. Team is getting younger and he is getting older and taking up a roster spot that could be used to free up for a younger player. Unless Chi-town took on salary which doesn't make any sense for them to do, I wouldn't do this deal. Already have expensive tickets playing in the bottom six...don't need another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 TBH, if the Canucks could convince the Pens to take Higgy for Lovejoy straight up, I'd be okay with the deal and leave it just like that. Good for you for coming up with a proposal that isn't totally ridiculous though. Generally I stay out of the proposal section, because most of the ideas are pure fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 i think its reasonable and fair, but not in line with the vision. chris stewart was available for free too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 That's an expensive price to pay for a cap dump... If they are looking to shed salary (though they'd still have to eat some of it) I wouldn't trade two NHL-ready players to get him. Would honestly rather just ship Corrado for the rights to a big, gritty and abrasive winger with potential, even if they're in the minors. For a rebuilding team, it's probably better to get that energy in the form of a young, hungry player, who would factor in when they mature, and get a pick along with it. That or just put Ronalds Hockeys on the 3rd line, or keep Higgins. Agreed with the poster above, I'd be fine with getting Lovejoy for Higgins, so trade either Adam or Frank for a grit guy is what I'd do (even Patrick Maroon was only acquired for fringe NHL players in Syvret and another guy, so no need to break the bank on older power forward types, since given their play they may already be broken physically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Why would we trade Clendening back to a team we just traded for him??? Why would we add an older forward given our depth and decision to get younger and then toss away a young D-man when it is clearly our weakest depth position. I will give you the trades were at least plausible in comparison to miost of the posts in the proposals section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 i think its reasonable and fair, but not in line with the vision. chris stewart was available for free too. One has to wonder if there are some perceived "Kassian-like" issues with Stewart. He signed for a very reasonable price and brings exactly the kind of physical role that the Canucks are lacking at the moment. Either JB and Trev are truly starting a rebuild and are okay with Prust and Dorsett being the only protection for the twins and the young players, or there is something about Stewart that has circulated through the league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex425 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Honestly, I'd rather have Virtanen take a 3rd line spot than take Bickell and his 4 million salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpush Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Thanks for the reasonable comments. This move is based off of the comments mgmt has made about the direction of this team, they want to stay competitive, had mgmt said they are looking to rebuild a la Arizona, Tor, Buf etc. I would not be considering this move. I like Bickell because he has shown the abilty to put up points ( 14 g 14a) last season while playing a responsible game. He would be an upgrade for me over Higgins, while obviously overpriced. I like Higgins as well but feel that we need more size and grit in our forward lines. Moving Clendenning or Corrado hurts as he is a close to NHL prospect but both those player cost a 5th round pick and we are flush with depth D right now ( Bartkowski, Sbisa, Weber, Corrado, Clendenng) and those players don't look like they will be given an opportunity to play much with our current lineup. Recouping a 4th allows Benning to do what he does best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpush Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Bryan Bickell at 4 mil to play the third line? At 29 and showed he wasn't even a factor in the playoffs this past post season...no thanks. Team is getting younger and he is getting older and taking up a roster spot that could be used to free up for a younger player. Unless Chi-town took on salary which doesn't make any sense for them to do, I wouldn't do this deal. Already have expensive tickets playing in the bottom six...don't need another one. I don't get too hung up on where player end up in the depth chart, especially when you consider how WD deploys his lines. By the same reasoning could you say Baertschi on the 2nd line but he only makes 1.3 ? I see it as simply Bickell is an upgrade on Higgins and a replacing a 4th with a 5th for a "prospect" who cannot be sent back to the AHL and doesn't look like will have much opportunity for playing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpush Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Honestly, I'd rather have Virtanen take a 3rd line spot than take Bickell and his 4 million salary. I won't be surprised if Virtanen gets 9 games to start the season but I have doubts that he is ready for a 4th line spot let alone be more effective than Bickell will be on the 3rd, once again this is all based off the assumption that mgmt does indeed want to be competitive this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I actually really like the Lovejoy trade if we didn't already have a bit of a logjam of depth defencemen at the moment. The Bickell deal afterwards is in line value-wise, but having Bickell on the 3rd/4th line at $4mil doesn't exaclty help up with the re-tool/re-build/whatever plan we have going right now. I like that they were at least plausible, value-fair, and unique ideas though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.