J.I.A.H.N Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 It would be fantastic in my view to move some of our core players over the next 2 years, but for the most part I wonder how realistic the trades would be of happening, and the value of the returns. If we look at our core, it's today value isn't all that bad, there are not too many places within the NHL that you could obtain first line hockey players or top 4 Dmen. But the question in the "New" NHL is what team will give you top value, due to cap, and budgetary restraints. Not to mention "cap" issues that cause teams to hesitate to put their eggs in a basket without the ability to move them, themselves at a later date, to recover some of their assets, which were spent to obtain them in the first place. I am not going to say what team could use who, or what the actual return would be, as I am in somewhat unsure of what would be coming back. If you look at the absolute best we could offer, which is in my opinion, the Sedin's (together), we could offer them at a discount....example Hank and Daniel Sedin at the deadline with 1/2 salary carried and I am not sure what that would bring, as what team would give true value for 2 1/2 years? My conclusion on that front is no one..........hence, the Sedin's stay here for the remainder of their contract and most likely, the remainder of their NHL life. Other players, such as Burrow's and Higgin's, although fine 2/3 line players, and who are also under No Trade Contracts will have meager returns for their value compared with the value they have internally. Unless we want to give them away, the argument is much the same as the Sedin's, the NTC hamper their true value. Are they worth more than a 3 or 4 round pick? Yes, but they would return no more IMO, and in Burrows case, would also come with us having to carry some of his contract. Who does carry value and who would be easier to move (outside of their NTC's) are Hamhuis and Edler, and when I look at the two, and weigh their internal value compared to their return, I come up with the fact that Edler looks to be the man, which would give greater value and which most teams would trade for without much hesitation. But even so, with his NTC, it looks to be a more difficult thing to do, because Edler would be calling the shots as to where he would want to go, and by doing so, would limit the teams ability to get full value. This brings me back to Hamhuis and what king of return a short rental return might bring, my question to myself is , is a very low 1st rounder worth trading Hamhuis for, compared to just resigning him for another 2 or 3 years? As much as I and others think that trading vets for young assets and picks, would be a good long term thing for the Canucks to do, I just do not see a great return for our vets, in this market. We, "if" committed to a rebuild, may be much better off trading Bonino or Hansen for 2nds and 3rds, then actually trying to get something like a 1st or high end 2nd pick. I guess, in the long run, I am saying that I am coming around to the reality for the above stated reasons, that I don't expect much movement of our vets in the next couple of years, and as much as I would like to see them moved, there will be only a minor chance of that happening. Anyone care to disagree? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.