Green Building Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The draft is upcoming... it certainly hasn't passed us by yet. Who says "enjoying hockey" can't involve having a hypothetical hockey conversation? At least the OP put some thought and grammar into his writeup. The only dilemma this approach presents is waiting until the deadline to dish these players may be too long as they help the Canucks win, driving our own pick down the draft order. Not how I would look at it at all. Every day our vets are here they spend time, and share knowledge with, our rookies and youngsters. But hey, I'm not really a fan of a crash and burn firesale unless it is a full blown rebuild. Since this is obviously not that, let the vets stick, see how the season goes as far as who is stepping up, then assess and project from there. I'm a fan of all 3 of those players you listed. In fact, Hamhuis' jersey is the only Canucks jersey I own. If he can rebound from last years slight slip in play I'd like him to stay and mentor some young guys like Hutton and Sbisa. It's difficult to know what Vrbata thinks about his role on the team. If he has a good season playing second line minutes with Horvat and winger x then it would be great for him to stay. If the team has an up and down go of it and he finds himself looking up at others getting Sedin time maybe he requests out? Who knows? Since it's all hypothetical and only for the purpose of conversation, let's assume the aforementioned have good/great seasons, and Edler does as well. Edler would possibly yield the best return (depending on the supply demand at the time), but moving him leaves a hole in the top 4. Would you expect Hutton to make the rookie leap into the top 4 in his 1st season? Just out of curiosity sake. What does cdc think 3 first rounders between 20 and 30 overall could get us to move up? A top 3???? No chance unless Milbury takes over as GM before the draft. Just from memory, you usually need at least a top 10 pick as a starting point to move up into the top 3. I say keep the 3 picks and take 3 chances instead of 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Actually, this very subject was discussed at length on CDC a number of months ago. It came out of the problem with the lack of defensive prospects depth to succeed the present D corps. The options were: Trade Free Agency Draft 1 and 2 are difficult and expensive. 3 is viable but D take time to develop. Nothing is perfect. I'm not so sure that the expense of #2 will hinder us next offseason, but any top D these days are typically re-signed before free agency anyhow which brings us right back to #1 where I'd agree the cost of acquiring one is usually out of range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I'm not so sure that the expense of #2 will hinder us next offseason, but any top D these days are typically re-signed before free agency anyhow which brings us right back to #1 where I'd agree the cost of acquiring one is usually out of range. Unless Boston is your trading partner? Maybe the GM in Nashville is as dumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 yeah..........deadline is 'upcoming' lol. Exactly. So is death and senility. Everything is 'upcoming', I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuckleheadFan Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Only 1 game in already talking about trade deadline, not making the play off? The management wants to create a winning and competitive atmosphere. That's not going to happen if management sends the message to the players that they are not competing for the post season by trading away players who gives them the chance. They want the young guys to learn to develop in a winning environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Only 1 game in already talking about trade deadline, not making the play off? The management wants to create a winning and competitive atmosphere. That's not going to happen if management sends the message to the players that they are not competing for the post season by trading away players who gives them the chance. They want the young guys to learn to develop in a winning environment. Whether we are a playoff team or not should not determine our selling. We should be collecting top picks, and Vrbata and Hamhuis can get us that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I think Washington is going to go all in if the are contenders by the deadline. If so, Vrbata would be a great fit there. Would they covet him enough to give up Bowey Edler Tanev Sbisa Hutton Bart Bowey Just wondering if you positioned Sbisa and Hutton on their off sides. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Just wondering if you positioned Sbisa and Hutton on their off sides. Am I missing something? Have you traded Hammer too? What do we get for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davathor Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 1.) So anyone who agrees with you is "reasonable", while anyone who doesn't isn't? 2.) I think it's too early to throw in the towel on this season. 3.) Have you considered the cap hit issues of moving these guys? 4.) Isn't it the general wisdom that guys like these get a higher return when you're closer to the trade deadline? regards, G. How do I ignore all posts by user on phone? Really have to see where the team is - and what our needs/weaknesses are at that point in season. Getting firsts would be great, moving up in the draft would be great... But who will replace Hamhuis/Vrbata? Hammers our best defensive D, Vrbata is better than Burrows/Higgins/Hansen in a top 6 role I'd say were more likely to trade if the teams not playing great - the core has had its chances. If they are cruising, Henning doesn't seem like the kind of guy to blow up a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Have you traded Hammer too? What do we get for him? I think you quoted the wrong post, I haven't traded anyone yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I think you quoted the wrong post, I haven't traded anyone yet Well get busy then! We need more young blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Well get busy then! We need more young blood. Simpsons fans immediately think of this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Simpsons fans immediately think of this: Gotta love Mr. Burns. He kinda looks like Logan Couture. It's the rat face look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl's Jn Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I don't quite know what the entire point of your post was, but I will say that it was very well written. the op was just saying that its time to dump players for high end draft picks at the deadline.... i say the canucks won't ... depends on how close they are to a playoff spot at the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl's Jn Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Gotta love Mr. Burns. He kinda looks like Logan Couture. It's the rat face look. don't see how logan couture is a rat... he makes clean good hits...nothing like lucic or our buddy bolland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I think Washington is going to go all in if the are contenders by the deadline. If so, Vrbata would be a great fit there. Would they covet him enough to give up Bowey Edler Tanev Sbisa Hutton Bart Bowey I'm thinking we'd need to add. Personally I kind of hope Benning roles the 1sts we presumably get from Vrbata/Hamhuis (plus likely an add as well) in to 2nd or 3rd overall for Chychrun. We've all got to have dreams.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 don't see how logan couture is a rat... he makes clean good hits...nothing like lucic or our buddy bolland... I was not speaking figuratively. He literally looks like a rat, just like Mr. Burns:) as a hockey player, I think he's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I don't understand why people want to trade Edler so much. He is our number one D. Though really not a great number one D he is not paid like a great number one D. It is not his fault that he has to play higher than he probably should, that is the clubs fault. He is solid, good though not the most accurate shot and moves the puck well. He is paid reasonably and there is absolutely no-one in the organization close to replacing him. I don't see either him or Hamhuis getting moved as our organizational depth on D sucks. The loss of Corrado compounds our depth issue. It is not like we have an elite prospect sitting the A waiting for a spot. Hutton won his spot and the next call ups are Biega, Pedan and maybe Subban-not good (for now). We could lose a forward at the deadline but I bet Benning is currently working the phones looking for another Pedan/Clendenning type trade. Still think the most sense would be to look at something like Burrow's package to MTL for Tinordi. MTL in win now and needs veteran French, scoring, playoff tested presence. They have some room under the cap and we could really use a big net clearing presence. I can dream, but don't think the big guys would sign off on a Burrows trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedintwinpowersactivate Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 First post, may be something like it already, didn’t check tbh and don’t know how to navigate the site as fluently as others, but anyways, to the point: With the Canucks being in a transition, pass-the-torch kind of situation the trade deadline offers a chance for the Canucks to get pieces vital to their future progress because of the augmented value placed on players with teams seeking specific needs. Last year the prize of the deadline was Antoine Vermette, a perennial 3rd liner for which the Coyotes received a 1st round pick, albeit an expected late 1st rd pick, and mid-range prospect. With the Canucks aging core and modest expectations the time is now for trading away some of the vets that are still worth something on the market. A reasonable Canucks fan doesn’t expect this team to compete for a cup this year or next and admits that high-end franchise players are almost exclusively obtained through the drafting process, with some obvious exceptions (see Tyler Seguin) but I won’t hold my breath for a deal like that to present itself. IMO I see three veteran players on the Canucks roster that could potentially be moved for a substantial return helping us in obtaining the highly-valued first round picks every team seems so keen on, especially in a deep draft year as ’16 is expected to be. These three players are, as sad as it may be, Hamhuis, Vrbata, Edler. Trading all three may be unnecessary but two of the three is plausible and obligatory if we accept the premise that drafting is the key to success in the current NHL. I don’t like to speculate as to what we could get in return as factors like production this year come into play but let’s say we deal Hamhuis and Vrbata, the elders of the three, a return of a first and a prospect for each seems reasonable, pending this year’s supply and demand. The only dilemma this approach presents is waiting until the deadline to dish these players may be too long as they help the Canucks win, driving our own pick down the draft order. Lastly, the Canucks glaring need is Dmen and with highly touted Dmen such as Chychrun (one can dream right?) and a deeper draft than previous years, it seems this is the path to success for the Canucks. For discussion I’m just looking for thoughts, agree/disagree, and speculation on potential return (let’s be reasonable now) as the Canucks enter a new and exciting chapter in the organization’s history. Your reasoning is sound if the Canucks organization wants to tank and load up on prospects. Which I don't think is the case. They want to add youth to a veteran lineup to protect the young guys. Trading Hamhuis and Edler would make a weak defense horrible. I also think with the Sedins still at the top of their game we are unlikely to bottom out unless Dan or Hank are lost for the season. JB and Linden have stated that they will not repeat last seasons loss of UFAs. I see them locking up Hamhuis as he is local, an excellent person/mentor and still a steady top 4 d man. If his agent wants too much $ or Hamhuis wants a chance at a cup run than his trade is a definite possibility. I'd love to see him resign here ala Vermette. That would be the ideal situation. Prospects for free! I think Vrbata is definitely not going to resign here so regardless of the Canucks place in the standings at the trade deadline he has to be dealt! In fact he should be playing the season with the Sedins to fatten up his stats! A late 1st and 3rd or mid prospect coming back. As for trading Vrbata early... it won't happen as most contenders are up against the cap and couldn't add a cap hit like Vrbatas until later in the season. I think for sure Vrbata is gone at the trade deadline and a smaller possibility Hamhuis is as well. I personally would rather keep Hamhuis in the organization long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Your reasoning is sound if the Canucks organization wants to tank and load up on prospects. Which I don't think is the case. They want to add youth to a veteran lineup to protect the young guys. Trading Hamhuis and Edler would make a weak defense horrible. I also think with the Sedins still at the top of their game we are unlikely to bottom out unless Dan or Hank are lost for the season. JB and Linden have stated that they will not repeat last seasons loss of UFAs. I see them locking up Hamhuis as he is local, an excellent person/mentor and still a steady top 4 d man. If his agent wants too much $ or Hamhuis wants a chance at a cup run than his trade is a definite possibility. I'd love to see him resign here ala Vermette. That would be the ideal situation. Prospects for free! I think Vrbata is definitely not going to resign here so regardless of the Canucks place in the standings at the trade deadline he has to be dealt! In fact he should be playing the season with the Sedins to fatten up his stats! A late 1st and 3rd or mid prospect coming back. As for trading Vrbata early... it won't happen as most contenders are up against the cap and couldn't add a cap hit like Vrbatas until later in the season. I think for sure Vrbata is gone at the trade deadline and a smaller possibility Hamhuis is as well. I personally would rather keep Hamhuis in the organization long term. At the deadline, they could add Vrbata, because he's a coming UFA, and so is Hamhuis. We get our picks, or prospects, and we move young players into those roles. I think it makes perfect sense. We still have Edler and Tanev as the vets on the back end, and the Twins, Burr, Hansen, and Dorsett up front. Bye to Higgins and Prust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.