Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Trade] Canucks trade Hunter Shinkaruk to Flames for Markus Granlund


Recommended Posts

Just now, Green Goblin said:

Granlund could also become an all star because he's only 1.5 years older than Hunter, but Shinkaruk has all the tools to become an elite goal scorer in the NHL.

 

The fact that JB didn't give Shinkaruk more than 6 minutes to prove himself is just sad.

You and others are REALLY overrating Shinkaruk at this time. Yes it's a possibility but he is more likely to be an average middle six forward or a bust than an all star. 

 

Granlund has all the tools to be a good scorer as well as not being a total liability in his own end. Shinkaruk is not good defensively and below average in puck battles. 

 

You say it's too early to write of Shinkaruk while simultaneously writing off Granlund without watching him play...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so confused - always been a big Shinkaruk fan but was under the impression most of this board didn't have high expectations for him.

 

Last year he was a total bust according to most of you - this year he's been scoring goals (mostly on the powerplay with tons of room) and people still weren't so high on him.

 

Now that he's gone this place has exploded, it's hilarious.

 

Since none of us are GMs of a hockey team, I think we should all stop whining like babies and enjoy the show. Maybe Granlund will be an all star, maybe Shink will - who the f**** knows? That's the way this business is, let's just try to enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

You and others are REALLY overrating Shinkaruk at this time. Yes it's a possibility but he is more likely to be an average middle six forward or a bust than an all star. 

 

Granlund has all the tools to be a good scorer as well as not being a total liability in his own end. Shinkaruk is not good defensively and below average in puck battles. 

 

You say it's too early to write of Shinkaruk while simultaneously writing off Granlund without watching him play...

But we already have watched Granlund play... And based on his 86 games so far, it's fair to assume he will continue to produce close to that rate depending on his ice-time.

 

We have no idea what Shinkaruk will do because we never truly gave him a shot in the NHL. For JB to give up on a prospect like that is concerning. IMO, we could have acquired Granlund for a 2nd and maybe a Kenins, but nope, he just had to trade our most promising player in Utica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

I'm not saying it as fact, I'm saying it's possible. He's literally a 50/50 boom/bust at this point. 

Granlund scored more goals in the same league as a rookie.  Any potential shink has shown to be a scorer in the nhl, Granlund has shown more.  It's mind boggling that people completely dismiss the actual numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Green Goblin said:

But we already have watched Granlund play... And based on his 86 games so far, it's fair to assume he will continue to produce close the that rate he is depending on his ice-time.

 

We have no idea what Shinkaruk will do because we never truly gave him a shot in the NHL. But for JB to give up on a prospect like that is concerning. IMO, we could have acquired Granlund for a 2nd and maybe a Kenins, but nope, he just had to trade our most promising player in Utica.

Pull random player out of thin air and random draft pick =/= a probable trade scenario...

 

Also we have pro scouts it's not like no one in the Canuck organization watched Shinkaruk. 

 

Just typical knee jerk reactions from typical knee jerk reacting CDCers as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stawns said:

Granlund scored more goals in the same league as a rookie.  Any potential shink has shown to be a scorer in the nhl, Granlund has shown more.  It's mind boggling that people completely dismiss the actual numbers

I was referring to Shinkaruk as a boom/bust not Granlund...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about why management gave up on Hunter 1) so early, and 2) for that return.

Sure, according to Pronman he "has struggled with the physical nature of the pro level, has shown a lot of inconsistencies in his offensive game, and isn’t as good defensively as Granlund" but I question whether he was the correct asset to move in this deal. The young man (Hunter) recovers from injury last season to show a glimpse of bright potential, and he's dealt for issues which may be resolved over time (defensive skill, adjustment to physicality)?  Even some of the Euros and smaller guys (e.g. Hudler) have been criticized in this area but have gone on to establish themselves based on the skill they have, and at age 21 he still has time to develop these areas.

What's more, even in dealing problem hot-shot assets (think Hodgson), previous team GM's dealt to address areas of need (got Kassian, the power forward prospect).  Two-way center depth is far from an area of need, as others have mentioned (Bo, Sutter, eventually McCann, Gaunce) can play 200-foot games.  Trader Jim is making moves to get answers where there is no question mark.  I would be alright if he traded for a right-handed D-prospect with minute-munching potential, even if there's some questions to his game as there's a potential need addressed.  

Meanwhile, Granlund has been playing bottom-6 minutes and hasn't shown very much; does Calgary really value him that highly that they won't move him short of Hunter?  Of course we won't know the answer but I have doubts that the price tag was so high.         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JV77 said:

Why do you and others feel you have protect JB and defend every move he makes?  

Just like everyone defended the Kassian for Prust deal.  And now what do we have to show for that terrible move?

Kassian is nothing, he is going to be nothing.  Prust was valuable for a little while, than he become invaluable, but Kassian is just not valuable.  He had off ice issues and apparently not the best attitude, he was not good our team under those circumstances.  I'm not a big fan of this particular trade, however that is a poor example that trade had to be done, although maybe we could have got more for Kassian.  But Montreal traded him anyways for Ben Scrivens lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Winter Soldier said:

Have you read literally nothing about the trade? Benning tired to get a defensive prospect for Shinkaruk but no team was keen to make that deal. You can't change that fact no matter how hard you cover your ears and pretend it isn't true.

No I know it's not he could have waited until the summer, I mean Shinkaruk is a ticking time bomb pending UFA who we would lose for nothing he doesn't get traded before the deadline.

 

Hmmm actually I might be thinking of some other players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Pull random player out of thin air and random draft pick =/= a probable trade scenario...

 

Also we have pro scouts it's not like no one in the Canuck organization watched Shinkaruk. 

 

Just typical knee jerk reactions from typical knee jerk reacting CDCers as usual.

Not a random player and not a random draft pick. Calgary has been known to acquire 2nd round picks for bubble players on their roster. Kenins has the potential to be a great bottom 6 player if he can improve his hockey IQ. It was totally possible for us to acquire Granlund for a 2nd + prospect not named Shinkaruk. Calgary is high on their 2nds, no way they wouldn't considering it after they gifted Baer to us last season.

 

What does that have to do with my post? Pro scouts can only watch so many games, but none of that really matters because they weren't NHL games. I'm not saying the trade was a huge overpayment, it was actually pretty close statistically (AHL). You should consider the fact that Shink was playing injured/weaker in his first pro year. And if we gave Shinkaruk at least 9 NHL games minimum this year, we could see where he is in terms of his development and truly assess his value.

 

19 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I was referring to Shinkaruk as a boom/bust not Granlund...

Absolutely, Shinkaruk could be a boom/bust. But that doesn't mean you trade him without a justified NHL chance.

 

It's not a knee-jerk reaction when I provide supporting factual evidence based on precedent transactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Do you want to know that funniest part about DownUnda's post....just over a year ago.....

 

 

 

Over a year ago Markstrom was still unproven and had a lot of question marks surrounding him.  Shinkaruk was the same.  Even though I wouldn't have made that trade myself, Downunda's proposal seems pretty reasonable at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Green Goblin said:

Not a random player and not a random draft pick. Calgary has been known to acquire 2nd round picks for bubble players on their roster. Kenins has the potential to be a great bottom 6 player if he can improve his hockey IQ. It was totally possible for us to acquire Granlund for a 2nd + prospect not named Shinkaruk. Calgary is high on their 2nds, no way they wouldn't considering it after they gifted Baer to us last season.

 

What does that have to do with my post? Pro scouts can only watch so many games, but none of that really matters because they weren't NHL games. I'm not saying the trade was a huge overpayment, it was actually pretty close statistically (AHL). You should consider the fact that Shink was playing injured/weaker in his first pro year. And if we gave Shinkaruk at least 9 NHL games minimum this year, we could see where he is in terms of his development and truly assess his value.

 

Absolutely, Shinkaruk could be a boom/bust. But that doesn't mean you trade him without a justified NHL chance.

 

It's not a knee-jerk reaction when I provide supporting factual evidence.

Fact so far Granlund has been a better pro player than Shinkaruk. 

 

This is a hockey trade, Shinkaruk was never in the plans here so we got something of value for him and pretty damn good value considering Shinkaruk hasn't proved anything beyond being a good AHL player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Green Goblin said:

Not a random player and not a random draft pick. Calgary has been known to acquire 2nd round picks for bubble players on their roster. Kenins has the potential to be a great bottom 6 player if he can improve his hockey IQ. It was totally possible for us to acquire Granlund for a 2nd + prospect not named Shinkaruk. Calgary is high on their 2nds, no way they wouldn't considering it after they gifted Baer to us last season.

 

What does that have to do with my post? Pro scouts can only watch so many games, but none of that really matters because they weren't NHL games. I'm not saying the trade was a huge overpayment, it was actually pretty close statistically (AHL). You should consider the fact that Shink was playing injured/weaker in his first pro year. And if we gave Shinkaruk at least 9 NHL games minimum this year, we could see where he is in terms of his development and truly assess his value.

 

Absolutely, Shinkaruk could be a boom/bust. But that doesn't mean you trade him without a justified NHL chance.

 

It's not a knee-jerk reaction when I provide supporting factual evidence.

Quick question which player would you take?

 

74GP 19G 24A 43PTS

74GP 16G 15A 28PTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

Fact so far Granlund has been a better pro player than Shinkaruk. 

 

This is a hockey trade, Shinkaruk was never in the plans here so we got something of value for him and pretty damn good value considering Shinkaruk hasn't proved anything beyond being a good AHL player. 

Well no $h!t, but that's based on a small sample size of games for both players at the AHL and NHL level. 

 

I have nothing against Granlund, I hope he succeeds here. But IMO, it was too steep of a price when there are many other expendable pieces we could have traded instead.

 

Shinkaruk wasn't given the chance to prove anything in the NHL level so that's unsustainable. Value-wise it was close, but Hunter was trending in the right direction and now we'll never know if he could have taken the next step here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Quick question which player would you take?

 

74GP 19G 24A 43PTS

74GP 16G 15A 28PTS

But it's not Granlund vs Shinkaruk for me. I'm saying we could have had both. Granlund became available because of Bennett's emergence.

 

We'll see who wins this trade in the long-run, but can you understand our disappointment in trading a player of that potential?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Green Goblin said:

But it's not Granlund vs Shinkaruk for me. I'm saying we could have had both. Granlund became available because of Bennett's emergence.

 

We'll see who wins this trade in the long-run, but can you understand our disappointed in trading a player of that potential?

The numbers on Top are Linden Vey's first full AHL season the bottom is Shinkaruk's Vey scored 67 the second season, Shinkaruk is sitting at 39 points on pace for 65-68. What about him screams near all star to you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -Vintage Canuck- changed the title to [Trade] Canucks trade Hunter Shinkaruk to Flames for Markus Granlund
  • -SN- unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...