Draft Day/Long Read(Proposal)

[BaerToBo]

First proposal ever so go easy. So with players coming from Europe and all of the depth on the team of fringe players on the Canucks I think it makes the most sense to try to turn them into value. Assuming the Canucks get the 5th overall pick. This is what I would do if I was the GM. If some of these proposals are off or unrealistic please let me know as I would like to further my knowledge of hockey. 

 

Canucks depth chart:

 

Sedin-Sedin-Sutter

Baetschi-Horvat-Virtanen

Etem-Grandlund-Hansen

Burrows-McCann-Rodin

Gaunce-Vey-Dorsett

Kenins-Cassels-Grenier

 

Edler-Tanev

Hamhuis-Sbisa

Hutton-Larsen

Pedan-Tryamkin

Miller

Markstrom.

 

Picks the Canucks will have

5,35,65,95,125,155,185

 

Trades:

 

To Van: 2017 1st, Demers(rights)

To Dal: Hansen, Cederholm, 2017 3rd

 

Why Van does this: To get first crack at signing Demers and getting another 1st. Also Rodin can replace Hansen the 3rd line. Cederholm is a C- prospect which add a little bit of value but does not fit in Utica. And the 3rd is upgraded to a 1st.

 

Why Dallas does this: Getting value for Demers is much better than losing him for nothing. Hansen is a great 3rd liner in his prime that would be perfect for a playoff run with Dallas. Cederholm adds a little bit of value but the 3rd makes the deal go through imo.

 

To Wsh: Hamhuis(rights)

To Van: 2017 4th

 

Why Van does this: Not planning on signing Hamhuis so might as well get something for him.

 

Why Wsh does this: Washington could use more depth on defence and that's a relatively cheap price to pay for Hamhuis' rights.

 

To Chi: Grenier

To Van: Bickell, 2016 2nd

 

Why Van does this: Bickell might just need a change of scenery and Vancouver has the cap to make it work. Also a 2nd comes in the deal for Grenier.

 

Why Chi does this: Chicago gets much needed cap space at the cost of a 2nd. They also get a cheap depth player.

 

To Col: 2017 1st(Dal),2016 2nd(Chi)

To Van: 2016 1st(12th OA)

 

Why Van does this: To get another 1st this year and be able to pick another top dman.

 

Why Col does this: Colorado has alot of top picks on their team. I think at this point they are trying to accumulate value.

 

Going into the draft we will either pick Chychrun or Tkachuk depending on which gets picked 4th. If Chychrun gets picked 4th then we draft Tkachuk at 5th and Day at 35th. If Tkachuk gets picked then we take Chychrun and Benson at 35th.

 

5-Chychrun/Tkachuck

12-Bean

35-Benson/Day

65,95,125,155,185-BPA

 

Sign:

 

Rodin 1yr,2M

Baertschi 2yr,2.5M

Demers 3yr,4.5M

Vey,Kenins 1yr, 950K 

 

Buy out:Higgins 833K

 

Were left with 1.5M in cap. 

 

Next Year's lineup:

 

Sedin-Sedin-Sutter

Baertschi-Horvat-Virtanen

Etem-Grandlund-Rodin

Gaunce-Vey-Dorsett

Burrows

 

In Utica.

Bickell McCann Kenins Cassels

 

Defence

 

Edler-Tanev

Hutton-Demers

Sbisa-Larsen

Pedan Tryamkin 

 

Goalies

 

Miller 

Markstrom

 

The Future:

 

Tkachuk/Benson-McCann-Virtanen

Baertschi-Horvat-Boeser

Gaunce-Cassels-Rodin

 

Chychrun/Day-Bean

Hutton-Subban

Pedan-Tryamkin

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

If anybody spots any spelling errors please let me know. If im off on the value please be kind and offer constructive criticism. GO CANUCKS GO!!

[48MPHSlapShot]

Not a fan of moving Hansen, as he's the perfect guy to guide our youth movement.

 

Seems to me as though the team may actually be willing to sign Hammer to a short term contract, so I'd rather do that than move his rights for a late pick.

 

Really don't want to take on the big salary of Bickell, and if we were to, I'd rather not move Grenier.

[BaerToBo]

3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Not a fan of moving Hansen, as he's the perfect guy to guide our youth movement.

 

Seems to me as though the team may actually be willing to sign Hammer to a short term contract, so I'd rather do that than move his rights for a late pick.

 

Really don't want to take on the big salary of Bickell, and if we were to, I'd rather not move Grenier.

I think Rodin could develop into a 3rd/2nd liner and were not in a position to contend so I think its worth it. Hamhuis is in the was of Hutton's development and the saved cap gives us room for Demers. And Bickells contract is up after next year and with no major FA the canucks should sign we dont need that cap space. We get a 2nd for virtually nothing but cap relief sooo its worth it.

[48MPHSlapShot]

I wouldn't consider Grenier "virtually nothing", and we have no way of knowing how well Rodin will adjust to the NHL game. He could completely bust on us. Not to mention he's a different type of player than Hansen. Hansen, even when he's not scoring, provides us with grit and good D zone play. Not to mention he's not old. A good transitional player to hold on to. And I certainly don't think Hammer is "in the way" of Huttons development.

[Toews]

Hawks don't have a 2nd. Even if they did it would be a late one. An unknown future 1st (likely another late pick) and a late 2nd does not get you the 12th.

[YEGCanuck]

I thought the Canucks had 2 second round draft picks from the compensation from CBJ for Torts. Did we trade one?

[BaerToBo]

1 hour ago, YEGCanuck said:

I thought the Canucks had 2 second round draft picks from the compensation from CBJ for Torts. Did we trade one?

Columbus has the option to move it to next year which they most likely will

[Z Hockey]

Your trades are right on in value IMO and it's all thought out precisely, like your ideas, nice job. +1

[BaerToBo]

9 hours ago, Z Hockey said:

Your trades are right on in value IMO and it's all thought out precisely, like your ideas, nice job. +1

Thanks m8 it took me a couple hours to figure everything out.

[Aircool]

Honestly, I don't think some of your trades are accurate on value, and the others don't make sense for the Canucks. Dallas wouldn't give up a first in a trade for Hamhuis or Russell, the most they would do was a conditional first if they made the conference finals. So I don't see them giving up their 2017 first at the draft or slightly before. We are about to move into a league where First round picks just don't get traded for anything short of 1st liners and Top-2 D-men. Obviously, you would have to add to that first, but nobody is going to be relinquishing those assets for 3rd liners, they are too valuable. 

 

Hamhuis for a 4th makes little sense, unless JB wants the entire fanbase to hate him for not taking a 3rd at the deadline from Dallas or w/e was offered before the deadline closed. I also highly doubt that Washington would do that, Hamhuis wouldn't waive to go there at the deadline and now he is going to want to sign a deal there? Not to mention his rights probably aren't even trade-able without him waiving his NTC/NMC, so I don't see this happening. The value is probably roughly correct though.

 

Grenier is probably worth a 4th or 5th, so if you include Bickell you could convince Chicago to give up the 60th overall pick in the trade relatively easily I'd say. I think the value there is fair, but in no circumstance should any team in the league take that contract off of Chicago's hands unless they get a first round pick out of it. The salary cap is going to be the hardest thing to manage in this league with players constantly demanding increasing salaries. Helping out the best team in hockey with their salary cap trouble should come at a steep cost, that's just how leverage works. A 2nd round pick is fair, but in this situation fair is stupid, you fleece them or let them squirm and every GM around the league understands that as Bickell is still there.

 

Colorado would never make this trade for their 1st this year for Dallas's first next year and a 2nd from Chicago. This draft is going to be a much deeper draft than next years, by quite a lot. So to trade a first in this draft for a package in which the centerpiece is a first in next year's draft is a no-go. Not to mention there is no way that picks that are something like 25 overall and 60 overall, just don't have the value of 12 overall. I don't really understand your argument for Colorado's motivation to do this deal, this isn't accruing value, its throwing it away, and quality is always better than quantity in accruing value. What has more trade value? Bo Horvat or Shinkaruk and your average 2nd rounder? If Colorado doesn't want to keep the player they draft at 12 in the future, they can trade him for more value than this package is worth. If they do want to keep the player, they trade one of their former picks for good value.

 

To summarize though, the key problem that shows in your trades with insufficient value is that you want to try and acquire value without giving it up, GMs aren't that stupid you have to actually give something up. You can't trade Grenier, Hansen, Cederholm, 3rd round pick, and wind up with the 12th overall in any draft. Even if you took on Bickell's salary. Hansen is a nice player, but he doesn't have first round value. You have to actually give up something of worth.

[BaerToBo]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

Honestly, I don't think some of your trades are accurate on value, and the others don't make sense for the Canucks. Dallas wouldn't give up a first in a trade for Hamhuis or Russell, the most they would do was a conditional first if they made the conference finals. So I don't see them giving up their 2017 first at the draft or slightly before. We are about to move into a league where First round picks just don't get traded for anything short of 1st liners and Top-2 D-men. Obviously, you would have to add to that first, but nobody is going to be relinquishing those assets for 3rd liners, they are too valuable. 

 

Hamhuis for a 4th makes little sense, unless JB wants the entire fanbase to hate him for not taking a 3rd at the deadline from Dallas or w/e was offered before the deadline closed. I also highly doubt that Washington would do that, Hamhuis wouldn't waive to go there at the deadline and now he is going to want to sign a deal there? Not to mention his rights probably aren't even trade-able without him waiving his NTC/NMC, so I don't see this happening. The value is probably roughly correct though.

 

Grenier is probably worth a 4th or 5th, so if you include Bickell you could convince Chicago to give up the 60th overall pick in the trade relatively easily I'd say. I think the value there is fair, but in no circumstance should any team in the league take that contract off of Chicago's hands unless they get a first round pick out of it. The salary cap is going to be the hardest thing to manage in this league with players constantly demanding increasing salaries. Helping out the best team in hockey with their salary cap trouble should come at a steep cost, that's just how leverage works. A 2nd round pick is fair, but in this situation fair is stupid, you fleece them or let them squirm and every GM around the league understands that as Bickell is still there.

 

Colorado would never make this trade for their 1st this year for Dallas's first next year and a 2nd from Chicago. This draft is going to be a much deeper draft than next years, by quite a lot. So to trade a first in this draft for a package in which the centerpiece is a first in next year's draft is a no-go. Not to mention there is no way that picks that are something like 25 overall and 60 overall, just don't have the value of 12 overall. I don't really understand your argument for Colorado's motivation to do this deal, this isn't accruing value, its throwing it away, and quality is always better than quantity in accruing value. What has more trade value? Bo Horvat or Shinkaruk and your average 2nd rounder? If Colorado doesn't want to keep the player they draft at 12 in the future, they can trade him for more value than this package is worth. If they do want to keep the player, they trade one of their former picks for good value.

 

To summarize though, the key problem that shows in your trades with insufficient value is that you want to try and acquire value without giving it up, GMs aren't that stupid you have to actually give something up. You can't trade Grenier, Hansen, Cederholm, 3rd round pick, and wind up with the 12th overall in any draft. Even if you took on Bickell's salary. Hansen is a nice player, but he doesn't have first round value. You have to actually give up something of worth.

Well someones a negative nancy geez. I explained why I think the Colorado deal works. Colorado has an abundance of top picks with star potential on their team. The best defenceman at that poin is Bean and even 4 years down the road he would'nt fit into their plans. Chicago most likely wont win the cup so the pick is around 56, Dallas most likely regresses  next year so it'll be around 20 (loss of Goligoski Demers shaky goaltending etc.) . And its not between Horvat or Shinkaruk and a 2nd. Honestly? Horvat has excelled. Nobody thought he would be this good at this age. People thought "3rd liner at best", Shinkaruk looked like a star that fell in the draft. Colorado does not need more high end talent they need depth more. If the Canucks had a top-15 pick and moved down 5-8 spots and got a 2nd out of it that would be a good deal. Also with your Shinkaruk and Horvat comparison you could say the same thing about Virtanen and Larkin. I would rather have Larkin and a 2nd than Virtanen wouldnt you?

[Z Hockey]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

Honestly, I don't think some of your trades are accurate on value, and the others don't make sense for the Canucks. Dallas wouldn't give up a first in a trade for Hamhuis or Russell, the most they would do was a conditional first if they made the conference finals. So I don't see them giving up their 2017 first at the draft or slightly before. We are about to move into a league where First round picks just don't get traded for anything short of 1st liners and Top-2 D-men. Obviously, you would have to add to that first, but nobody is going to be relinquishing those assets for 3rd liners, they are too valuable. 

 

Hamhuis for a 4th makes little sense, unless JB wants the entire fanbase to hate him for not taking a 3rd at the deadline from Dallas or w/e was offered before the deadline closed. I also highly doubt that Washington would do that, Hamhuis wouldn't waive to go there at the deadline and now he is going to want to sign a deal there? Not to mention his rights probably aren't even trade-able without him waiving his NTC/NMC, so I don't see this happening. The value is probably roughly correct though.

 

Grenier is probably worth a 4th or 5th, so if you include Bickell you could convince Chicago to give up the 60th overall pick in the trade relatively easily I'd say. I think the value there is fair, but in no circumstance should any team in the league take that contract off of Chicago's hands unless they get a first round pick out of it. The salary cap is going to be the hardest thing to manage in this league with players constantly demanding increasing salaries. Helping out the best team in hockey with their salary cap trouble should come at a steep cost, that's just how leverage works. A 2nd round pick is fair, but in this situation fair is stupid, you fleece them or let them squirm and every GM around the league understands that as Bickell is still there.

 

Colorado would never make this trade for their 1st this year for Dallas's first next year and a 2nd from Chicago. This draft is going to be a much deeper draft than next years, by quite a lot. So to trade a first in this draft for a package in which the centerpiece is a first in next year's draft is a no-go. Not to mention there is no way that picks that are something like 25 overall and 60 overall, just don't have the value of 12 overall. I don't really understand your argument for Colorado's motivation to do this deal, this isn't accruing value, its throwing it away, and quality is always better than quantity in accruing value. What has more trade value? Bo Horvat or Shinkaruk and your average 2nd rounder? If Colorado doesn't want to keep the player they draft at 12 in the future, they can trade him for more value than this package is worth. If they do want to keep the player, they trade one of their former picks for good value.

 

To summarize though, the key problem that shows in your trades with insufficient value is that you want to try and acquire value without giving it up, GMs aren't that stupid you have to actually give something up. You can't trade Grenier, Hansen, Cederholm, 3rd round pick, and wind up with the 12th overall in any draft. Even if you took on Bickell's salary. Hansen is a nice player, but he doesn't have first round value. You have to actually give up something of worth.

You do realize Hansen is on pace for a career high in points and importantly 20 plus goals, pretty close to 1st line material and like you said 1st rounders are only being moved for 1st liners/ top Ds mostly. That's pretty fair value in the Stars deal too when in that trade remember it was Demers (RIGHTS) only. Add in the fact Hansen is a solid 200 ft player with solid toughness and has Cup Final experience. The value isn't that off, we maybe would have to add someone like Vey, Cassels, or a D prospect in the Colorado deal. And I'm pretty sure Chicago would take that deal, an under 25, 6'5 200 lb winger who's proven he has scoring ability in the Q and AHL and given how they excel at developing talent, in exchange for a power forward now pushing out of prime and has been waived multiple times and hasn't produced in the NHL for a while now. The 2nd Chicago wouldn't mind because it's also there for Vancouver taking Bickells cap hit.

[Aircool]

8 hours ago, BaerToBo said:

Well someones a negative nancy geez. I explained why I think the Colorado deal works. Colorado has an abundance of top picks with star potential on their team. The best defenceman at that poin is Bean and even 4 years down the road he would'nt fit into their plans. Chicago most likely wont win the cup so the pick is around 56, Dallas most likely regresses  next year so it'll be around 20 (loss of Goligoski Demers shaky goaltending etc.) . And its not between Horvat or Shinkaruk and a 2nd. Honestly? Horvat has excelled. Nobody thought he would be this good at this age. People thought "3rd liner at best", Shinkaruk looked like a star that fell in the draft. Colorado does not need more high end talent they need depth more. If the Canucks had a top-15 pick and moved down 5-8 spots and got a 2nd out of it that would be a good deal. Also with your Shinkaruk and Horvat comparison you could say the same thing about Virtanen and Larkin. I would rather have Larkin and a 2nd than Virtanen wouldnt you?

First of all, I don't mean to be a negative nancy, you asked for feedback and I'm giving it, I just think that while you might not be far off in some cases, that none of them are plausible. I've never heard the argument that an abundance of top talent is dis-incentive for more top talent, and if their talent was so good they wouldn't be where they are now. Clearly, you overrate Colorado, and while they have some nice players they are a far cry from a Cup contending team and their possession numbers show that. They have stars they need to get rid of, and thus stars they need to replace, hence even more reason for them to be drafting as high as possible in the draft.

 

To say Chicago most likely won't win the cup, is probably technically correct, since every team probably has < 50% change of winning the cup, Chicago is still probably the team with the best chance... so I don't follow. Dallas is also a team projected to improve and rise to challenger status both this year and the next few years, so I don't see how regression is in the cards for them... I'm not saying they won't regress, they COULD, its not the projection of anybody sane though.

 

I'm not going to argue with you about whether Horvat is worth more than Shinkaruk and a 2nd, he so obviously is now, and was at their draft. It wasn't 5-8 spots by the way it was 15 spots. This is the potential cap between a Dallas 1st next year and Colorado's first this year, and next year's draft isn't nearly as deep as this one. A player at 24 or later in next year's draft would be a 2nd rounder in this draft, and not necessarily an early one.

 

I wouldn't rather have Larkin and a 2nd than Virtanen. I think Larkin is a nice player, he has had a really nice season, he will be a good player. My contention is that Virtanen has a much higher ceiling, and his floor is pretty good too. Virtanen will bring much more to a game than point production, and I believe he will bring point production of a comparable or superior level to Larkin. I don't think Larkin will bring much more to the game than point production, he is a fast skater but that has less use outside of offensive production. I'm not saying Larkin is, or will be, bad. I'm saying he will be a scorer and not much else. I think this is more valuable because look at players like Toews and Kopitar and many of the player on the best teams in the NHL that aren't Top-10 or Top-30 in scoring. Some of these players are still considered Elite. There is something to be said for players like Lucic being on LA and LA being better this year. 

 

Regardless, Larkin was a shrewd pick by Detroit, at the time of the draft, this wouldn't have been a realistic situation which is what matters. Decisions made in context, not hindsight. I disagree with your decisions based on the context, both the realistic context, and your provided context.

[Aircool]

8 hours ago, Z Hockey said:

You do realize Hansen is on pace for a career high in points and importantly 20 plus goals, pretty close to 1st line material and like you said 1st rounders are only being moved for 1st liners/ top Ds mostly. That's pretty fair value in the Stars deal too when in that trade remember it was Demers (RIGHTS) only. Add in the fact Hansen is a solid 200 ft player with solid toughness and has Cup Final experience. The value isn't that off, we maybe would have to add someone like Vey, Cassels, or a D prospect in the Colorado deal. And I'm pretty sure Chicago would take that deal, an under 25, 6'5 200 lb winger who's proven he has scoring ability in the Q and AHL and given how they excel at developing talent, in exchange for a power forward now pushing out of prime and has been waived multiple times and hasn't produced in the NHL for a while now. The 2nd Chicago wouldn't mind because it's also there for Vancouver taking Bickells cap hit.

Hansen is not worth a supposed 12th overall pick, he might be worth a late 1st to a desperate buyer. I agree with your opinion on the proposed Bickell trade, read my post again, you clearly misunderstood. It would be a mistake to make that trade on our end.

[KariyaSakicAnderson]

Your proposal is not bad overall but is off somewhat. The first trade is not bad I do think Hansen can fetch a late 1st round pick from a cup contending team which would be a 24 to 30 pick. Since Dallas will probably finish in top 5 in 2017 again and have a very good chance to make it to the finals it could be a 29th pick.  Adding both Cederholm and a 3 rnd pick (which I gather you wanted to use as bit more of an enticement to get the 1st)for a pending UFA in Demers that will get at least 5.5 million is much.  The 3rd round pick isn't need, Dallas more than likely wont be able to afford Demers' 8 yrs at 5.5 million, they will sign Goligoski and a cheaper replacement and yes Demers will want at least 5.5 he won't be taking anything less especially not 4.5

 

Hamhuis' ufa status is worth a 4th round pick, though I'm not sure if the NTC expiries at the end of the playoffs or beginning of free agency.  If it is after the playoffs and they don't need Dan to waive then I don't believe Washington is the right fit, their top 4/5 is already set and with Orlov and Johansson getting raises they may not have the space or money, unless they move Orpik which I doubt will happen.  The funny thing is if Dallas can't afford Demers and Hamhuis isn't in Bennings plans then they could be swapped for each other then Cederholm and or pick wont have to be sent to Dallas.

 

The Chicago one is interesting but Chicago doesn't have their 1st or 2nd picks this year so it would have to be a 2017 pick.  If the Cap doesn't go up, which it may not, getting a late 2nd rnd pick in 2017 for taking Bickell isn't that enticing and ownership may not go for it.  If they can get a 2nd and lower tier prospect or two picks ie 2nd 2017 and 3rd 2018 then it may be worth it. Don't forget this move helps free up 3 million for them which will be used to re-sing Ladd or bring in more help which could result in another Cup or at the least a Conference final so it'd be a 57 to 60 pick.  But I think this is more of a Maple Leafs play than a Canucks play.

 

The Colorado one I don't see happening, though Colorado have top picks, top end talent on their team they don't have that much of it and their prospect pool isn't very deep, they actually need more top end talent as do the Canucks. Tyson Barrie could be moved so it depends on what they get back for him but they may need a Dman and if Bean is around at that spot they will definitely take him.  If they were gonna move that pick and if your proposed other two moves did go through, it would have to be the Canucks 2016 2nd round pick 35oa ( 'cause chicago doesn't have one) and Dallas' 2017 1st round pick 26 to 30oa which I fear may not be enough. Maybe if a useful roster player was added ie: Hutton then there might be a chance or they may want Tanev.

 

As for the signings

Rodin 1 yr <1 mil ..... 2 mill is too much for a show me contract not gonna happen

Sven should get 2 yrs  around 1.75 to 2.25 

if they did get Demers he is gonna want  6 or 8 yrs and at least 5.5 mil < than that he isn't staying

Kenins not need unless it is a 2 way contract

Vey really should be traded, I don't mind him but there really is not a place for him on this team he should fetch a 3rd round pick or used in a bigger trade

Higgins I believe will be traded sometime after the major UFA signings and before end of Sept.  The canucks will have to retain 50% but there will be teams looking to get to the cap floor and Higgins for one year will do the trick. Paying 1.25 mil for one year is better than paying 833k for two years.

 

[Z Hockey]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

Hansen is not worth a supposed 12th overall pick, he might be worth a late 1st to a desperate buyer. I agree with your opinion on the proposed Bickell trade, read my post again, you clearly misunderstood. It would be a mistake to make that trade on our end.

I see what you're saying about the Bickell trade now, makes sense for sure.. But with the Hansen deal it's not just Hansen for a 12th overall, the original deal is Hansen, Cederholm (who's a C+ d-man prospect), and a 3rd, for a 1st and an RFA. Then it's that 1st and the Chicago 2nd for the 12th, so it's really...

 

Hansen- 20 goal grinder                       12th overall pick

Cederholm-C+ D prospect     FOR       potentially a top four 2-way D man in Demers (RFA rights/negotiating)

Grenier-B- RW prospect                       Bickell- 4 million dollar AHLer  (currently... may need change of scenery)

1st- uncertain area

2nd- low 2nd- (really a 3rd)

3rd- uncertain area

 

 

[Aircool]

1 minute ago, Z Hockey said:

I see what you're saying about the Bickell trade now, makes sense for sure.. But with the Hansen deal it's not just Hansen for a 12th overall, the original deal is Hansen, Cederholm (who's a C+ d-man prospect), and a 3rd, for a 1st and an RFA. Then it's that 1st and the Chicago 2nd for the 12th, so it's really...

 

Hansen- 20 goal grinder                       12th overall pick

Cederholm-C+ D prospect     FOR       potentially a top four 2-way D man in Demers (RFA rights/negotiating)

Grenier-B- RW prospect                       Bickell- 4 million dollar AHLer  (currently... may need change of scenery)

1st- uncertain area

2nd- low 2nd- (really a 3rd)

3rd- uncertain area

 

 

Yeah you are right, it wasn't just Hansen for a 1st... I just forgot/confused myself when I saw you mention Hansen being worth something around a 1st. My mistake. It still comes down to Hansen, a nothing prospect, and a 3rd for a 1st though, and I don't think that is fair value for any first really. He's a prime candidate for regression. Still its not a ridiculous homer proposal. I just don't think it would ever happen. But trading that pick and a 2nd for 12 overall is a daydream, that 100% makes no sense.

[Z Hockey]

20 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Yeah you are right, it wasn't just Hansen for a 1st... I just forgot/confused myself when I saw you mention Hansen being worth something around a 1st. My mistake. It still comes down to Hansen, a nothing prospect, and a 3rd for a 1st though, and I don't think that is fair value for any first really. He's a prime candidate for regression. Still its not a ridiculous homer proposal. I just don't think it would ever happen. But trading that pick and a 2nd for 12 overall is a daydream, that 100% makes no sense.

Yup, I would definitely throw in a prospect like Cassels as its going to cost that much more to get that pick, I would do that because our pick is in that area anyway and we could get maybe Alex Nylander and a D like Juolevi maybe back to back picks!!

[Vanisleryan]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 6:21 PM, BaerToBo said:

First proposal ever so go easy. So with players coming from Europe and all of the depth on the team of fringe players on the Canucks I think it makes the most sense to try to turn them into value. Assuming the Canucks get the 5th overall pick. This is what I would do if I was the GM. If some of these proposals are off or unrealistic please let me know as I would like to further my knowledge of hockey. 

 

Canucks depth chart:

 

Sedin-Sedin-Sutter

Baetschi-Horvat-Virtanen

Etem-Grandlund-Hansen

Burrows-McCann-Rodin

Gaunce-Vey-Dorsett

Kenins-Cassels-Grenier

 

Edler-Tanev

Hamhuis-Sbisa

Hutton-Larsen

Pedan-Tryamkin

Miller

Markstrom.

 

Picks the Canucks will have

5,35,65,95,125,155,185

 

Trades:

 

To Van: 2017 1st, Demers(rights)

To Dal: Hansen, Cederholm, 2017 3rd

 

Why Van does this: To get first crack at signing Demers and getting another 1st. Also Rodin can replace Hansen the 3rd line. Cederholm is a C- prospect which add a little bit of value but does not fit in Utica. And the 3rd is upgraded to a 1st.

 

Why Dallas does this: Getting value for Demers is much better than losing him for nothing. Hansen is a great 3rd liner in his prime that would be perfect for a playoff run with Dallas. Cederholm adds a little bit of value but the 3rd makes the deal go through imo.

 

To Wsh: Hamhuis(rights)

To Van: 2017 4th

 

Why Van does this: Not planning on signing Hamhuis so might as well get something for him.

 

Why Wsh does this: Washington could use more depth on defence and that's a relatively cheap price to pay for Hamhuis' rights.

 

To Chi: Grenier

To Van: Bickell, 2016 2nd

 

Why Van does this: Bickell might just need a change of scenery and Vancouver has the cap to make it work. Also a 2nd comes in the deal for Grenier.

 

Why Chi does this: Chicago gets much needed cap space at the cost of a 2nd. They also get a cheap depth player.

 

To Col: 2017 1st(Dal),2016 2nd(Chi)

To Van: 2016 1st(12th OA)

 

Why Van does this: To get another 1st this year and be able to pick another top dman.

 

Why Col does this: Colorado has alot of top picks on their team. I think at this point they are trying to accumulate value.

 

Going into the draft we will either pick Chychrun or Tkachuk depending on which gets picked 4th. If Chychrun gets picked 4th then we draft Tkachuk at 5th and Day at 35th. If Tkachuk gets picked then we take Chychrun and Benson at 35th.

 

5-Chychrun/Tkachuck

12-Bean

35-Benson/Day

65,95,125,155,185-BPA

 

Sign:

 

Rodin 1yr,2M

Baertschi 2yr,2.5M

Demers 3yr,4.5M

Vey,Kenins 1yr, 950K 

 

Buy out:Higgins 833K

 

Were left with 1.5M in cap. 

 

Next Year's lineup:

 

Sedin-Sedin-Sutter

Baertschi-Horvat-Virtanen

Etem-Grandlund-Rodin

Gaunce-Vey-Dorsett

Burrows

 

In Utica.

Bickell McCann Kenins Cassels

 

Defence

 

Edler-Tanev

Hutton-Demers

Sbisa-Larsen

Pedan Tryamkin 

 

Goalies

 

Miller 

Markstrom

 

The Future:

 

Tkachuk/Benson-McCann-Virtanen

Baertschi-Horvat-Boeser

Gaunce-Cassels-Rodin

 

Chychrun/Day-Bean

Hutton-Subban

Pedan-Tryamkin

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

If anybody spots any spelling errors please let me know. If im off on the value please be kind and offer constructive criticism. GO CANUCKS GO!!

Why does everyone always forget about Biega....Biega wants some love.

[BaerToBo]

3 hours ago, Vanisleryan said:

Why does everyone always forget about Biega....Biega wants some love.

Utica until we figure out what Larsen is? Idk i forgot about him while making the proposal