[Rumour] 30 team rumour list

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

30 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

See now you're asking the right question

 

Are you saying sticking him with Eichel/Reinhardt and giving him 18 minutes a night he wont go from 23 points at 11 minutes a night to 40+?

I'm saying that he's nowhere near as good as Gallagher, no matter where you skate him. 

 

My laughable comparison is meant to be laughable.  No two players are equivalent, and if you have a really good reason to make a comparison, you'll have to try a little harder to make it convincing.  Points per minute on ice won't cut it.  Perhaps describing some of their qualities and abilities would be a starting place.......naw that's subjective foolishness.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

28 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

No, not all players are created equal.  But, by ignoring things like quality of line mates vs time on ice vs point production you're completely ignoring the fundamentals of a comparison between players.

 

Let's put Gallagher back to a 12 minute 38 second per game average instead of 18:44 and put him with Desharnais or Mitchell

 

Still think he's a "60 point a season player"

He wouldn't be a 60 pt guy.....but he'd still be a way better player. 

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

20 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I am confused but guessing that the stupid formatting on this site got to you too?

 

Yes I've seen him play numerous times.  There's a reason he's a fan favorite.  he's their Honey badger, their swiss army knife.  He's a great utility player.  high energy and battles hard.

 

We have those guys in spades albeit a shade older.  We just moved one off the the top line and replaced him with the other one; and when this one slows down we'll replace him too until our twins retire.

 

But again, and this is important.

 

Do you think that adding a guy who would serve a redundant role on our team is the necessary throw in vs someone in a position we need more of?  Like a Juulsen?

 

Nowhere am I saying he's not a great player and nowhere am I saying he doesn't have value.  I am simply saying if that's Montreals offer we should walk because we have other needs and I am sure there's a better deal out there.  But now the argument is that he is somehow a 60 point playing 1st liner

 

Which...I don't see

You see, this I agree with.  I just don't agree with your trade assessment, or your equivilization of players.

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Progressive Hockey said:

If you think a guy like Brendan Gallagher is redundant there is no point continuing this conversation. You are severely under valuing him. And you still have neglected the 9th pick we would still have as well. Straight up our 5th for Gally...no. I don't think anyone on this board makes that deal. But having that 9th & Gally makes it interesting and worth discussing for the simple fact of who we could still draft. If your relying on Burrows & Hansen to be the Canucks heart and soul tenacious gritty secondary scoring pieces moving forward you're going to be greatly disappointed. 

I am not doing anything of the sort.

 

I am not relying on them, but they are here.  Right now.  As is, we have them and their contracts that fill those roles.  We also have Virtanen/Etem/Rodin/Baertschi/Gaunce plus one of Tkachuk or Luc Dubois coming in soon.

 

I am not saying he doesn't have value; but he is redundant here knowing that.  I am also saying there is a better offer out there without question that would fill a far more intrinsic need for this club for that price whether you'd like to admit it or not

 

A youth D prospect, LW or C would fit this clubs needs far more than another RW that can move from the 3rd to 1st line in positions already filled with contracts we either don't want to or cannot get rid of

 

Unsure why that is hard to understand.

 

Nowhere by the way am I discounting or ignoring the 9th overall, I am concentrating on the "add on" in Gallagher which is why you don't see me mention the 9th at all

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

You see, this I agree with.  I just don't agree with your trade assessment, or your equivilization of players.

Ok let's break it down the same way I just did for pro hockey

 

"I am not relying on them, but they are here.  Right now.  As is, we have them and their contracts that fill those roles.  We also have Virtanen/Etem/Rodin/Baertschi/Gaunce plus one of Tkachuk or Luc Dubois coming in soon.

 

I am not saying he doesn't have value; but he is redundant here knowing that.  I am also saying there is a better offer out there without question that would fill a far more intrinsic need for this club for that price whether you'd like to admit it or not

 

A youth D prospect, LW or C would fit this clubs needs far more than another RW that can move from the 3rd to 1st line in positions already filled with contracts we either don't want to or cannot get rid of"

 

Now, again; why do we want Gallagher when we have other needs?

 

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

He wouldn't be a 60 pt guy.....but he's be a way better player.  With respect, have you played hockey?

Therefore not a 1st line player

 

Thank you.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

Just now, Warhippy said:

Ok let's break it down the same way I just did for pro hockey

 

"I am not relying on them, but they are here.  Right now.  As is, we have them and their contracts that fill those roles.  We also have Virtanen/Etem/Rodin/Baertschi/Gaunce plus one of Tkachuk or Luc Dubois coming in soon.

 

I am not saying he doesn't have value; but he is redundant here knowing that.  I am also saying there is a better offer out there without question that would fill a far more intrinsic need for this club for that price whether you'd like to admit it or not

 

A youth D prospect, LW or C would fit this clubs needs far more than another RW that can move from the 3rd to 1st line in positions already filled with contracts we either don't want to or cannot get rid of"

 

Now, again; why do we want Gallagher when we have other needs?

 

Well, perhaps I've muddied the waters.  I wasn't arguing that we need Gallagher.  I was arguing that Montreal would never dream of making that trade, and that comparing Gallagher to a bunch of grinders is ridiculous.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Therefore not a 1st line player

 

Thank you.

That's it?  Reach a certain number of points and your an N^th line player?  Is that the HERO chart theory?

 

He would still be an amazing player, with amazing hand-eye, that can do things on the PP that every GM covets.

[Warhippy]

Just now, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

That's it?  Reach a certain number of points and your an N^th line player?  Is that the HERO chart theory?

 

He would still be an amazing player, with amazing hand-eye, that can do things on the PP that every GM covets.

As was Burrows, as is Hansen at an older age.

 

Again man, with them on the rosters at RW and unable to trade those contracts he'd be redundant and I am sure there's a better option out there

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Well, perhaps I've muddied the waters.  I wasn't arguing that we need Gallagher.  I was arguing that Montreal would never dream of making that trade, and that comparing Gallagher to a bunch of grinders is ridiculous.

Fair enough, much like we over value Hansen

 

Again, though I am using simple math to extract those numbers to make those comparisons.  Put any NHL player with skill with all star line mates and increase their ice time their numbers rise.

 

If the Habs and fans overvalue him the way we did Burrows (note how expendable he is not 3 years later) and Hansen (note how expendable he will be this year) than so be it

 

We have other very defined needs though imo.  Adding another guy at a crowded position without shedding bodies is just unreasonable at that cost.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

Just now, Warhippy said:

As was Burrows, as is Hansen at an older age.

 

Again man, with them on the rosters at RW and unable to trade those contracts he'd be redundant and I am sure there's a better option out there

Again, I never said I wanted him.  So that's my bad for jumping into your existing discussion.  He's not who I'd target.  I would target Faulk though, even though I agree about his general weakness defending the rush.

 

But, again, to reiterate, I think that Gallagher is at least twice as good as Burrows in his prime.  No point arguing that as we can't prove anything.

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Again, I never said I wanted him.  So that's my bad for jumping into your existing discussion.  He's not who I'd target.  I would target Faulk though, even though I agree about his general weakness defending the rush.

 

But, again, to reiterate, I think that Gallagher is at least twice as good as Burrows in his prime.  No point arguing that as we can't prove anything.

Apology accepted.  But no harm done.  This is debate; it's what we're supposed to do.

 

Faulk I am unsure of for reasons posted above.  I'd feel more secure trading down drafting one of Sergachev or Juolevi with the bonus prospect or pick thrown in.  Faulk is going to command a serious raise, would need to be protected and I'd rather see where our D core stands this year with Pedan/Gudbranson/Hutton/Tryamkin defining their roles as opposed to trading that 5th for him.

 

Rather trade edler instead

 

and 50/50 on the Burrows comp, at 24 and 25 he was playing 4th line minutes under Av then exploded for 31 and 51 points as a 3rd line player before being posted with the twins.  The guy is/was Gallagher really to a sense.  Had he been brought in to the league at the same age it's hard to say what his production would have looked like.  He just has//had that energy and doggedness that saw him so successful

[DeNiro]

40 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Faulk, has the same numbers Edler had at 24.  Look their first 300 games they are similar.  If you think Faulk is a bonafide #1 like Doughty, Pietrangelo, Karlsson, Subban, Kieth, Weber... you are masquerading him as a #1 D.   Like Edler he's a fringe top pairing defenseman, depending on the quality of his partner.

 

Not that I don't want Faulk, but I wouldn't sell the farm for him.  And as far as I know, Hutton has similar number for a rookie than Faulk did, therefore, if Faulk is good enough why not Hutton ?!?!?  Don't say he plays for Carolina, because we weren,t better than them this year.

People clearly don't watch Faulk very much if they think he's just about numbers. The guy has won at every level as a key player and is still developing at age 24.  "Fringe top pairing defenseman"? Not even close.

 

Selling the farm would be trading Boeser and Demko. Trading the 5th overall pick is far from trading the farm. People are attached to this idea that this pick will guarantee us elite first line talent, but if history shows anything that's not true. We're most likely looking at complimentary 2nd line players. Players you would likely trade for a number 1 puck mover when they're developed.

 

It will be interesting to see how well all these forwards we've drafted in the past 5 years do when they have no defenseman that can get them the puck in transition or QB a powerplay.

[terrible.dee]

16 hours ago, Canucks Curse said:

If Perron and Boedekker are plan b,

how are we going to be a playoff team?

this team could be a real mess come July 2nd

 

One more year of doing our best 2010 Flames impression,

 

laaaaaaaame          I don't want Erikson, Perron, Lucic any of them, I would hope Montreal loses out on Stamkos and we could sell them on the Sedins,

'

I love the Sedins, but moving them is the only way we get any meaningful change, this team can't transition while they are still around.

[Borvat]

5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

OK I have to throw some water on your fire

 

Hi, been watching the nucks for literally ever.  What you're suggesting they do is EXACTLY what team management has done once a decade since inception.

 

Speed up the rebuild.

 

This team is easily 2 seasons away from being able to pull the trigger and speed things up to contend.  We just gave up large futures for Gudbranson and now we have holes to fill.  The finny thing about a hole in a foundation is, if you dig another hole to fill it; you still have a hole.

 

Pulling the trigger on Faulk a career -66, .44 ppg player who doesn't tend to block shots and gets undressed on his right side leaves us with 0 center depth 0 LW depth and 0 prospects of the calibre we need and we STILL don't address our goal scoring needs doing it.

 

Trading the 5th overall PLUS to do it is near criminal knowing this

 

If you want an RHD that can put up points, trade down a few spots and draft Sergachev.  

 

If this was an option available in 2 seasons, yes do it.  But watching this team jump the gun a season or two early every decade is tiresome and as shown by the lack of Stanley Cup winning banners in our building

 

Doesn't work. 

 

Be patient.

Thank you for some sanity.  This team is just starting to regain some depth.  If you noticed Benning has been stockpiling defenceman.  It's time to replenish our forward depth with some skill.

 

I like our mix on defense and believe it is now fairly solid and we can ice a respectable top six. Maybe Edler is that guy we saw a few years back now that he has some help below him.   And i also wonder whtat Edler would look like if Guddy was there beside him. Tanev with Hutton/Tryamkin may not be a bad second pairing.  

 

Please no more trading prospects and picks unless its for some scoring and skill.

 

  

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Apology accepted.  But no harm done.  This is debate; it's what we're supposed to do.

 

Faulk I am unsure of for reasons posted above.  I'd feel more secure trading down drafting one of Sergachev or Juolevi with the bonus prospect or pick thrown in.  Faulk is going to command a serious raise, would need to be protected and I'd rather see where our D core stands this year with Pedan/Gudbranson/Hutton/Tryamkin defining their roles as opposed to trading that 5th for him.

 

Rather trade edler instead

 

and 50/50 on the Burrows comp, at 24 and 25 he was playing 4th line minutes under Av then exploded for 31 and 51 points as a 3rd line player before being posted with the twins.  The guy is/was Gallagher really to a sense.  Had he been brought in to the league at the same age it's hard to say what his production would have looked like.  He just has//had that energy and doggedness that saw him so successful

Yes...him and Hansen, whereas Gallagher has elite skill to go with it.  And when Burrows was at his peak, I had no illusions about what kind of player he was.  You just said "if you stick someone with elite guys...", and I really think that Gallagher is one of them, whereas I never thought that about our guys.  Only Pratt calls Hansen a 1st line player.

 

Besides, numerically speaking, you had to discard his most recent year to make your math work.  That's not fair to a young, emergent talent.

 

(I would be fine with trading Edler, but I think the return would be very modest, and therefore not worth it.  The hot D in this draft are no substitute for a Faulk, because they are a very long way off). 

[Warhippy]

15 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

People clearly don't watch Faulk very much if they think he's just about numbers. The guy has won at every level as a key player and is still developing at age 24.  "Fringe top pairing defenseman"? Not even close.

 

Selling the farm would be trading Boeser and Demko. Trading the 5th overall pick is far from trading the farm. People are attached to this idea that this pick will guarantee us elite first line talent, but if history shows anything that's not true. We're most likely looking at complimentary 2nd line players. Players you would likely trade for a number 1 puck mover when they're developed.

 

It will be interesting to see how well all these forwards we've drafted in the past 5 years do when they have no defenseman that can get them the puck in transition or QB a powerplay.

Hutton

Subban

Edler

potentially one of Gudbranson/Tryamkin/Pedan all of whom are question marks.

 

Plus free agency

 

We could also just trade down collect the bonus and draft one of Sergachev or Juolevi or Chychrun and see what they bring to the table.

 

Hard to say capably what the future holds when it isn't written yet

[cripplereh]

Larsen is a D man that can be on the PP and agree the above have skill for the PP.I would go with what we have and from there we we still be a year or two from really making an impact.Benning is taking this team in the right direction,at TDL I would really consider trading the twins if we are not near a playoff spot.

[TheAce]

sad how every 2nd team on that list is interested in Hamhuis, but we just cant be bothered with him even though he would love nothing more than to stay here

[The-Gooch]

4 hours ago, qwijibo said:

keep dreaming.

Why not hope for that? Canucks have a top 5 pick and should except nothing but a home run. Now if that's not offered up they'll be more than happy to select Dubois or Tkachuk.