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

3 move Rebuild (Proposals)


Recommended Posts

#1. Vancouver's 2016-5th OA and 2016-63rd OA to Arizona for 2016-7th OA + 2016-20th OA

 

#2. Edler and Hansen to Boston for 2016-14th OA 2016-29th OA

 

#3. Dorsett and Subban for Datsyuk 33% retained and Detroits 2016- 16th OA

 

Summary:

 

2016 - 7th OA        Bean/Sergachev/Chychrun

2016- 14th OA       Jost/Tufte/McLeod

2016 - 16th OA       Fabbro/Kunin/Bellows

2016 - 20th OA       Gauthier/Stanley/Johansen

2016 -29th OA        Benson/Clague/Cholowski

 

10.150 Million Out

5.00 million In

 

Now you can throw me out in the bath water, but consider this...........If Benning is a great drafter that everyone says he is, we are almost finished our prospect rebuild, and will have tons of cap space for the following year.

 

With the addition of 2017 high 1st and 2nd round picks, along with our very young pro's and current prospects , we would have rebuilt our future in very short order.......

 

The trick is to allow us one more year at the bottom, to get more solid picks...........after that, we can sign who ever we want, and it should allow us to even move some picks the year after if needed.

 

And please note, all our traded players are replaceable.

 

Burn away!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade 1 is plausible, but I don't like it. Trade 2 probably doesn't get it done, with Boston where they are. Trade 3 is a non-starter, Detroit has better ways of ditching that contract, and Dorsett and Subban aren't even close.

 

OTOH, at least you are in the realm of possibility with these, making this one of the best proposals I have seen in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

The trick is to allow us one more year at the bottom, to get more solid picks...........

Not going to criticize you other than to point out that this concept does not fly with the JB/Aquaman mandate of making the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fanuck said:

Not going to criticize you other than to point out that this concept does not fly with the JB/Aquaman mandate of making the playoffs. 

Oh, I know! lol

 

But in the slightest of possibilities, this could happen, then Benning and Linden would have to sell it, and if Aquaman could see a short rebuild, then as a fan, I would hope he could see the possibilities of a bright future.....cap space alone in 2 years would give us enough UFA's to buy a solid team...let alone with all the prospects added in....

 

But, I know! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone keep trying to trade down to 7? Arizona has already stated that they will be looking at defenseman. They have enough forwards like Domi, Strome, Duclair, Dvorak, MacInnis, Perlini, Samuelson and Merkley. 

 

They have nowhere close to the same depth on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1st trade is plausible, and I'd love to do it. We get two good or potentially great players instead of one. Besides Bennington is supposed to b a draft guru; so having two picks in the top 20 would b great. If we took Bean at 7 I would cry though

The 2nd trade may b fair but giving up 2 1st rounders and no salary coming back to Van?  Nope can't see it!

The 3rd trade- just see Det getting better offers than that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daretodream said:

The 1st trade is plausible, and I'd love to do it. We get two good or potentially great players instead of one. Besides Bennington is supposed to b a draft guru; so having two picks in the top 20 would b great. If we took Bean at 7 I would cry though

The 2nd trade may b fair but giving up 2 1st rounders and no salary coming back to Van?  Nope can't see it!

The 3rd trade- just see Det getting better offers than that

I don't think the first one is plausible. 7+20=27/2=13.5, 5+63=68/2=34. Nobody in their right mind would do this. Also, Bean is gonna be a great NHL player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

#1. Vancouver's 2016-5th OA and 2016-63rd OA to Arizona for 2016-7th OA + 2016-20th OA

 

#2. Edler and Hansen to Boston for 2016-14th OA 2016-29th OA

 

#3. Dorsett and Subban for Datsyuk 33% retained and Detroits 2016- 16th OA

 

Summary:

 

2016 - 7th OA        Bean/Sergachev/Chychrun

2016- 14th OA       Jost/Tufte/McLeod

2016 - 16th OA       Fabbro/Kunin/Bellows

2016 - 20th OA       Gauthier/Stanley/Johansen

2016 -29th OA        Benson/Clague/Cholowski

 

10.150 Million Out

5.00 million In

 

Now you can throw me out in the bath water, but consider this...........If Benning is a great drafter that everyone says he is, we are almost finished our prospect rebuild, and will have tons of cap space for the following year.

 

With the addition of 2017 high 1st and 2nd round picks, along with our very young pro's and current prospects , we would have rebuilt our future in very short order.......

 

The trick is to allow us one more year at the bottom, to get more solid picks...........after that, we can sign who ever we want, and it should allow us to even move some picks the year after if needed.

 

And please note, all our traded players are replaceable.

 

Burn away!

 

 

 

 

Not happening this way IMO. However I don't think these are completely impossible, perhaps only the 1st 2 trades with a twist:

 

Trade 1 for Arizona's 20 OA - Edler + 63 AO. That's if Edler can be convinced to go there.

Trade 2 to Detroit for their 16 OA - Hansen and the 20 OA and we pickup Datsyuk's $$$, may be we could get another lower pick (104) from this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

I don't think the first one is plausible. 7+20=27/2=13.5, 5+63=68/2=34. Nobody in their right mind would do this. Also, Bean is gonna be a great NHL player.

That is not a formula for fair draft pick trades.

is it serious or was it a joke?

F'n funny though if you were trying to be. 

 

that's like saying the #1 and #31 are worth the same as #14 and #18...it just doesn't work that way because they both ad up to 32 or 32/2 =16.

The higher the pick, the higher the ratio of what is needed to get it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cowichan Canuck said:

That is not a formula for fair draft pick trades.

is it serious or was it a joke?

F'n funny though if you were trying to be. 

 

that's like saying the #1 and #31 are worth the same as #14 and #18...it just doesn't work that way because they both ad up to 32 or 32/2 =16.

The higher the pick, the higher the ratio of what is needed to get it.

 

So you are saying the 5th pick compared to the 7th pick is equal to the difference between 20 and 63?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

So you are saying the 5th pick compared to the 7th pick is equal to the difference between 20 and 63?

I was not saying that at all but yes, quite possibly if the player they target at #5 is unattainable at #7.

 

some propose #5 for the #7 and #20 without the #63 involved. Either wouldn't surprise me. 

 

I was was talking about your formula, which I now see you were serious about.

So is the #1 and #31 equal to the #14 and #18? Do you really think it is?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Cowichan Canuck said:

I was not saying that at all but yes, quite possibly if the player they target at #5 is unattainable at #7.

 

some propose #5 for the #7 and #20 without the #63 involved. Either wouldn't surprise me. 

 

I was was talking about your formula, which I now see you were serious about.

So is the #1 and #31 equal to the #14 and #18? Do you really think it is?

 

 

Lol, you are creating a significantly different scenario. If Team A has #1 an #70, and Team B has #2 and #25, does Team B make that trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

Lol, you are creating a significantly different scenario. If Team A has #1 an #70, and Team B has #2 and #25, does Team B make that trade?

It would be nice if you would actually answer my question Luongo, which you keep avoiding. I keep answering yours.

 

A #1 & #70

for

B #2 and #25

IS VERY REALISTIC of a payment for team B, sometimes they would have to pay much much more.

 

It just is, and I don't know why you don't see it. Go look back over the draft years and see how much better #1 overall can be over the #2. In some drafts you would need to give a boat load to move from #2 to #1. Look at last year with McDavid for instance. The upgrade from Eichel to McDavid would have cost Buffalo way more that the #25 for the #70.

 

So Luongo

#1 & #31

for #14 & #18

Still think that's fair, it's your formula?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jim and company are stuck between deciding on players A-G at 5, and they think all of them will b impactful players than it is plausible for them to move the 5th for the 7 and 20. All the interviews about him saying we have these forwards and this 1 D or maybe 2. There's no absolutes in this. Unless you believe he's 100% telling you everything on his mind

 

if he has for instance Dubois, Keith's boy, nylander and juolevi basically all even(which none of us no for sure if he does or doesn't) than how can you say that he absolutely wouldn't trade 5 for 7 and 20?

 

your formula makes sense Luongo but I'll take bennings decision based on his gut  anyday.  If he clearly has someone above in that small group than keep the 5 and call it a day. The only way we know 100% is when it actually happens

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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