JM_ Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Just now, Vanuckles said: Right on the money with the bolded part, even if it's a trade with OTT. I'd be ok with giving up a B level forward prospect like a Gadjovich/Lind/Jasek/Palmu/Gaunce or even 2 of them to get rid of his contract. should have hung on to Dahlen, then they could have claimed they "fixed" the Burrows deal I'd probably try sending Hutton tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Vanuckles said: Right on the money with the bolded part, even if it's a trade with OTT. I'd be ok with giving up a B level forward prospect like a Gadjovich/Lind/Jasek/Palmu/Gaunce or even 2 of them to get rid of his contract. I like my proposal of a post-bonus Eriksson (have to be done as a 'future'), Brisebois and OTT's 6th rounder back for an extended Ceci. Edited May 31, 2019 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: should have hung on to Dahlen, then they could have claimed they "fixed" the Burrows deal I'd probably try sending Hutton tbh. haha that would have been quite the deal for them for sure. Alas somehow I'm inclined to think that ownership and management don't care too much about saving face with their fans. 1 minute ago, aGENT said: I like my proposal of a post-bonus Eriksson (have to be done as a 'future'), Brisebois and OTT's 6th rounder back for an extended Ceci. I don't see them parting ways with Ceci if they extend him. I think the only reason he would/might be available is if he lets them know he wants out. Even then I'm not as high on him as you are. I'd rather get a mid round pick back like a 3rd than a Ceci. To OTT: Eriksson Brisebois To VAN: 2020 3rd round pick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, Vanuckles said: haha that would have been quite the deal for them for sure. Alas somehow I'm inclined to think that ownership and management don't care too much about saving face with their fans. I don't see them parting ways with Ceci if they extend him. I think the only reason he would/might be available is if he lets them know he wants out. Even then I'm not as high on him as you are. I'd rather get a mid round pick back like a 3rd than a Ceci. To OTT: Eriksson Brisebois To VAN: 2020 3rd round pick. I don't think Melnyk wants anything to do with paying him and Ceci hasn't shown much appetite for staying there on a cheap deal (don't blame him). I don't know how 'high' I am on him, I think he'd be a solid 2nd/3rd pair tweener that would add some needed size and depth to our right side D. Ceci also has more value than a 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, aGENT said: I don't think Melnyk wants anything to do with paying him and Ceci hasn't shown much appetite for staying there on a cheap deal (don't blame him). I don't know how 'high' I am on him, I think he'd be a solid 2nd/3rd pair tweener that would add some needed size and depth to our right side D. Ceci also has more value than a 3rd. You've mentioned numerous times already so that's why I assumed you're 'high' on him. I disagree about his value. I wouldn't want to give up more than a 3rd to get him, and even then I'd rather the 3rd. He doesn't have any offense to his game, and while he's defensively reliable, he's not someone you would want to use to shutdown the oppositions top line. He's not physical. He's a Tanev lite, so I don't know why we would want 2 of them on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Vanuckles said: You've mentioned numerous times already so that's why I assumed you're 'high' on him. I disagree about his value. I wouldn't want to give up more than a 3rd to get him, and even then I'd rather the 3rd. He doesn't have any offense to his game, and while he's defensively reliable, he's not someone you would want to use to shutdown the oppositions top line. He's not physical. He's a Tanev lite, so I don't know why we would want 2 of them on this team. Tanev's gone this year (or sooner) IMO. That's why. He's a younger, bigger, healthier (albeit slightly less able) Tanev. Which we will need to replace. And he's worth way more than a 3rd Edited May 31, 2019 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 1 minute ago, aGENT said: Tanev's gone this year (or sooner) IMO. That's why. He's a younger, bigger, healthier (albeit slightly less able) Tanev. Which we will need to replace. And he's worth way more than a 3rd Going to have to agree to disagree on his value. He's a lesser Tanev this year after Tanev had a not-so-great season, but if Tanev returns to form they should not be in the same conversation. A 3rd is his value to our team, and we have plenty of defensmen knocking at the door with much higher upside than him. If we're adding on D, we should be looking for bonafide top 4, not another bottom pairing Dman when his spot could be given to one of our own looking to bust through. That's why I wouldn't even give up a 3rd for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Vanuckles said: Going to have to agree to disagree on his value. He's a lesser Tanev this year after Tanev had a not-so-great season, but if Tanev returns to form they should not be in the same conversation. A 3rd is his value to our team, and we have plenty of defensmen knocking at the door with much higher upside than him. If we're adding on D, we should be looking for bonafide top 4, not another bottom pairing Dman when his spot could be given to one of our own looking to bust through. That's why I wouldn't even give up a 3rd for him. You're more than welcome to your thoroughly wrong opinion of his value What blue chip, right side D do we have looking to 'bust through'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, aGENT said: You're more than welcome to your thoroughly wrong opinion of his value What blue chip, right side D do we have looking to 'bust through'? Juolevi. You're welcome to your thoroughly wrong opinion as well EDIT: Hughes plays right side as well. So does Tryamkin if he comes back in a year. No point in spending assets on someone who would man your bottom pairing. If you want bottom pairing Dmen, plenty to be found in FA without spending assets. Edited May 31, 2019 by Vanuckles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Vanuckles said: Juolevi. You're welcome to your thoroughly wrong opinion as well EDIT: Hughes plays right side as well. So does Tryamkin if he comes back in a year. No point in spending assets on someone who would man your bottom pairing. If you want bottom pairing Dmen, plenty to be found in FA without spending assets. Juolevi is very much left side. Not right. At all. Hughes can indeed play right but it's not his natural side. IMO, that's a 'last resort' option should we be unable to build sufficient RD depth in the next couple years (something Ceci would in fact help with). Tryamkin does play right...but there's also zero guarantee he's every coming back. And if he did, I'd be just fine having both as 2nd/3rd pair options and/or trading one for further assets. 'Spending assets'.... we'd be gaining cap space by moving Eriksson (that's gaining assets, not spending them for those scoring at home) and moving Brisebois (left D where we actually have depth) whose ceiling is likely Ceci, if we're lucky, and a low percentage 6th. And there's probably 25+ GM's who would line up to pay a 3rd for Ceci. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Just now, aGENT said: Juolevi is very much left side. Not right. At all. Hughes can indeed play right but it's not his natural side. IMO, that's a 'last resort' option should we be unable to build sufficient RD depth in the next couple years (something Ceci would in fact help with). Tryamkin does play right...but there's also zero guarantee he's every coming back. And if he did, I'd be just fine having both as 2nd/3rd pair options and/or trading one for further assets. 'Spending assets'.... we'd be gaining cap space by moving Eriksson (that's gaining assets, not spending them for those scoring at home) and moving Brisebois (left D where we actually have depth) whose ceiling is likely Ceci, if we're lucky, and a low percentage 6th. And there's probably 25+ GM's who would line up to pay a 3rd for Ceci. Lol Juolevi played right side too, and often. Hughes was actually better on his 'off-side' IMO in NCAA because of his skating. You're encouraged to get creative when you're playing the off side because a cross ice pass on the backhand to your partner is not ideal, and he's at his best when he gets creative. When you're on the natural side and the forechecker is coming in hot, they're taking an angle to direct you into the boards so it's your natural instinct to look for the pass on your forehand whereas Hughes can easily skate away from the forechecker and rev up the ice. It's not often that I like players on their off-side, but Hughes is one of those players for me. I'd prefer Juolevi on his natural side but he has played the right side often, and he plays it well. Tryamkin is a unique scenario because using his reach to break up passes on his forehand is a very effective weapon in his arsenal. Look, I just don't like your proposal. I'd rather get a third rounder back than Ceci. To each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Vanuckles said: Lol Juolevi played right side too, and often. Hughes was actually better on his 'off-side' IMO in NCAA because of his skating. You're encouraged to get creative when you're playing the off side because a cross ice pass on the backhand to your partner is not ideal, and he's at his best when he gets creative. When you're on the natural side and the forechecker is coming in hot, they're taking an angle to direct you into the boards so it's your natural instinct to look for the pass on your forehand whereas Hughes can easily skate away from the forechecker and rev up the ice. It's not often that I like players on their off-side, but Hughes is one of those players for me. I'd prefer Juolevi on his natural side but he has played the right side often, and he plays it well. Tryamkin is a unique scenario because using his reach to break up passes on his forehand is a very effective weapon in his arsenal. Look, I just don't like your proposal. I'd rather get a third rounder back than Ceci. To each their own. 'Often'...uh-huh. Rarely. He's a LD. Hughes can be more creative offensively on his off side but struggles more defensively. It's not ideal. He can (and does) always have the option to swap sides in the neutral/offensive zone when available anyway. Doesn't make him RD depth. To each their own indeed. You don't have to like the proposal or player but either way, your valuation is WAY off. Edited May 31, 2019 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: I'm disappointed in how its gone for sure, and that interview is going to make the media coverage of Loui unbearable if he's still here for next season. I doubt Green gives a rats behind what Loui's opinion is on deployment but the media will go crazy with it. But other GMs are going to look at it exactly how we're looking at guys like Zaitsav, as in what else comes with him. I don't really want Jim to give anything. The best thing is for Loui to accept a mutual termination on July 2nd if Jim can't find a trade partner looking for a cap floor player, and then I'm sure someone will be happy to have him a 2 mil per on a year to year basis. Loui isnt going to give up 8 million dollars just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Just now, Kanukfanatic said: Loui isnt going to give up 8 million dollars just because. who says he's giving that up? I think he'll be able to earn that somewhere else if he's free of this current contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: who says he's giving that up? I think he'll be able to earn that somewhere else if he's free of this current contract. Huh? No GM in their right mind would give Loui Eriksson a two year 8 million dollar deal if the Canucks were able to get out of it. ZERO CHANCE. Again....just wishful thinking Loui would 'walk' away from 8 million. Silly actually. Moving on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: who says he's giving that up? I think he'll be able to earn that somewhere else if he's free of this current contract. Has there been a case where both parties agree to terminate the contract but the player then stays in the NHL rather than go abroad - is it even allowed. Edited May 31, 2019 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said: Huh? No GM in their right mind would give Loui Eriksson a two year 8 million dollar deal if the Canucks were able to get out of it. ZERO CHANCE. Again....just wishful thinking Loui would 'walk' away from 8 million. Silly actually. Moving on... its 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, mll said: Has there been a case where both parties agree to terminate the contract but the player then stays in the NHL rather than go abroad - is it even allowed. thats a good question but I don't see why not? I guess we could get retroactively punished like with Lu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: its 3 years. Oh yeah....so he is owed 13 million for the next 3 years. What a stupid thing to believe - "loui is gonna walk away from millions of dollars...." No one does that. Why beat that drum? Why think someone is stupid enough to walk away from 13 million dollars (or 9 million after his bonus this summer???) Cuz he has to ride a damn bus? Did gagner walk away? I just wish this stupid notion of loui walking away from multiple millions would stop....but then again I wish trump wasn't an inbred redneck retard. Oh well... Edited May 31, 2019 by Kanukfanatic 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said: Oh yeah....so he is owed 13 million for the next 3 years. What a stupid thing to believe - "loui is gonna walk away from millions of dollars...." No one does that. Why beat that drum? Why think someone is stupid enough to walk away from 13 million dollars (or 9 million after his bonus this summer??? Cuz he has to ride a damn bus? Did gagner walk away? I just wish this stupid notion of loui walking away from multiple millions would stop....but then again I wish trump wasn't an inbred redneck retard. Oh well... nice spaz and its 9 mil over 3 years after July 1st. Its not inconceivable that he could make that or very close to it somewhere else. Edited May 31, 2019 by Jimmy McGill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now