orcasgonewild Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Seems like Canucks are still in on hurdler and gagne. I think if the Canucks can sign them to reasonable contracts id be all for it. Let's say hudler 2 years for 1.5-2 million per season and gagne 2 years 1.5 million per season. Or we could just give them one year "show me" type of contract or professional tryout deals. sedins eriksson hudler sutter Rodin baertschi horvat Hansen gagne granlund etem burrows/Dorset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I'd sign them to a PTO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonoman Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 PTO for Gagne, no to Hudler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, orcasgonewild said: Seems like Canucks are still in on hurdler and gagne. I think if the Canucks can sign them to reasonable contracts id be all for it. Let's say hudler 2 years for 1.5-2 million per season and gagne 2 years 1.5 million per season. Or we could just give them one year "show me" type of contract or professional tryout deals. sedins eriksson hudler sutter Rodin baertschi horvat Hansen gagne granlund etem burrows/Dorset Hudler doesn't need a " show me " contract. He will find a home at a fair contract. Gagner however could use an opportunity with a club to try and re-establish himself. I was thinking Carolina would be a nice fit for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 54 minutes ago, orcasgonewild said: Seems like Canucks are still in on hurdler and gagne. I think if the Canucks can sign them to reasonable contracts id be all for it. Let's say hudler 2 years for 1.5-2 million per season and gagne 2 years 1.5 million per season. Or we could just give them one year "show me" type of contract or professional tryout deals. sedins eriksson hudler sutter Rodin baertschi horvat Hansen gagne granlund etem burrows/Dorset No they aren't. Gagner signed with Columbus. And I don't want Hudler. And: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Simon Gagne announced his retirement last year. I know what you mean, but at least put in the effort to spell his name right (Sam Gagner). Neither did you learn after your other threads got locked for not having tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 If Benning only can manage one thing this summer, and that thing is signing Hudler to reasonable cap and term, say 3-4mill and two years I would be happy with that. We would be bumping the cap at that point but a lot will be coming off the books in a few years anyways, and this would give us a bona-fide second liner who plays a 200 foot game. He would also add a lot of veteran skill to our top nine for the next couple of years until the young guns muscle there way up. I, for one, would welcome a player like him, he is only two years away from almost a point per gamer, and would give our second PP a new look - our first PP has been too predictable for years and when we dominated this stat one was off, the other was working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, IBatch said: If Benning only can manage one thing this summer, and that thing is signing Hudler to reasonable cap and term, say 3-4mill and two years I would be happy with that. We would be bumping the cap at that point but a lot will be coming off the books in a few years anyways, and this would give us a bona-fide second liner who plays a 200 foot game. He would also add a lot of veteran skill to our top nine for the next couple of years until the young guns muscle there way up. I, for one, would welcome a player like him, he is only two years away from almost a point per gamer, and would give our second PP a new look - our first PP has been too predictable for years and when we dominated this stat one was off, the other was working. You mean Juri Hudler, who played with the Flames? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 49 minutes ago, Alflives said: You mean Juri Hudler, who played with the Flames? 76pts in 78 games 2014-2015 in Calgary, injuries slowed him down the last few years making him a possibly affordable asset. Not many players on our current roster have a reasonable chance of scoring 20plus goals and 50pts....and I do think he could inject some much needed skill on our second PP unit. Who do you think we are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleedblue2017 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 6 hours ago, orcasgonewild said: Seems like Canucks are still in on hurdler and gagne. I think if the Canucks can sign them to reasonable contracts id be all for it. Let's say hudler 2 years for 1.5-2 million per season and gagne 2 years 1.5 million per season. Or we could just give them one year "show me" type of contract or professional tryout deals. sedins eriksson hudler sutter Rodin baertschi horvat Hansen gagne granlund etem burrows/Dorset No to both, they are just more of the same type of player that we already have. We have plenty of young guys that fill the same roll, Hudler and Gagne would be a waste of money and lets not mention they would take away a roster spot from someone like Gaunce or Granlund, why? just why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I don't think we'd want Gagne, and now he is signed anyway. Yes, he would have used up a spot we needed for a younger player. I don't agree about Hudler though. I wasn't sold on him either, and am still not. Benning believes we need a strong winger for the 2nd line, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, we don't have the assets available to give up to gain such a player via trade without being detrimental to another part of the team. (Namely, defense). We simply are not in a position to gain a player with such attributes. This is a guy who scored at a point a game pace only a year prior to last, and after reading an article currently on TSN about his 5 on 5 play and how he tends to make players around him better, I can see him as a good addition for a shorter contract. He can also play both wings, which makes him pretty versatile. Being that he hasn't been signed yet and his reduced play (injuries?) last season, he could potentially be had for a discount. I say we sign him for 2 years, 2.5 million. At that kind of price, it is a pretty low risk, high reward scenario. Sedin Sedin Eriksson Hudler Sutter Rodin Baertschi Horvat Hansen Burrows Gaunce Dorsett Etem. Virtanen? I actually think Horvat will end up our #2 by end of season. Besides, WD doesn't seem to like playing Horvat and Baertschi together for some reason. Hudler could be potentially lethal with the Sedins, leaving Eriksson for 2nd line.. even though I envision him with the Sedins. In short, line combinations are entirely interchangeable. This gives us an abundance of scoring potential throughout the entire top three lines, and a hard working fourth line that should put up lesser points of their own. Is this a cup winning forward lineup? Probably not. But it is a strong lineup, and combined with our solid goaltending and better defense I am 99.5% confident it would be enough to at least get us into the playoffs and win a round or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Nirvanagut Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Gagner* x 10. Misspellings irk me and etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.