stawns Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: I think Granlund gets exposed regardless. There is no point trading a D for a player they're not going to protect. So if they trade Tanev for a top 6 LW, they will also be exposing another forward, probably Baertschi. Unless we're taking draft picks but other teams are going to want to move players who they think they would otherwise lose as well. The point of the exercise is that Benning may make such a deal if he thinks the likelihood of Vegas taking a forward from the Canucks is small or the player they are getting in return is much better than the potential loss. Have I got this right? 7 forwards protected would be: Sedin, Sedin, Eriksson, Hansen, Sutter, Horvat, Baertschi Exposing: Granlund, Burrows, Gaunce, Dorsett..... 3 D protected would be: Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson Exposing: Sbisa and Biega on a rebuilding team, why would you lose an up and coming dman(men) who are the same level as edler and getting better as opposed to declining with only a few years left in his career. That makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOgRook Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 13 hours ago, canuktravella said: we might catch oilers if we keep getting points every game megna for hart ehh willie As much fun as you guys have ragging on him, he played hard last night.. Guess you need a whipping boy right? Whatever makes you sleep at night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: Yup he's still defensively a top 4 on most teams, 2 on some. He eats minutes, and does his job well. He doesn't hit much anymore tho. His offence has declined but he also makes it possible for a less D-minded partner to make offensive plays. His cap hit is actually reasonable if you look at the comparable's in the 4.5 to 5.5 mil per range - he's 44th on the D salary list (http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/rankings/cap-hit/defenseman/). Thats not really the correct way to look at it on expansion imo - we can't automatically protect a F regardless of what we do with D. You're assuming that he's a better quality player than Granny e.g, and Vegas would pick him. So if he's better for Vegas, why isn't he better for us? If I have to pick Sbisa over Edler then thats easy, its Edler. I like what Luca has turned into but Edler is still the better mentor and partner for Stecher. The ideal situation for us is to move Sbisa or leave him exposed, he's probably our best protection over losing Granny or Baer as there will be a lot of other Fs available to Vegas of similar quality. how anyone would choose and aging Edler over a younger, roughly equal level Sbisa is beyond me. I thought the team was rebuilding? The ED is a bell weather moment in the rebuild imo, an important turning point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: I think Granlund gets exposed regardless. There is no point trading a D for a player they're not going to protect. So if they trade Tanev for a top 6 LW, they will also be exposing another forward, probably Baertschi. Unless we're taking draft picks but other teams are going to want to move players who they think they would otherwise lose as well. The point of the exercise is that Benning may make such a deal if he thinks the likelihood of Vegas taking a forward from the Canucks is small or the player they are getting in return is much better than the potential loss. Have I got this right? 7 forwards protected would be: Sedin, Sedin, Eriksson, Hansen, Sutter, Horvat, Baertschi Exposing: Granlund, Burrows, Gaunce, Dorsett..... 3 D protected would be: Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson Exposing: Sbisa and Biega So you're exposing our best dman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeneedLumme Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 hour ago, J.R. said: It may be the stupidest idea I've ever read on CDC. Stupid on COLOSSAL scale. Which is impressive even for CDC. We're all dumber for having read it. Exposing one of our most valuable players to protect less valuable players does seem pretty stupid. But the stupidest idea you've ever read on CDC? You must have even more of the clowns on ignore than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, stawns said: on a rebuilding team, why would you lose an up and coming dman(men) who are the same level as edler and getting better as opposed to declining with only a few years left in his career. That makes no sense to me. I get your point about exposing Edler to shelter the loss of Granlund or Baertschi. It is clever. I'm not so sure they do that though because it assumes that their biggest minute muncher is in decline. They may very well feel that at 30, he has 4 good years ahead of him, maybe more. It's hard to tell. I'm going by Bennings latest interview where he said that moving a defenseman for a forward is a possiblility. But they are going to try to project what the expansion draft will be so they can see if they really are vulnerable to losing a Baertschi or Granlund. The better option may be to dangle a carrot like Edler or Sbisa like you say. Vegas will have a roster of 23 players but will be selecting 30 so there will be plenty of extras for depth in their AHL affiliate or for trade later. Let's say they trade Tanev for a top 6 LW. That means they can protect all the D they need. But it also means that since they will obviously be protecting the new LW, they will expose say, Granlund AND Baertschi. If one of these 2 is selected by Vegas, the effective price of said LW is Tanev + Baertschi. That's a stiff price and Benning had better be very confident that Vegas would be selecting a lesser player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 35 minutes ago, stawns said: I could never be on board with getting rid of Hansen........he's exactly the kind of player you want showing the next gen how to play Don't want to get rid of him, but we are going to lose someone, why not capitalize and gain rather than lose. Hansen makes the package sought after as he is exactly what you want for a TDL player. Gotta give to get. We only lose is we don't get enough back. EW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, apollo said: So you're exposing our best dman? It's obvious. On playing this season it has to be Guddy who gets exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, apollo said: So you're exposing our best dman? Who? Biega? Seriously, I'm just recreating the list I've seen most often as part of an exercise. If you would rather protect Sbisa, you could make an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Just now, alfstonker said: It's obvious. On playing this season it has to be Guddy who gets exposed. Rather trade a defenseman for future assets than lose one for nothing. Tanev is going to get you the most and his NTC doesn't kick in till next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: I get your point about exposing Edler to shelter the loss of Granlund or Baertschi. It is clever. I'm not so sure they do that though because it assumes that their biggest minute muncher is in decline. They may very well feel that at 30, he has 4 good years ahead of him, maybe more. It's hard to tell. I'm going by Bennings latest interview where he said that moving a defenseman for a forward is a possiblility. But they are going to try to project what the expansion draft will be so they can see if they really are vulnerable to losing a Baertschi or Granlund. The better option may be to dangle a carrot like Edler or Sbisa like you say. Vegas will have a roster of 23 players but will be selecting 30 so there will be plenty of extras for depth in their AHL affiliate or for trade later. Let's say they trade Tanev for a top 6 LW. That means they can protect all the D they need. But it also means that since they will obviously be protecting the new LW, they will expose say, Granlund AND Baertschi. If one of these 2 is selected by Vegas, the effective price of said LW is Tanev + Baertschi. That's a stiff price and Benning had better be very confident that Vegas would be selecting a lesser player. It is hard to tell, I agree. The idea is predicated on JB standing pat at the deadline and no one gets moved, which is what I think will happen with the lion's share of teams in the league. GM's are going to be gun shy until the ED, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Would you be allowed to do that this season though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, alfstonker said: It's obvious. On playing this season it has to be Guddy who gets exposed. Benning waited 2 years for the opportunity to pick up a player like Guddy. Do you really think he'd cut bait with him based on a 30 game sample size, much of which, was played with injury? Because if exposed, Guddy would be snapped up in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 26 minutes ago, stawns said: how anyone would choose and aging Edler over a younger, roughly equal level Sbisa is beyond me. I thought the team was rebuilding? The ED is a bell weather moment in the rebuild imo, an important turning point. Really? So pull apart what I put up.... For rebuilding we also need veteran players for the kids to be paired with and learn from. If you don't think so read the article where Bo talks about what he's learned from Henrik. Sbisa is great, but he's not a full season top 4. He's also the only one without a NTC, which makes him the easiest to move. We also need his cap space next season. If he's roughly equal as you say, then that should all be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Crabcakes said: Benning waited 2 years for the opportunity to pick up a player like Guddy. Do you really think he'd cut bait with him based on a 30 game sample size, much of which, was played with injury? Because if exposed, Guddy would be snapped up in a heartbeat. absolutely he would.......plus he moved out a pretty damned good, young player in McCann for him. No way Guddy gets exposed, imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, stawns said: It is hard to tell, I agree. The idea is predicated on JB standing pat at the deadline and no one gets moved, which is what I think will happen with the lion's share of teams in the league. GM's are going to be gun shy until the ED, imo. I honestly think that making deals before the expansion draft will be difficult. For the reason below. Let me quote myself. 13 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: Let's say they trade Tanev for a top 6 LW. That means they can protect all the D they need. But it also means that since they will obviously be protecting the new LW, they will expose say, Granlund AND Baertschi. If one of these 2 is selected by Vegas, the effective price of said LW is Tanev + Baertschi. That's a stiff price and Benning had better be very confident that Vegas would be selecting a lesser player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beni Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: Benning waited 2 years for the opportunity to pick up a player like Guddy. Do you really think he'd cut bait with him based on a 30 game sample size, much of which, was played with injury? Because if exposed, Guddy would be snapped up in a heartbeat. EG is still a UFA after this season. Is he going to re sign here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Just now, beni said: EG is still a UFA after this season. Is he going to re sign here? He's an RFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOgRook Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 6 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Because so often Vancouver as a head coaching graveyard. And illustrates how bad our team was in the 70's and 80's. Could it be due to all the yahoos that call for the coaches head when they don't have a clue what they are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Just now, S'all Good Man said: Really? So pull apart what I put up.... For rebuilding we also need veteran players for the kids to be paired with and learn from. If you don't think so read the article where Bo talks about what he's learned from Henrik. Sbisa is great, but he's not a full season top 4. He's also the only one without a NTC, which makes him the easiest to move. We also need his cap space next season. If he's roughly equal as you say, then that should all be good. I'm not sure what else Sbisa has left to prove? He's been solid since he got to van and has progressed, significantly, every season. He is a legit top 4 dman, now, and will, I think, be a top 3 dman for this franchise for the next 4 years, then another 3-4 as a top 4, and possibly even another 2-3 as a bottom 6 guy. With his back, Edler has, maybe 2-3 years left in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.