Please be SELLERS at the deadline

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Doesn't "promising futures" imply giving up either young players or picks?  Should we be doing that?  

Probably not, but there is the infamous "Torts pick" that could be offered. Any more than that and I'd expose Baer and Gaunce, or maybe its where Jordan Subban becomes valuable to us. 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I guess I just see rebuilding through the draft (JB's stated philosophy) as collecting picks.  Plus, I would protect Hansen over Baer.  

Not sure if you're 'trolling' or simply wedded to that one-liner 'logic' of yours.  I don't see a lot of potential progress in a conversation with you to be honest - you tend to remain fixed in this mode, but I'm going to answer if for the sake of the larger conversation.

 

That's not JB's stated philosophy - you're grossly oversimplifying it.  Anyone who has paid a second day's worth of attention to what this team has done over the past couple years wouldn't attempt to peddle that.

 

Any team needs to build through the draft - that however is only part of the equation - which should be self-evident -  the other parts are the markets - the trade and free agent market.

 

How stupid would it be for this franchise to pass on Burrows, Tanev, and Stecher because they're too dumb to see beyond "building through the draft" and take advantage of other opportunities? 

 

The answer to that is REAL STUPID - just as it would have been really stupid to pass on opportunities to acquire guys like Granlund, Sutter, etc.

 

And regardless, building through the draft is not reducible to "collecting picks".

 

In the end it is the quality of your picks that matters most - quantities of poor picks gets you absolutely nowhere.

 

It's about creating enough depth of youth in your franchise to have youth pushing for the few opening spots on your roster.  This team has reached that point with it's goaltending and it's blueline and has made serious headway with it's forward group.    It doesn't need a dozen forward additions- it needs a few.

 

In addition, selling a player like Hansen in a buyer's market isn't necessarily a genius thing.  It's possible that Hansen's value could be reduced by as much as a 2nd round pick in context simply by virtue of the expansion draft.  A player like him who sits right in that pocket around the protection threshold is exactly the kind of asset you stand to lose on.  The 'wisdom' in attempting to dump assets in that context might not be as bright as all those salespeople on these boards think.   Assets like Hansen will be devalued, assets like picks over-valued in this context.   I'd happily part with a 2nd in a heartbeat to retain Hansen.  He will likely retain as much or more value than you'd concede in a seller's market.  Don't necessarily expect people to think things out - but I do expect that of management - and that's why I can't take most of your one-liners seriously.

 

Your one-step / one-liner logic might apply if you were talking about spending an asset to retain a player like Burrows, Miller or the Sedins - but a 30 yr old cap steal like Hansen with years of high utility left in him - people who think that's worth less than a 2nd aren't competent to assess asset value - and they're not thinking beyond simple one step logic. 

Not people I'd want on my 'chess'-team wadr - where failure to think more than one step forward is simply not competitive thinking.

 

 

[Angry Goose]

19 hours ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

To be a seller, you'll need to have something you're willing to sell that buyers will want to buy at a decent price. Given all the NTC's and the NMC's and the injuries and the not-so-good team stats (the Canucks have the THIRD-worst team +/- in the league right now) and the unwillingness to include young players or draft picks, not sure we'll get good prices.

hey man common sense is not allowed here

[WeneedLumme]

This expansion draft has lowered the trade value of players in terms of draft picks to probably the lowest value in history. Dumping a lot of players into a market like this would be the opposite of asset management. Anyone who thinks that it's a great idea has clearly not thought the idea through. Being a seller in a buyers market is very unproductive.

[Alflives]

29 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Not sure if you're 'trolling' or simply wedded to that one-liner 'logic' of yours.  I don't see a lot of potential progress in a conversation with you to be honest - you tend to remain fixed in this mode, but I'm going to answer if for the sake of the larger conversation.

 

That's not JB's stated philosophy - you're grossly oversimplifying it.  Anyone who has paid a second day's worth of attention to what this team has done over the past couple years wouldn't attempt to peddle that.

 

Any team needs to build through the draft - that however is only part of the equation - which should be self-evident -  the other parts are the markets - the trade and free agent market.

 

How stupid would it be for this franchise to pass on Burrows, Tanev, and Stecher because they're too dumb to see beyond "building through the draft" and take advantage of other opportunities? 

 

The answer to that is REAL STUPID - just as it would have been really stupid to pass on opportunities to acquire guys like Granlund, Sutter, etc.

 

And regardless, building through the draft is not reducible to "collecting picks".

 

In the end it is the quality of your picks that matters most - quantities of poor picks gets you absolutely nowhere.

 

It's about creating enough depth of youth in your franchise to have youth pushing for the few opening spots on your roster.  This team has reached that point with it's goaltending and it's blueline and has made serious headway with it's forward group.    It doesn't need a dozen forward additions- it needs a few.

 

In addition, selling a player like Hansen in a buyer's market isn't necessarily a genius thing.  It's possible that Hansen's value could be reduced by as much as a 2nd round pick in context simply by virtue of the expansion draft.  A player like him who sits right in that pocket around the protection threshold is exactly the kind of asset you stand to lose on.  The 'wisdom' in attempting to dump assets in that context might not be as bright as all those salespeople on these boards think.   Assets like Hansen will be devalued, assets like picks over-valued in this context.   I'd happily part with a 2nd in a heartbeat to retain Hansen.  He will likely retain as much or more value than you'd concede in a seller's market.  Don't necessarily expect people to think things out - but I do expect that of management - and that's why I can't take most of your one-liners seriously.

 

Your one-step / one-liner logic might apply if you were talking about spending an asset to retain a player like Burrows, Miller or the Sedins - but a 30 yr old cap steal like Hansen with years of high utility left in him - people who think that's worth less than a 2nd aren't competent to assess asset value - and they're not thinking beyond simple one step logic. 

Not people I'd want on my 'chess'-team wadr - where failure to think more than one step forward is simply not competitive thinking.

 

 

I disagree whole heartedly.  I'm not going to write an opine on the matter.  (Yours was a good read btw.)  JB is a draftist, by his own words.  TL also stated they need to build through the draft.  They both said they want more picks.  

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I disagree whole heartedly.  I'm not going to write an opine on the matter. 

certified 

[garthsbutcher]

17 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Teams know that Hansen will be exposed for the expansion draft if not traded...we have absolutely no leverage in that situation as for Edler, D-men that finish -20 rarely fit a need. Teams usually don't shop for defenseman that cough up the puck and create more scoring chances against than for.... if that was the case, Edler could have got us a 1st+ quite a while ago.

Edler and Hansen would get more than a 4th round pick, Hansen may not be exposed and edler is on a $&!#ty team in case you didn't notice. They will not be traded if that's the return.

[Crabcakes]

45 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Not sure if you're 'trolling' or simply wedded to that one-liner 'logic' of yours.  I don't see a lot of potential progress in a conversation with you to be honest - you tend to remain fixed in this mode, but I'm going to answer if for the sake of the larger conversation.

 

That's not JB's stated philosophy - you're grossly oversimplifying it.  Anyone who has paid a second day's worth of attention to what this team has done over the past couple years wouldn't attempt to peddle that.

 

Any team needs to build through the draft - that however is only part of the equation - which should be self-evident -  the other parts are the markets - the trade and free agent market.

 

How stupid would it be for this franchise to pass on Burrows, Tanev, and Stecher because they're too dumb to see beyond "building through the draft" and take advantage of other opportunities? 

 

The answer to that is REAL STUPID - just as it would have been really stupid to pass on opportunities to acquire guys like Granlund, Sutter, etc.

 

And regardless, building through the draft is not reducible to "collecting picks".

 

In the end it is the quality of your picks that matters most - quantities of poor picks gets you absolutely nowhere.

 

It's about creating enough depth of youth in your franchise to have youth pushing for the few opening spots on your roster.  This team has reached that point with it's goaltending and it's blueline and has made serious headway with it's forward group.    It doesn't need a dozen forward additions- it needs a few.

 

In addition, selling a player like Hansen in a buyer's market isn't necessarily a genius thing.  It's possible that Hansen's value could be reduced by as much as a 2nd round pick in context simply by virtue of the expansion draft.  A player like him who sits right in that pocket around the protection threshold is exactly the kind of asset you stand to lose on.  The 'wisdom' in attempting to dump assets in that context might not be as bright as all those salespeople on these boards think.   Assets like Hansen will be devalued, assets like picks over-valued in this context.   I'd happily part with a 2nd in a heartbeat to retain Hansen.  He will likely retain as much or more value than you'd concede in a seller's market.  Don't necessarily expect people to think things out - but I do expect that of management - and that's why I can't take most of your one-liners seriously.

 

Your one-step / one-liner logic might apply if you were talking about spending an asset to retain a player like Burrows, Miller or the Sedins - but a 30 yr old cap steal like Hansen with years of high utility left in him - people who think that's worth less than a 2nd aren't competent to assess asset value - and they're not thinking beyond simple one step logic. 

Not people I'd want on my 'chess'-team wadr - where failure to think more than one step forward is simply not competitive thinking.

 

 

Good post.  Given what you have said, I'm curious to know who you would protect in the expansion draft.

 

Assuming Benning will protect 7 forwards, it comes down to chosing 2 of Hansen, Baertschi or Granlund.

[JamesB]

22 hours ago, DSVII said:

If we don't want to risk losing one of baertschi/granlund we would need to unload Hansen or another forward by TDL. Agreed. We can't sit still.

 

And for those who say NTCs can't be traded we did pretty well with Garrison and Bieksa. It's not impossible 

 

22 hours ago, Toyotasfan said:

Burrows has quite abit of interest already , just google his name and it links him to several teams for trade deadline deals. Miller is definitely a commodity, and Hanson is also a possibility .

 

22 hours ago, Alflives said:

Alf has been calling for tfading away guys at TDLs for three years with JB.  The first two TDLs and JB did nothing, allowing all our UFAs to leave for zero return.  Why should this TDL be any different?  

All true but, like Alf, I have given up hoping. I was hoping to see the Canucks win a Stanley Cup in my lifetime. But that is unlikely to happen with a GM whose objective seems to be to "contend for a playoff spot" and maybe finish 15th or 16th in the league in a good year. That strategy, combined with number of very questionable decisions in other areas (such as Eriksson), makes me quite pessimistic.

 

Yes, Benning has made some good moves. But every GM will make some moves that work out well and some that work out poorly. So you have to look at the overall record.

 

In terms of the overall record, the current team is struggling and the prospect pipeline is no better than average, if that. Considering that Benning came in with a high first round pick available and promptly traded Kesler for a package including a first round pick and traded Garrison for a 2nd round pick, the pipeline should be better at this stage.

 

The Canucks really need a good draft this year but I don't see it happening.

[Crabcakes]

17 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I disagree whole heartedly.  I'm not going to write an opine on the matter.  (Yours was a good read btw.)  JB is a draftist, by his own words.  TL also stated they need to build through the draft.  They both said they want more picks.  

They did say that the real building of this team will be through the draft.  It typically takes 5 years for players to become productive (as opposed to playing) in the NHL so we have seen nothing from Bennings drafting yet.  Nor should we expect to.

 

Tryamkin is playing but he was drafted as an over ager at 20.  Overlooked for 2 drafts.  Ain't that a kick!

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Good post.  Given what you have said, I'm curious to know who you would protect in the expansion draft.

 

Assuming Benning will protect 7 forwards, it comes down to chosing 2 of Hansen, Baertschi or Granlund.

I'd probably start by offering LV our 2nd to take a player like Biega or Pedan in expansion.  Not sure that would be sufficient - but at the same time LV needs to build a minor's system as well as an NHL roster, so multiplying their assets and receiving a serviceable depth NHLer this way might actually appeal to them.

 

Failing that, of those three I'd lean towards exposing Baertschi if I had to choose between the three.  

 

 

 

[oldnews]

9 minutes ago, JamesB said:

I was hoping to see the Canucks win a Stanley Cup in my lifetime. But that is unlikely to happen

 

The Canucks really need a good draft this year but I don't see it happening.

The one thing in life that you have a measure of control over is your perspective.

 

[Crabcakes]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'd probably start by offering LV our 2nd to take a player like Biega or Pedan in expansion.  Not sure that would be sufficient - but at the same time LV needs to build a minor's system as well as an NHL roster, so multiplying their assets and receiving a serviceable depth NHLer this way might actually appeal to them.

 

Failing that, of those three I'd lean towards exposing Baertschi if I had to choose between the three.  

 

 

 

Benning said they're going to try to simulate the expansion draft in order to plan a course of action.  I like all 3 of those players so a creative approach appeals.  I might expose Hansen because of his age fwiw

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, Crabcakes said:

Benning said they're going to try to simulate the expansion draft in order to plan a course of action.  I like all 3 of those players so a creative approach appeals.  I might expose Hansen because of his age fwiw

Another potential option I've proposed (this is repetitive but I'll keep it brief) is to attempt to deal Elder to Tampa for Killorn/2nd - something I think fits right in the wheelhouse of both team's needs - and thereby you'd come out of expansion with 3 of Hansen, Baertschi, Granlund, and Killorn - you'd have steered away from the option of losing a blue liner in expansion, and you'd have added a pick to mitigate the expansion loss - which could also be dangled to LV, perhaps even sweeten a deal (as we'd have 3 x 2nds at that point)_ - maybe at a late round pick to encourage the first option.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

23 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'd probably start by offering LV our 2nd to take a player like Biega or Pedan in expansion.  Not sure that would be sufficient - but at the same time LV needs to build a minor's system as well as an NHL roster, so multiplying their assets and receiving a serviceable depth NHLer this way might actually appeal to them.

 

Failing that, of those three I'd lean towards exposing Baertschi if I had to choose between the three.  

 

 

 

Another beauty from the voice from reason.  I hope people have considered the fact that Vegas doesn't want or need 30 players on the big club, and I'm sure the roster limit kicks in shortly after the expansion draft.  They also don't need 15 picks in this draft, but I expect them to pick up picks for the next three drafts.

[Vanisleryan]

At minimum I think its foolish not to trade Miller and Burrows.  We can re sign both next year and Id applaud that. A side from that some very creative thinking needs to be done with expansion. ...I dont want nothing done and just accept losing one of our new core guys. We are so solid at D right now I sometimes struggle to think who comes out when Gudbranson comes back....and next year guys will push for apots too on D. What Benning has done to our D in such a short time deserves major credit.

 

On the forward side of it. ...I really like the guy....but I think its time to sell high on Hansen. ...Baer and Granny are just developing to nicely to risk losing for nothing.

[appleboy]

People who are suggesting that players will have a low trade value are just blowing smoke up your ***.

I don't think the going rate has been set yet.  Teams who want to make a cup run will not be thinking about the expansion draft.

Deals that are made to try and protect assets are another story and may not be made until the end of the season.

The early bird may get the worm.

 

[Standing_Tall#37]

59 minutes ago, garthsbutcher said:

Edler and Hansen would get more than a 4th round pick, Hansen may not be exposed and edler is on a $&!#ty team in case you didn't notice. They will not be traded if that's the return.

I don't know why so many are mislead about Edler... he's had 2... maybe 3?seasons where he might be considered a top pairing D. There's been just as many where he should be considered 6/7th D. If he's anything more than a top 4 right now... it says a lot bout how $&!#ty the rest of the D are...

[garthsbutcher]

20 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

I don't know why so many are mislead about Edler... he's had 2... maybe 3?seasons where he might be considered a top pairing D. There's been just as many where he should be considered 6/7th D. If he's anything more than a top 4 right now... it says a lot bout how $&!#ty the rest of the D are...

A top 4 D gets more than a 4th or 5th round pick!!

[Standing_Tall#37]

14 minutes ago, garthsbutcher said:

A top 4 D gets more than a 4th or 5th round pick!!

Even ones that can finish a season -20 on the regular?