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

[Discussion/Rumour] Bob McKenzie notes the Canucks could be looking at moving Hutton for a Top 6 F


thejazz97

Recommended Posts

On 2/24/2017 at 1:44 PM, alfstonker said:

I hope you're right.

I keep coming back to what I said about Gudy. Maybe Florida DID know more about him than we do. Ok he fights but I want good defence and a high skill level from our D.

 

Hutton has that but it's too early imo to say we have it in Gudy.

 

 

Guddy is going to be just fine, he's still young and has all the tools to be a good top 4 d-man and we need a tough mean North american style player on our blue line with true leadership skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2017 at 2:03 PM, westcoast said:

Sbisa,Edler,Tanev can go.

Gud,Tram are tough,Stecher,Hutton,Juolevi are offensive.Good mix and young, Hutton should go nowhere.

Move one of Hutton, Tanev or Edler, it doesn't matter which one.......whoever gives us the best return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pears said:

You can expose players with NTCs, but what's the sense in exposing Edler when we can get a good return for him?

They're going to lose someone for nothing, I'd rather it be Edler than Granny.  I highly doubt anyone is going to give up much for Edler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pears said:

You can expose players with NTCs, but what's the sense in exposing Edler when we can get a good return for him?

exactly so hopefully we are getting a couple calls on Edler and saying hey we have this offer from X playoff team. Waive or risk getting chosen by the expansion Vegas Golden Nights.

 

I would waive instead of going to a bottom feeder...although thats what we will be also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, stawns said:

They're going to lose someone for nothing, I'd rather it be Edler than Granny.  I highly doubt anyone is going to give up much for Edler.

So you'd rather lose the more valuable player for nothing? I'm glad you're not making decisions for this team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pears said:

So you'd rather lose the more valuable player for nothing? I'm glad you're not making decisions for this team. 

I would rather give up a player with a wonky back who is within sight of the end of his career and is from a position of depth (defense) than a young fwd who contributes at both ends of the ice, yes, and has a good 5-6 years of solid production ahead of him.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't hAve an issue with Edler, but it's about the future, not the present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

They're going to lose someone for nothing, I'd rather it be Edler than Granny.  I highly doubt anyone is going to give up much for Edler.

Interesting...I think I agree. Granlund is on a good contract. Edler has the less desirable contract of the 2 and is much older. So the chances of us replacing Edler's value with the same cap space is higher. 

 

I wonder what a guy like Karl Alzner would command in free agency? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stawns said:

They might Edler exposed and LV might take him over Granlund.  We'll have a better idea of their ED strategy by Wednesday.

Hahaha.  

There is zero chance they expose Edler.  

There is only a small amount of people who think Edler is garbage.  Those people are stupid.  

Most people know that Edler is our best Dman, and would be able to get a large return if traded.  

You don't give that away for free.  

That would be an idiot move that only a few CDC clowns would approve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

Hahaha.  

There is zero chance they expose Edler.  

There is only a small amount of people who think Edler is garbage.  Those people are stupid.  

Most people know that Edler is our best Dman, and would be able to get a large return if traded.  

You don't give that away for free.  

That would be an idiot move that only a few CDC clowns would approve. 

Why would exposing him mean I think he's garbage? Because he is a good dman is exactly why I would expose him........there's a good chance they would pick him over a fwd.  This team is deep on defense and they could absorb the loss of Edler more than they could one of Hansen, Granlund or Baer.

 

I'm not sure why youd sacrifice a young fwd, which are in very very short supply in Van, over a dman at the last phase of his career and has had injury history. 

 

I'm sure there are trade scenarios that would change anything, but I don't see much of a market for guys who need protection, so I am assuming that those players don't get moved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, stawns said:

Why would exposing him mean I think he's garbage? Because he is a good dman is exactly why I would expose him........there's a good chance they would pick him over a fwd.  This team is deep on defense and they could absorb the loss of Edler more than they could one of Hansen, Granlund or Baer.

 

I'm not sure why youd sacrifice a young fwd, which are in very very short supply in Van, over a dman at the last phase of his career and has had injury history. 

 

I'm sure there are trade scenarios that would change anything, but I don't see much of a market for guys who need protection, so I am assuming that those players don't get moved. 

I see your reasoning, but I think that is the total wrong move. 

I haven't put any thought into the expansion draft and who I would leave exposed, but Edler wouldn't be on that list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

I see your reasoning, but I think that is the total wrong move. 

I haven't put any thought into the expansion draft and who I would leave exposed, but Edler wouldn't be on that list. 

So why would you choose to protect Edler over younger guys in the middle of a rebuild?  That's genuine curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would it be good if Edler wouldn't budge waving his NTC in near future?   Therefore, exposing him to retain most of our young assets and also retain the most important asset on this team, defense and even if Vegas doesn't take Edler, it's still a win-win situation.   Vegas would rather to take one of Gud or Sibsa so I say, expose Edler and force Vegas to make a decision, draft one of our exposed forward or Edler.   .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, stawns said:

So why would you choose to protect Edler over younger guys in the middle of a rebuild?  That's genuine curiosity.

Similar argument for Vegas - initial indication is that they will be going young.  Foley explained that they did not pursue Julien because their projected timeline to be competitive is 5-6 years.  It's unlikely that they would pick players towards the second half of their careers over younger players who will grow with the organisation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mll said:

Similar argument for Vegas - initial indication is that they will be going young.  Foley explained that they did not pursue Julien because their projected timeline to be competitive is 5-6 years.  It's unlikely that they would pick players towards the second half of their careers over younger players who will grow with the organisation.  

 

That is a very good insight and I don't disagree, but there is also the factor of wanting to develop and keep a fan base and that might motivate them to pick a couple guys that can help them be at least somewhat competitive now as well. If they already were able to select a bunch of Baer/Gran/Hansen type guys on other teams, I would definitely be taking an Edler type from the Canucks. 

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...