Neutral Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Simple proposal Sam Gagner 28yrs old- 2 years left 3.15m cap hit for Zack Smith 29yrs old- 3 years left 3.25m cap hit- has 10 team NTC This gives Ottawa a player with some offense, it gives the Canucks a great bottom 6 player who can do it all imo. Smith has seen a dip in his face off & this year to 47%, two previous years he was 52%. Zack Smith: SCOUTING REPORT Assets: Has an excellent frame (6-2, 209 pounds) and the versatility to play both wing and center. Displays two-way instincts and an aggressive streak. Can kill penalties and take key face-offs. Flaws: Is not always confident with the puck. At times, he can struggle to put up good numbers on a consistent basis in the NHL. Is not a great pugilist. Will take bad penalties sometimes. Career Potential: Versatile, big and physical two-way forward. Smith is a year older, has an extra year cap hit of 100k more. But he brings a lot to the table, he is having a down year but has put up decent numbers before: CAREER STATISTICS Use/Embed statistics SEASON TEAM LEAGUE GP G A TP PIM +/- POST GP G A TP PIM +/- 2004-05 Swift Current Legionnaires SMHL 43 15 27 42 83 | Swift Current Broncos WHL 14 1 1 2 0 -4 | 2005-06 Swift Current Broncos WHL 64 2 5 7 78 -5 | Playoffs 3 0 0 0 9 0 2006-07 Swift Current Broncos WHL 71 16 15 31 130 -18 | Playoffs 6 0 2 2 11 -6 2007-08 Swift Current Broncos WHL 72 22 48 70 136 31 | Playoffs 12 5 5 10 29 -1 Manitoba Moose AHL 0 0 0 0 0 | Playoffs 6 0 1 1 0 1 2008-09 Ottawa Senators NHL 1 0 0 0 0 0 | Binghamton Senators AHL 79 24 24 48 132 -4 | 2009-10 Ottawa Senators NHL 15 2 1 3 14 1 | Playoffs 6 0 0 0 5 -4 Binghamton Senators AHL 68 14 27 41 100 -7 | 2010-11 Ottawa Senators NHL 55 4 5 9 120 -11 | Binghamton Senators AHL 22 7 5 12 32 3 | Playoffs 23 8 12 20 36 -5 2011-12 Ottawa Senators NHL 81 14 12 26 98 4 | Playoffs 7 0 1 1 10 -2 2012-13 Frederikshavn White Hawks Denmark 7 4 6 10 18 | Ottawa Senators NHL 48 4 11 15 56 -9 | Playoffs 10 1 1 2 31 -2 2013-14 Ottawa Senators NHL 82 13 9 22 111 -9 | 2014-15 Ottawa Senators NHL 37 2 1 3 18 -8 | Playoffs 3 0 0 0 0 -1 Binghamton Senators AHL 2 1 1 2 2 1 | 2015-16 Ottawa Senators NHL 81 25 11 36 80 16 | 2016-17 Ottawa Senators NHL 74 16 16 32 61 6 | Playoffs 19 1 5 6 12 -5 2017-18 Ottawa Senators NHL 19 1 6 7 11 -13 | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUCKER67 Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 I'm not sure why VAN does this. I would think we'd get more at the TDL for Gagner? Canucks don't need more bottom 6 players, but they could use more draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel_3 Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Replaces your Dorsett type player while still allowing for guys like Goldobin to have more of a role. I don't mind this, OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 I think we'd have to add something to the deal but sure, why not? Ottawa depleted their prospect pool a lot over the last 2 years so we might be able to add a 'b' level prospect to get it done. Maybe Gagner and Breisbois? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think we'd have to add something to the deal but sure, why not? Ottawa depleted their prospect pool a lot over the last 2 years so we might be able to add a 'b' level prospect to get it done. Maybe Gagner and Breisbois? We could throw in Dahlen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Posted December 12, 2017 Author Share Posted December 12, 2017 34 minutes ago, diesel_3 said: Replaces your Dorsett type player while still allowing for guys like Goldobin to have more of a role. I don't mind this, OP. That is my thinking behind it. Smith is a bottom 6 player, versatile and does play with an edge. Gagner is a bottom 6 player who is one dimensional doesnt hit, pr play pk. I think Smith would be a good addition, yes another bottom 6 guy, but he plays that role well, could be a lw option for the Sutter line when players become healthy. Would be a nice addition to our PK too I would think. With the Canucks taking on the additional year and a tad bit higher salary, I do not know if we would have to add anything to make this trade. But it could be expanded to swap a prospect from each team maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuckForReal!!! Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 I would much prefer going after picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 that modified NTC makes me hesitant, but he is exactly the kind of guy that comes up big at big times But I don't think we have to honor that clause when we trade for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 I’d trade Gagme for ——————————- (Insert anything) An effective body check or a player able to stay on his feet after he forechecks would be a huge inprovement.but a don’t see a team in the league (including Vancouver) that needs what sir fallsalot brings which isn’t much. Kinda feel like we are stuck with this one (again), waivers and another vet for utica, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 41 minutes ago, Yotes said: That is my thinking behind it. Smith is a bottom 6 player, versatile and does play with an edge. Gagner is a bottom 6 player who is one dimensional doesnt hit, pr play pk. I think Smith would be a good addition, yes another bottom 6 guy, but he plays that role well, could be a lw option for the Sutter line when players become healthy. Would be a nice addition to our PK too I would think. With the Canucks taking on the additional year and a tad bit higher salary, I do not know if we would have to add anything to make this trade. But it could be expanded to swap a prospect from each team maybe? I'd be on board for this trade, but I don't know about Ott. Zack would look good with Gaunce and Virt or with Sutter and Granny. He looks like a better fit than Gagner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 why would ottawa want gagner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Posted December 12, 2017 Author Share Posted December 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, higgyfan said: I'd be on board for this trade, but I don't know about Ott. Zack would look good with Gaunce and Virt or with Sutter and Granny. He looks like a better fit than Gagner. My thinking was when healthy he would play with Sutter and Granny, seems like a good fit. This of course would push Vanek down though unless he was dealt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, smithers joe said: why would ottawa want gagner? Saves them money which is of some importance to the Sens owner (have no idea how important a factor it could be). "But I don't think we have to honor that clause when we trade for him." I *think* the NTC become void once it gets waived & said player is dealt to that team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Posted December 12, 2017 Author Share Posted December 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, smithers joe said: why would ottawa want gagner? Gives them an offensive minded player. I think since the Turris trade they have been struggling to score. Gagner could play a role on their PP and might be more effective? Basically its a change of scenery for both players and teams. We can see that Gagner is not a fit for us, if we got Smith he would definitely fill a better role on our team. Imagine having Smith playing C where we currently have Dowd. Huge upgrade IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Posted December 12, 2017 Author Share Posted December 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Saves them money which is of some importance to the Sens owner (have no idea how important a factor it could be). "But I don't think we have to honor that clause when we trade for him." I *think* the NTC become void once it gets waived & said player is dealt to that team. I agree it does save OTT a bit of cash and 1 less year of contract. As for NTC going to new team, I am not 100% sure. I know Phaneuf kept his full NTC or NMC when he went to OTT from TOR. But I believe OTT agreed to honour it. A 10 team list though is not that bad, if it was a full NTC and we had to honour then yes bit more skeptical unless they sweeten the pot! I honestly believe this is a good trade for both teams and a guy we could use considering what our bottom 6 looks like now. Come on Benning call up the Sens again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzbottom Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Yotes said: I agree it does save OTT a bit of cash and 1 less year of contract. As for NTC going to new team, I am not 100% sure. I know Phaneuf kept his full NTC or NMC when he went to OTT from TOR. But I believe OTT agreed to honour it. A 10 team list though is not that bad, if it was a full NTC and we had to honour then yes bit more skeptical unless they sweeten the pot! I honestly believe this is a good trade for both teams and a guy we could use considering what our bottom 6 looks like now. Come on Benning call up the Sens again! Yeah I think you're right on that (I vaguely remember something about the acquiring team can choose to continue honoring clause or not (after the waive). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noble 6 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Unless Gagner requests a trade, moving him would be pretty unlikely this year. We just signed him as a UFA and it doesn't look good on Benning to move him so soon. The contract was a mistake, but we're probably going to have to wait until at least next year before we can move him. Other than that, I would absolutely do this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Posted December 13, 2017 Author Share Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, Horvat is a Boss said: Unless Gagner requests a trade, moving him would be pretty unlikely this year. We just signed him as a UFA and it doesn't look good on Benning to move him so soon. The contract was a mistake, but we're probably going to have to wait until at least next year before we can move him. Other than that, I would absolutely do this deal. I do tend to agree a bit with you but at the same time, these guys are professional athletes. We have no way of knowing how they will fit on our team until we have already committed to signing them. Unfortunately we arent like the NFL where their contracts have guaranteed money then usually unrealistic top end max $ if they reach their incentives. They also can be cut or let go anytime. A great way of keeping players hungry and honest imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ryan Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 In a strictly objective view, I like this. I do think we would have to up the ante a little. But...Gaunce just does not look like he is going to pan out, Gagner is so far not working out pretty much at all, and Dowd is a very limited player. Maybe Gagner + Rathbone? He's pretty far down the list, as far as depth goes here. I seriously don't see him cracking the line up anytime soon. Or maybe rights to Zhukenov? Realistically, I doubt it. Gagner has too much term left for what he is offering, and I also agree with @Horvat is a Boss, it would be a bad PR move too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.