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

[Report] Anthony Duclair requests trade


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you.

I just don't see a veteran guy like LE waiving his NMC which he's worked his entire career to earn, to move himself and his family to that unstable (and that's putting it politely) joke of a franchise which can barely keep afloat on the ice let alone off the ice.  Now if someone said LE to Dal (or some other competitive club with some long-term upside and record of success) then I might think that's plausible - but AZ, come on now.....

Go from bottom 5 team in middle of rebuild living in a rain forest to bottom 5 team in middle of rebuild in sunny Phoenix Arizona? I think he would.  But Canucks would have to retain 50% of his salary therefore I don't see it happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yotes said:

Granlund not being used in a scoring role like last year, would you move him?

 

We do need to try and get another LW with some decent scoring upside as Daniel is all but done this year or maybe next. Duclair is nhl ready, Goldobin is darn close I think he deserves more ice to work through his defensive woes. 

 

I wouldn't move him for Duclair simply because Granlund is more of a utility player that can be slotted in any situation. He doesn't shy away from the physical game either. His goal production isn't as great as last season because he isn't getting the same minutes, but he looked brilliant on a checking line with Sutter and Dorsett. I personally think that would be more valuable than a struggling forward asking to be traded.

 

I hope we can sign Granlund to a Jarnkrok type deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duclair for Hutton is the only trade that makes sense. Vancouver doesn’t want to trade picks or prospects. Both Duclair and Hutton are 3rd year players who showed a lot of promise as rookies and are now looking like they might not stick around in the league much longer as they age. That said both are young and a change of scenery could help them find their games again as both players still have potential (although at this stage their ceilings look lower than they did a couple years ago).

 

My hesitation is that Vancouver is a bit deeper with young forwards than young defensemen. Would Duclair take opportunity away from Goldobin?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure GM's will kick the tires on him but I'm hoping we don't get him tbh. I'd rather stay the course and graduate some of the prospect depth we've been acquiring. If we make a trade I'd rather it be for some depth grit or an upgrade/project on D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Canucks already have too many undersized forwards and they turfed McCann for attitude and griping about ice time. This could only work as a multiplayer deal with Arizona taking one of our small forwards and they include a mid tier prospect with size or possibly a three way deal but those are rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rekker said:

Never understood the fuss about this guy. Pad your stats against weak teams kind of player. He is one step above waiver fodder.

I'll have to agree with this. He's a bit of a borderline project, which is why I think Goldobin (who I believe is in a similar point in his career) is the only player I would consider moving for him. And this is only because I think Duclair could still play a middle 6 role if he doesn't pan out, whereas Goldobin is top 6 or bust and we have incoming top 6 players that should arrive in the very near future.

 

I am shocked that some want to give up Baertschi or Granlund for him. Baertschi is coming off career years and only looked to still be improving before the injury. Granlund provides much more than just offense and hes just coming a year where he could've matched Duclair's best season so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'd be ok with moving some of our W depth for a young C but yes, primarily D should be our focus. 

 

Kane should be that LW'er this summer :P

You think we need a young C?  Assuming that Pettersson will be our 1st line c, Horvat our 2nd, Sutter our 3rd and Dowd/Gaunce our 4th, I don't really see the need for that.

Now, if you are suggesting that perhaps we look for an elite-capable center and then move Pettersson to the wing then I could see the argument there.  But if Pettersson is capable at C as he appears to be then perhaps it is best to leave him there and look for that elite lw instead which should come cheaper.  And it is *possible* we already have such a player in Goldobin or Dahlen.  I think I'd prefer for the focus to be the d (which we both agree) and see if that lw situation will be able to sort itself out via player development.  If not, it can be addressed later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, missioncanucksfan said:

I would trade either Baertschi or Granlund

What is this need for everyone to trade Baertschi or deem him as expendable?  I've never been huge on the guy just because everyone (myself included) was hoping him to be a 1st line winger.  But as a 2nd line winger I think he is just fine.  He's improved his defensive game, has chemistry with Horvat, and was on pace for 50 points this season.  I see him maxing out at around 60 points which is perfectly good for a 2nd liner.  It wouldn't hurt to have more grit in that position, but other than they I'm pretty comfortable with him sticking with us.  


If our prospects develop as I feel they will, it is possible we might be able to utilize one of them in the 2nd lw position.  If that is the case, I could see getting rid of Baertschi as part of a package to improve the offensive ability of our blueline.  Other than that, I really have little interest in getting rid of him.

 

Granlund, on the other hand, maybe - but his stock is pretty low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I wouldn't move him for Duclair simply because Granlund is more of a utility player that can be slotted in any situation. He doesn't shy away from the physical game either. His goal production isn't as great as last season because he isn't getting the same minutes, but he looked brilliant on a checking line with Sutter and Dorsett. I personally think that would be more valuable than a struggling forward asking to be traded.

 

I hope we can sign Granlund to a Jarnkrok type deal.

I agree I would like to see Granlund get that type of deal here too. Just not sure why Green hasnt given Granny more opportunity to be more offensive like last year. I realize he is on the top PP now but seems to have less opportunity even with all the major injuries we have now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

That's one horribly underachieving blueline. Why Arizona still has a team is beyond me. 

How Chayka is still GM is beyond me.  Not a surprise to many of us, there's clearly way more to building a competitive hockey team than analytics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kloubek said:

You think we need a young C?  Assuming that Pettersson will be our 1st line c, Horvat our 2nd, Sutter our 3rd and Dowd/Gaunce our 4th, I don't really see the need for that.

Now, if you are suggesting that perhaps we look for an elite-capable center and then move Pettersson to the wing then I could see the argument there.  But if Pettersson is capable at C as he appears to be then perhaps it is best to leave him there and look for that elite lw instead which should come cheaper.  And it is *possible* we already have such a player in Goldobin or Dahlen.  I think I'd prefer for the focus to be the d (which we both agree) and see if that lw situation will be able to sort itself out via player development.  If not, it can be addressed later.

Right now we're pretty much banking on everyone to work out. I'd prefer some insurance 'just in case'. 

 

'Worst' case, they all work out and one guy moves to W (and can occasionally take draws) or someone gets moved to fill another hole (likely D). And C's tend to have more value to return a higher profile D than W'ers do.

 

So yeah, I'd love another young C (who would probably help our current situation with Sutter and Horvat out as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

How Chayka is still GM is beyond me.  Not a surprise to many of us, there's clearly way more to building a competitive hockey team than analytics. 

Definitely more to it. Experience, knowledge of the game, an eye for player chemistry.

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...