[Rumour] Hawks interested in Canucks D Michael Del Zotto

[Rush17]

Happy to hear it.  Not a fan of moving him but.. hey... we got Edler, Hutton, and Juolevi on the way. with Holm trying to break in.  Can Hutton handle the role MDZ has got? I do not think so.  Would it be a mistake to move MDZ?  It may be but at the end of the day.. not moving him might be the biggest mistake if the right offer is there.  I have loved MDZ game and I wanted us to take a run at him when he was at a all time low a year or 2 ago.  But if the deal is right.  I'm not going to complain. all options on the table.

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

So you reply that I have forgotten how he carried the D early on... while actually including a quote from me actually saying he had done that?

Yeah not sure where he has struggled like a #5-6 guy. He has been quite steady considering all of the injuries to the back end this year. For a veteran 27 yr old making 3 million? I think he is doing ok.

[PhillipBlunt]

14 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said:

I’m sure Gudbranson is interested in signing but at an asking price that is gonna be too high for what he brings.

I'm thinking if Gudbranson is interested in staying here, a deal that works for all sides could be worked out.

Quote

Tanev will be out of his prime by the time our Canucks are ready to actually compete for a cup.

Just curious, what would your timeline be for that?

Quote

Yeah our d might be decimated it may even turn our bottom 3 team into a bottom 2 team. However we’d be getting a premium for our players while their values are at their highest.

While I agree that players are best traded when their value on the trade market is high, one shouldn't completely weaken the team to the point where it's a perennial tanker just to compile draft picks. That kills the culture in the team, and doesn't really breed an atmosphere where players like Boeser and the like would consider re-signing once their initial contracts are up.

Quote

Also I’m not saying keep Del Zotto cuz he djs he’s continually in the top minutes for our dmen and he’s a good locker room guy.

I know.

[The Lock]

5 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I'd love to see your 20 in an NHL game....

This would be me on a good day! 

[Rush17]

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

"Heard this AM"......from whom?

You have to think that a credible source qualifies where their rumour is originating.

Being a Chicago hockeybuzzz reporter doesn't really gain a person "I heard" credibility.

 

In any event, did the Hawks inquire? 

Might make sense - Keith, Oesterle, Murphy, Seabrook, Forsling, Ruuta, (Roszival).....

Lost TVR to ED, maybe not comfortable with the extent to which a few of their young D are stepping up.  Right on the edge of the playoff race.

They're not typically shy about acquiring veterans to bolster their chances - MDZ could fill a role like Oduya did for them.

 

But this rumour implies only that Chicago inquired.

I think a lot of the equation would have to come down to MDZ's perspective on the matter.

He just signed here months ago...not a one year term.  So if he wants to go to Chicago, I think you entertain it.  If he doesn't, I'm not sure it's a good idea to turn around and flip free agents months into a multi-year term.

The Canucks might feel able to afford to move one of their LH veterans though....and face so real uphill sledding if they hope to make the playoffs this year (probably reasonable to entertain selling at this point) so it could make for natural trade partners.  Does Chicago make this worthwhile?  With MDZ having term remaining, you'd think there'd have to be enough incentive.

I agree.  but If I ask myself.. who would I rather have here 4 years down the road with a young Juolevi running the top pair? MDZ or Edler?  I'm taking Edler.  But in reality there is a very good chance they likely both will be moved on by then with the likes of breezer and juolevi down below.  with the off chance one sauntner, mceneny, neill, or olson make the jump.  I'd give breezer a 50% chance of making the nhl. Juolevi is 100% no question.  So that is 2 lefties + if hutton is part of the nucleus.  We have our 3 LHD. but as we all know. a lot can change in 4 years and I wouldn't be surprised if we only had 1 of Hutton, Juolevi, and Breezer on our d pairing come then.  (not including tryamkin who I believe will be back in full force.)

[86Viking]

10 minutes ago, chon derry said:

MDZ  signed as a UFA   JB signed him , that usually means he wantS to play here!. and canuck brass wanted him here , hence the contract , its been mentioned already, how would that look signing a guy , only to trade him 5/8 the way thru his first season, ya  I'm pretty sure that's NOT the way to attract other UFA'S.

Well we did sign him before Pouliot was here. Holm seems to be worthy of a shot at some NHL time as a #7/8 D.

 

People read to much into this contract and then trading crap. For 1 this is MDZ hes been around the league. 2- If a better team wants to acquire him and it brings a rebuilding team like ours back something for the future, you move him. 3- He signed a 2 yr deal, if he was a sought after player and he had 5-7yrs of term I could understand what you mean. But MDZ or Gagne being moved with a year or 2 still on their deal is not an issue. They were transitional signings. They got paid well, future FA's go where the $ is usually & we rarely get the higher end player so I am not concerned if we were to move MDZ this year

[Rush17]

4 hours ago, Dixon Ward said:

MDZ and Vanek for Jokiharju and Chicago's 2018 2nd.  

 

Chicago's core is expensive and getting older.  They need experienced dmen to replace Hjalmarson and strong veteran scoring to replace Hossa.  Vanek would be the 2nd leading scorer on their team right now and would work well with Toews.  Plus both salaries are not too high and could work.

 

We need to add to our Defensive prospect depth and he is a good one.  He and Juolevi would work well together in a couple of years.

 

This would immediately make it so that GMJB could take a defenseman in the 1st round and the cupboards would be full.  We could easily replace MDZ next year with another free agent.

 

Juolevi

Jokiharju

1st Round Pick

Tryamkin

Stecher

Hutton

Brisebois

 

 

That starts to look pretty good.  

 

If Jim can then turn Edler into a late 1st round pick, we could have a hell of a draft with 2 1sts and 2 2nds

Is Jokiharju a lefty or righty? I forget already.  (They were 1 hell of a pair in the wjc)

[Attila Umbrus]

Okay so i'll wade into this lol. I do like the idea of Seabrook as a solid 2nd pair veteran RD. Yes he's ageing but I think he's D is still solid. Would the Hawks be interested in say...

 

-Tanev

-Del Zotto

-Vanek

-3rd round pick in this years draft (assuming it's the Trade dead line and we're out of playoff contention, therefore a high 3rd pick is close to a 2nd round pick)

 

for:

 

-Rights to Sikura

-Seabrook (makes up for loss of Tanev), full salary taken on by Canucks

-Hartman or Hayden 

-1st round pick   OR   2nd & 3rd round pics in this years draft (basically compensation for taking on Seabrooks full contract and cap)

 

The trade works out cap wise, but of course you can't know for sure since we don't know player bonuses. Or at least I don't. Doing this trade would allow us to trade Gudbranson as well if he's not going to re-sign, at least we have Seabrook for 5 years, who's no slouch to replace our toughness, plus we gain more offense from the right side as he does have a wicked shot. The sting is Seabrooks 5 years left after this season at 6.875 Mil cap, but that being said we have lots of cap room, to sign our other young talent coming up. Since the Sedins, and Edlers contracts will be up. The cap is going up again, but you can never count on that. But it does seem to fit financially. 

 

Anyways, I never post trade ideas because it's a crap shoot, but thought i'd join in for once. Flame away lol.

[The Lock]

I don't really know what I think of trading MDZ. On one hand, I'm not expecting us to be a good team during his contract, plus we have a bottleneck and we could get good value for him likely.

 

On the other hand, he might be good to keep around as leadership and would be helpful if and when we do become a better team.

 

I guess if the return's good enough then go for it, but if not then keep him. (as generic a statement as that may sound)

[Rush17]

5 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

I agree.  but If I ask myself.. who would I rather have here 4 years down the road with a young Juolevi running the top pair? MDZ or Edler?  I'm taking Edler.  But in reality there is a very good chance they likely both will be moved on by then with the likes of breezer and juolevi down below.  with the off chance one sauntner, mceneny, neill, or olson make the jump.  I'd give breezer a 50% chance of making the nhl. Juolevi is 100% no question.  So that is 2 lefties + if hutton is part of the nucleus.  We have our 3 LHD. but as we all know. a lot can change in 4 years and I wouldn't be surprised if we only had 1 of Hutton, Juolevi, and Breezer on our d pairing come then.  (not including tryamkin who I believe will be back in full force.)

How can I forget about "POULIOT"!!!! lol what is wrong with me.  :D

 

Juolevi, Pouliot, Hutton, Breezer.

[PhillipBlunt]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

This would be me on a good day! 

I wouldn't even make it to the box.

[Rush17]

1 hour ago, GarthButcher5 said:

With the uncertainty of the Luongo cap recapture thing looming down the road, no way should the Canucks look to take ona contract like this.

 

I really like Henri Jokiharju though. I would have loved to see Vancouver draft him in the second round last year if he were there but Chicago took him and instead GMJB was able to make another great pick.   

When does Loui's deal end again?  if he retires early its on there for even longer right?  X_X  (Loui as in Loungo; not eriksson.  should make that distinction)

[86Viking]

3 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

Okay so i'll wade into this lol. I do like the idea of Seabrook as a solid 2nd pair veteran RD. Yes he's ageing but I think he's D is still solid. Would the Hawks be interested in say...

 

-Tanev

-Del Zotto

-Vanek

-3rd round pick in this years draft (assuming it's the Trade dead line and we're out of playoff contention, therefore a high 3rd pick is close to a 2nd round pick)

 

for:

 

-Rights to Sikura

-Seabrook (makes up for loss of Tanev), full salary taken on by Canucks

-Hartman or Hayden 

-1st round pick   OR   2nd & 3rd round pics in this years draft (basically compensation for taking on Seabrooks full contract and cap)

 

The trade works out cap wise, but of course you can't know for sure since we don't know player bonuses. Or at least I don't. Doing this trade would allow us to trade Gudbranson as well if he's not going to re-sign, at least we have Seabrook for 5 years, who's no slouch to replace our toughness, plus we gain more offense from the right side as he does have a wicked shot. The sting is Seabrooks 5 years left after this season at 6.875 Mil cap, but that being said we have lots of cap room, to sign our other young talent coming up. Since the Sedins, and Edlers contracts will be up. The cap is going up again, but you can never count on that. But it does seem to fit financially. 

 

Anyways, I never post trade ideas because it's a crap shoot, but thought i'd join in for once. Flame away lol.

If we re sign Guddy then maybe you move tanev, but no way we move him in this deal without that. Personally I only do a deal if we can lose Eriksson. Seabrook is to add to Tanev and help our D out.

 

Tanev and Seabrook is 2 good top 4 d on the right side.

[skolozsy2]

14 minutes ago, Yotes said:

Sounds like Virtanen, except Hartman has been more consistant at showing up than him. Although Jake hasn't had the longest look with good players to see if he could be more consistant

Vancouver would benefit from getting either Hayden or Hartman, both are young, talented, physical, and quick.  But if I was a Canucks fan, I would prefer Hayden....the kid does not have an "off" switch.  Super high motor and unbelievable work ethic...he just needs more poise and polishing.

 

Hayden went right from Yale to the Blackhawks, he never got a chance to refine his game in the "A".  He'll be getting top minutes in Rockford to hopefully develop some scoring touch.

[Rush17]

53 minutes ago, Yotes said:

Seabrook would be a good veteran presence to end out his career here. But Chicago has to do a few things for this to possibly happen:

 

1- Get Seabrook to waive his NMC for a rebuilding team (yes he is a BC baby, lives in Westbank in off season)

2- Take Eriksson back full cap hit

3- retain some salary( this can vary depending on what they add to sweeten the pot)

4- Entice the Canucks with a good prospect & solid pick

 

If the Hawks meet the above requirements, and we end up moving Gudbranson I would be okay with Seabrook here for 5-5.5m. A virtual swap of Eriksson but we take on a few extra years of contract vs Eriksson.

 

What I could see:

 

Eriksson 6m

Gudbranson 3.5m

 

for

 

Seabrook 5.875m (Chi retains 1m)

Bouma 1m ( cap related move only if they need to send salary back)

1st round pick 2018 or Jokihara

John Hayden- Depth young guy for us who is versatile W/C

Ville Pokka- RHD finnish prospect

 

The point people on CDC need to consider is: Canucks are going to lose the Sedins sooner than later. We need to try and build up a quality D, and not let Demko get shellacked when he makes the jump to the NHL. Seabrook would bring a ton to the Canucks, I am not saying go push to get him, but if Chicago actually wanted to move him and they do something like what I wrote above got to consider it.

 

Seabrook is somewhat tradeable the last 2 years of his deal. Goes from NMC to M-NTC. His salary is lower than his cap hit also. That would be his 38 & 39 yr old seasons.

 

 

I love your valuation here. I'm not sure if our parts are worth the sum of their parts though.  Man that would be 1 hell of a deal though.  Imagine... Eriksson would probably light it up and Chicago would go on to win another 2 cups. X_X

[86Viking]

1 minute ago, skolozsy2 said:

Vancouver would benefit from getting either Hayden or Hartman, both are young, talented, physical, and quick.  But if I was a Canucks fan, I would prefer Hayden....the kid does not have an "off" switch.  Super high motor and unbelievable work ethic...he just needs more poise and polishing.

 

Hayden went right from Yale to the Blackhawks, he never got a chance to refine his game in the "A".  He'll be getting top minutes in Rockford to hopefully develop some scoring touch.

We could sure use that with the loss of Dorsett that is for sure! It is too bad Virtanen does not play that way all the time, I would think it would help his confidence and get him involved in the game more even if he doesnt have the puck on his stick. But he is still learning I guess, maybe he will get it maybe he wont. If he doesnt it will only be a matter of time before fans and management get discouraged by him not putting it together and he gets traded at some point

[SilentSam]

Let’s be careful we don’t run the way of the Oilers and put so much emphasis on more picks/prospects to turn this team  out of the corner we’re in.

When a Defensive core is made up of basically 6-7 players, it’s easy to think that the Stetchers, Huttons, Joulevi’s, Pouliotte’s, and Mceneny’s can save us.

Not including our so called 1-2 D men Tanev and Edler. 

You have to appreciate what DelZotto, Gudbranson, Biegga bring to balance the act.

[Isam]

6 minutes ago, Yotes said:

If we re sign Guddy then maybe you move tanev, but no way we move him in this deal without that. Personally I only do a deal if we can lose Eriksson. Seabrook is to add to Tanev and help our D out.

 

Tanev and Seabrook is 2 good top 4 d on the right side.

No way they're going to take errikson back. 

[Attila Umbrus]

7 minutes ago, Yotes said:

If we re sign Guddy then maybe you move tanev, but no way we move him in this deal without that. Personally I only do a deal if we can lose Eriksson. Seabrook is to add to Tanev and help our D out.

 

Tanev and Seabrook is 2 good top 4 d on the right side.

For sure, I don't want to loose Guddy, it was more if he doesn't sign we gotta trade him. I think Seabrook can make up for the loss of Tanev defensively, but not entirely as he's nowhere near as mobile as Tanev, but he is sound defensively, just plays the game different than Tanev. He also will make up for but not entirely, the loss of toughness from Gudbranson if we do have to trade him. The part he brings all himself is the offensive side of the game, he has a cannon of a shot, and can use it.

[EdgarM]

2 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Let’s be careful we don’t run the way of the Oilers and put so much emphasis on more picks/prospects to turn this team  out of the corner we’re in.

When a Defensive core is made up of basically 6-7 players, it’s easy to think that the Stetchers, Huttons, Joulevi’s, Pouliotte’s, and Mceneny’s can save us.

Not including our so called 1-2 D men Tanev and Edler. 

You have to appreciate what DelZotto, Gudbranson, Biegga bring to balance the act.

Amen brother thanks for bringing some sanity to this conversation. I think some posters really, really i mean REALLY like their minor league players for some reason. Its like you have a nice shiny coin but you want to throw it away so you can find another one. It makes no sense to me at all.