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

[Proposal] Vancouver-Calgary/Vancouver-CBJ


kloubek

Recommended Posts

We all know our defense has very little depth of upside players, so I figured we should make some moves to bolster that. We also need grit and size so I tried targeting those kinds of players in these two proposals.

 

I think the best possibility of getting a trade done is to go after teams that appear to be headed to the playoffs, but have overall glaring deficiencies. So I came up with the following general observations:

 

For those who need better defense, The Pens (8th worst in the least), Leafs (12th worst) and Caps (14th worse) seemed to stand out.
For those who need more scoring, Columbus (5th worst in the NHL and Flames (11th worst) stood out the most to me.
 

I then looked to see how much cap space these teams had available to take on contracts which would determine how much salary they can take on in order to trade with us.

What I found was that our easiest trading partners (given the above alone) would likely be Columbus or Calgary.  The former has 5m in cap space, and the latter 2.2m.

Here's what I suggest:
 

To Columbus:
Sven Baertschi
Sam Gagner


To Vancouver:
Gabriel Carlsson - Projects to be a shutdown guy.
Josh Anderson - Power forward potential.  Good showing as a rookie, and has obvious size should he not hit his potential.  At minimum should be the kind of 3rd liner any team would want - but may very well have top 6 potential.


Why Vancouver does this:
Carlsson has a good chance of being a solid shutdown guy that can carry on the role of Tanev when the time is right.  In the meantime, in about a year Carlsson should be ready to help take the load off Tanev. Josh Anderson is no slouch in the scoring department and may develop into a true power forward.  In the meantime, he is a big body who gives us badly needed size and grit. We also move out Gagner - who isn't a bad player but isn't really what we need to make an ideal playoff-built team.


Why Columbus does this: 
Gives them an enormous scoring boost, and instantly puts them in a position to actually compete in the playoffs. I know it is weird to send Gagner back to Columbus, but I think they realize their mistake letting him go as he did really well there. They could absolutely use 2016-2017 Gagner now, and he would have little need to adjust since he was just there.
 

Trade #2 To Calgary:
Thomas Vanek

Pick.  (3rd and 6th? Not sure on value?)
 

To Vancouver:
Juuso Valimaki
 

Why Flames do this:
It would be tough for Calgary to fit many players in under the cap who would truly help bolster their scoring, but Vanek makes it easy.


Why Vancouver does this: 
Valimaki is very young but has great upside and is a sizable guy to help rebuild our defense.  He's will probably take a couple of years before he is ready for the NHL, which works out just fine for us.  Perfect, actually.


What do these trades do for us?

Forward improvement: We lose a big chunk of scoring initially, though we were likely going to lose Vanek anyway, so while Josh Anderson won't likely score as much as Baertschi for the next year or two, he may have more upside overall and is absolutely a bigger, tougher guy to play against which we need.  This does, for all you haters, require us to re-sign the Sedins for another year.  Live with it.

Defensive Improvement:
Nothing immediately, but it dramatically improves our future outlook and almost rebuilds the D in one swoop.  In 2-3 years both guys should be playing on our team and it would look something like this: Juolevi, Carlsson, Valimaki, Edler, Stecher, Tryamkin (if he comes back). As mentioned, the size and overall defensive ability of this group should allow us to move Tanev in a couple of years for whatever our remaining needs may be at the time, like if the scoring from the D isn't substantially improved from what it is right now. (And it needs to be)  It also allows Benning to select the best player available in the draft(s) instead of focusing on a position he desperately needs to shore up. Whether this is a dramatic improvement in scoring remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Columbus was not willing to include Anderson in a deal to get Duchene.  Doubtful they make him available now.  
Gagner was in a very sheltered role in Columbus and their PP was 2nd to last in the league over the last 50 games of the season.  Don't see them wanting him back. He is also injured. Apparently will be in a walking boot for a while. 

 

Friedman just wrote in his 31 thoughts that teams have called on Valimaki and that it's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, kloubek said:

We all know our defense has very little depth of upside players, so I figured we should make some moves to bolster that. We also need grit and size so I tried targeting those kinds of players in these two proposals.

 

I think the best possibility of getting a trade done is to go after teams that appear to be headed to the playoffs, but have overall glaring deficiencies. So I came up with the following general observations:

 

For those who need better defense, The Pens (8th worst in the least), Leafs (12th worst) and Caps (14th worse) seemed to stand out.
For those who need more scoring, Columbus (5th worst in the NHL and Flames (11th worst) stood out the most to me.
 

I then looked to see how much cap space these teams had available to take on contracts which would determine how much salary they can take on in order to trade with us.

What I found was that our easiest trading partners (given the above alone) would likely be Columbus or Calgary.  The former has 5m in cap space, and the latter 2.2m.

Here's what I suggest:
 

To Columbus:
Sven Baertschi
Sam Gagner


To Vancouver:
Gabriel Carlsson - Projects to be a shutdown guy.
Josh Anderson - Power forward potential.  Good showing as a rookie, and has obvious size should he not hit his potential.  At minimum should be the kind of 3rd liner any team would want - but may very well have top 6 potential.


Why Vancouver does this:
Carlsson has a good chance of being a solid shutdown guy that can carry on the role of Tanev when the time is right.  In the meantime, in about a year Carlsson should be ready to help take the load off Tanev. Josh Anderson is no slouch in the scoring department and may develop into a true power forward.  In the meantime, he is a big body who gives us badly needed size and grit. We also move out Gagner - who isn't a bad player but isn't really what we need to make an ideal playoff-built team.


Why Columbus does this: 
Gives them an enormous scoring boost, and instantly puts them in a position to actually compete in the playoffs. I know it is weird to send Gagner back to Columbus, but I think they realize their mistake letting him go as he did really well there. They could absolutely use 2016-2017 Gagner now, and he would have little need to adjust since he was just there.
 

Trade #2 To Calgary:
Thomas Vanek

Pick.  (3rd and 6th? Not sure on value?)
 

To Vancouver:
Juuso Valimaki
 

Why Flames do this:
It would be tough for Calgary to fit many players in under the cap who would truly help bolster their scoring, but Vanek makes it easy.


Why Vancouver does this: 
Valimaki is very young but has great upside and is a sizable guy to help rebuild our defense.  He's will probably take a couple of years before he is ready for the NHL, which works out just fine for us.  Perfect, actually.


What do these trades do for us?

Forward improvement: We lose a big chunk of scoring initially, though we were likely going to lose Vanek anyway, so while Josh Anderson won't likely score as much as Baertschi for the next year or two, he may have more upside overall and is absolutely a bigger, tougher guy to play against which we need.  This does, for all you haters, require us to re-sign the Sedins for another year.  Live with it.

Defensive Improvement:
Nothing immediately, but it dramatically improves our future outlook and almost rebuilds the D in one swoop.  In 2-3 years both guys should be playing on our team and it would look something like this: Juolevi, Carlsson, Valimaki, Edler, Stecher, Tryamkin (if he comes back). As mentioned, the size and overall defensive ability of this group should allow us to move Tanev in a couple of years for whatever our remaining needs may be at the time, like if the scoring from the D isn't substantially improved from what it is right now. (And it needs to be)  It also allows Benning to select the best player available in the draft(s) instead of focusing on a position he desperately needs to shore up. Whether this is a dramatic improvement in scoring remains to be seen.

Columbus gave Vegas a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick to make sure that Vegas would not select Anderson or Korpisalo in the expansion draft. I think that should give you a pretty good idea of how they value Anderson. A Baertschi/Gagner offer will not come close to getting this deal done.

There is no way Calgary is going to give up their 2017 1st round pick for Vanek. Vanek got a 3rd round pick at last year's deadline and I think the expectation should be something similar at this year's deadline.

http://www.columbusalive.com/sports/20170622/nhl--deal-minimizes-jackets-losses-in-vegas-expansion-draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kloubek said:

To Columbus:
Sven Baertschi
Sam Gagner


To Vancouver:
Gabriel Carlsson - Projects to be a shutdown guy.
Josh Anderson - Power forward potential.

I'm high on Carlsson and have been thinking of a good proposal for awhile now but nothing came to mind. In this deal I think Anderson is untouchable for them unless it's an over payment .

If the Jackets said yes I would take it and run, good proposal in general for wanting to add a young d man though!

 

On your second deal Valimaki was a high first rounder and was high on Craig Buttons 50 to prospects list ...higher than Joulevi, would you trade Joulevi for Vanek and a 3rd ? Or even a 2nd ? I feel that would be a desperate move by the Flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, canuckmen84 said:

On your second deal Valimaki was a high first rounder and was high on Craig Buttons 50 to prospects list ...higher than Joulevi, would you trade Joulevi for Vanek and a 3rd ? Or even a 2nd ? I feel that would be a desperate move by the Flames.

To your first part, I had no idea they were so incredibly high on Anderson.  I actually viewed him as a hard-playing 3rd liner with potential to move up, but the kind of guy we could use even if he didn't.

Also, when I originally wrote the proposal, I had a 2nd also going to Columbus and a 3rd to Calgary, but then I anticipating the complaining about giving out more picks again, or people saying we were not getting enough as we were giving established players for prospects. :)

.... and that speaks to your second part.  I guess it depends if he is correct in Valimaki being as high as he figures. Unless you have a prospect like McDavid, they remain a prospect until they aren't.  And even then sometimes (Yakupov, or even our own Gudbranson) things just don't work out as expected.  So there is a risk factor there, with the potential of getting a player who's game just doesn't translate for whatever reason, and now you gave up roster players for little return.  In fact, I don't know what the stat is but don't mid to late 1st round picks have an equal chance of playing in the NHL than not?  Additionally, I have seen him play and while I'd say he was one of the better defensemen in the WHL and looked decent I didn't feel like he was so amazing that his value would be sky high.

To answer your question, as I mentioned in my OP, both my proposals banked on the GMs being desperate to shore up their teams for the playoffs - to the point they would be willing to give up a piece of the future for it.  It also banks on the players involved (Anderson aside) being young enough that their futures aren't clear yet.  I think in the case of Valimaki that is particularly true.

No matter what anyone thinks of these proposals exactly, I think the basis remains that our best way to a competitive hockey club (and later a contender) in the shortest time possible is to move forwards who will be replaced shortly with youth in favour of defensemen who are about 2-3 years out from being ready for the NHL.  If we draft, they arrive after our forwards are already established. We key on teams that are playoff teams but lack in these areas in hopes they are pressured to make a deal that is, at face value, not necessarily skewed in their favour.  In return, we take their assets which they can't use right now and provide instant improvement to their clubs for their run, while assuming the risk that the prospects may not pan out.  I also think that if we manage to address the areas we know are going to be an issue in our rebuild, we can afford to throw a couple of non-1st round picks away if it gives us a good chance to make that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kloubek said:

No matter what anyone thinks of these proposals exactly, I think the basis remains that our best way to a competitive hockey club (and later a contender) in the shortest time possible is to move forwards who will be replaced shortly with youth in favour of defensemen who are about 2-3 years out from being ready for the NHL.

I couldn't agree more, well said and personally I'd be ok adding lower picks if it brought back elite talent on the back end.

 

I just hope Benning and company realize this, which I think they do, the Pouliot trade was a start . 

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...