[Trade] Canucks trade Thomas Vanek to Blue Jackets for Jussi Jokinen, Tyler Motte

[theo5789]

7 hours ago, theminister said:

Let's put it this way....

 

If your major concern is setting up a new group, a culture, instead of wins, that establishes a bar for the massive influx of ELCs... who is the person based on performance you drop?

 

It's not Motte. It's Goldobin.

 

People bitch about not getting a 3rd Rd pick... there it is. You keep Motte.

I don't disagree with moving Goldobin before Motte, but ensuring Motte is still able to go to the minors without being waived gives us more time to move Goldobin rather than rushing to offload him and having teams low ball us. We are not in any position right now to be losing decent young players potentially for free on waivers or for cheap. There are positives for saving Motte's eligibility, but if Motte is playing well then he gets the rest of the year and loses it. With Motte feeling like he will be garaunteed a spot without waivers, maybe he doesn't come in as hungry also. I just thought it was an interesting possible discussion which is why I brought it up. I won't be disappointed either way and am not swaying one way or the other as both have their pros and cons.

[RonMexico]

2 hours ago, SingleThorn said:

In JB's first year it would have been great to have way more than 7 picks. ( #1 through #7 round ). We had so many holes to fill. Times have changed. We still desperately need round #1 and #2 picks to fill the #1 c, #1 lw, #1 & #3 d-men.

 

If this team were to draft players to fill these holes during the next two drafts or so, when do you think they will be ready to ascend to those roles? Instantly? Not unless you are top 3 and even that doesn't mean guaranteed success. Realistically you are looking at another 2-3 years before even cracking the lineup. Everyone is older by then and maybe the core is changing again.

[SingleThorn]

26 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

If this team were to draft players to fill these holes during the next two drafts or so, when do you think they will be ready to ascend to those roles? Instantly? Not unless you are top 3 and even that doesn't mean guaranteed success. Realistically you are looking at another 2-3 years before even cracking the lineup. Everyone is older by then and maybe the core is changing again.

Most years, the top 6 or so picks can step into the NHL. More so forwards than d-men, but there are exceptions. ( Dahlin ) A good number of JB's past picks will be at their 'show me' stage for the 2019/ 20 season.

 

In the long term, you always need that +/- 2 players a year through the draft. Vets out, rookies in. It will always be important.

 

As things stand I think we can be optimistic about our forward depth and very, very worried about our top 4 d-man depth.

 

Those lottery balls can be our saviour or the  beginning of a long anti Bettman rant. Sadly the latter is more likely.

[RonMexico]

8 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

Most years, the top 6 or so picks can step into the NHL. More so forwards than d-men, but there are exceptions. ( Dahlin ) A good number of JB's past picks will be at their 'show me' stage for the 2019/ 20 season.

 

In the long term, you always need that +/- 2 players a year through the draft. Vets out, rookies in. It will always be important.

 

As things stand I think we can be optimistic about our forward depth and very, very worried about our top 4 d-man depth.

 

Those lottery balls can be our saviour or the  beginning of a long anti Bettman rant. Sadly the latter is more likely.

I'm not gunna demand or give specific examples but I'm fairly sure the number of draft picks that immediately enter the league in their draft year and have success is very low. Though you could argue what defines success anyways. That said, I will say the number appears to have increased even since the days of Sid and Ovie entering the league but I think it has more to do with opportunity on your new team than draft position.

[theminister]

3 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Hey, always good to see a minister appearance.  The reason I don't think Motte starts in the Fall is because of roster spots, even if the Sedins do not return.  Gaudette will make this team, signs are that they want Pettersson on it, and both TL and JB have said they will sign UFA(s) this off-season.  Without other moves there just won't be room, and Motte is one who can still go down without waivers.  Gaudette for one will likely provide all that he does right now.

 

This is exactly it -- how long do we hold on to a tether to nostalgia and mentorship?  Benning has brought in guys like Sutter and Eriksson for this specific purpose, to maintain veteran leadership and presence for when the elder statesmen move on.

 

The difference in gameplay was never more obvious than against the Islanders.  Once the kids in Jake, Bo, and Lip started to skate and hit, the pace of the entire game picked up to where the Sedins were chasing the play and simply could not keep up with it.  It's been stated many times that's the play and style that the Canucks want, so at some point the page has to be turned.  The argument about points is frankly minimal -- no Sedins means others step up and come onto the roster.  The NHLe (take it for what it's worth) shows that Pettersson and Gaudette alone likely cover for much of what they produced this year.

 

In the Eriksson thread I posted that the Hockey Widow says to not be surprised if he is traded this summer.  It makes decent sense, as after July 1st his contract is only $14mil over 4 years in actual salary and thus very tradeable.  If that's the case and the Sedins move on, it will truly be the full transition point for this team.  I don't know how it will go, but feel that Travis and likely JB are ready to move on, but TL in particular wants them back.  As one analyst put it, should they move on it will likely fall on TL to break it to them and officially cut the cord.  I don't mind Eriksson back though, as he along with Sutter (aside from the complete game they bring) would also be an effective shelterer on a line with Elias or Jonathan for example.

 

It's a consideration, sure. However, it's not a real concern though if the decision on the twins has been made. There are so many other moves that may come down the pipe in the off-season that it doesn't warrant too much over-thinking IMHO. Gaudette may make the team, but he hasn't yet and isn't even under contract currently. He will also be waivers ineligible. So if it's a matter of line-up tinkering on opening day to free up a spot it stands to reason, for me, that the player with experience in Motte would be kept first anyways. Any pencilling or planning around Gaudette for next season is entirely premature, IMO, including an expectation he will out-perform Motte.

 

The question of nostalgia comes up frequently by others with regards to the Sedins... I don't have that in my decision making matrix. It's simply about how they affect the line-up. I would highlight the difficulty it puts on the D core to go from finding tempo and positioning for a speedy line vs the next shift needing to cover for the Twins slow pace and oddly outlying style. It adds unnecessary hardship. Much easier assignment off you know that all of your forwards are going to play the same way.

 

3 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

In the exact same way a guy like Archibald and formerly Dorsett do with their demographic.  Jake is back playing physical as his confidence has risen, and he now has backup out there for when the other team pushes back.  This then becomes contagious, as the whole team starts to play bigger.  I remember this exact thing from Momesso back in the day -- once he started hitting, the rest of the team did and the effect was so very noticeable as the Canucks started dictating the game and flow of play as the other team would start backing off from puck battles and basically let the Canucks have it.  Green even echoed as much after the last game, seeing the same thing.  Yes it's a speed and skill game, but the physical element is and will always be a huge part of it.

When you have enough players that add both speed and size...it makes the rest of the team pick up their feet and stand taller. You get more from certain players by surrounding them with the right mix. That many have a hard time understanding this shocks me. There is almost zero understanding of the nuances of team building amongst local sports commentators. 

[Gaudette Celly]

4 minutes ago, theminister said:

It's a consideration, sure. However, it's not a real concern though if the decision on the twins has been made. There are so many other moves that may come down the pipe in the off-season that it doesn't warrant too much over-thinking IMHO. Gaudette may make the team, but he hasn't yet and isn't even under contract currently. He will also be waivers ineligible. So if it's a matter of line-up tinkering on opening day to free up a spot it stands to reason, for me, that the player with experience in Motte would be kept first anyways. Any pencilling or planning around Gaudette for next season is entirely premature, IMO, including an expectation he will out-perform Motte.

I've been putting Gaudette in with pen for a while now because he plays exactly the way we want to play going forward, and he's going to have a prominent role.  That he plays responsibly with grit and non-stop high energy means he would make the team on that basis alone, the offensive ability is secondary at this point.  Will he outperform Motte to beat him out of a roster spot?  Yes, that's yet to be seen but I'd put pretty good odds on it.  Then again, they aren't necessarily battling for the same spot either.  Gaudette does not have the raw skill of Boeser but in like manner he probably would have made the team out of camp before taking another year in college.  He's ready.

 

Quote

The question of nostalgia comes up frequently by others with regards to the Sedins... I don't have that in my decision making matrix. It's simply about how they affect the line-up. I would highlight the difficulty it puts on the D core to go from finding tempo and positioning for a speedy line vs the next shift needing to cover for the Twins slow pace and oddly outlying style. It adds unnecessary hardship. Much easier assignment off you know that all of your forwards are going to play the same way.

We've seen it for the past couple years but it's become so obvious now.  If we see it certainly the team sees it, and the issue isn't so much the points the Sedins produce but it's the problem with them needing sheltering via offensive zone starts and what happens when they lose possession and/or get stuck in their zone.  Not pretty.

 

Quote

When you have enough players that add both speed and size...it makes the rest of the team pick up their feet and stand taller. You get more from certain players by surrounding them with the right mix. That many have a hard time understanding this shocks me. There is almost zero understanding of the nuances of team building amongst local sports commentators. 

If our standards for the bulk of the media aren't already low enough that should help lower them further.  Everything with them is one-dimensional and a zero-sum game, whether it's draft picks or point production or contracts or cap space.  Extremely shallow thinking, but it's easy to just be reactionary, ramp up the drama, and simply play to the lowest common denominator... and have a portion of the fanbase that laps it up and parrots it back.  Happy that TL and JB seem to tune them out for the most part and stick with their plan.

[theo5789]

44 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

We've seen it for the past couple years but it's become so obvious now.  If we see it certainly the team sees it, 

My question about this is that is what we see really what the team sees? For example, I don't think anyone here thought we would go for young players during the trade deadline (at least not the ones we got), and when we did there was some drama and overreaction as to why we made those moves.

 

Another example is before the last draft, the concensus pick here would've been Glass or even Vilardi. Hindsight now tells us that Pettersson was the best choice and the Canucks saw that before the majority of this forum did.

 

Another example is the Shinkaruk and Granlund trade.

 

There are probably a ton of other examples where the general concensus of the forum was just simply wrong. Analytics doesn't explain everything either for all those that like to use those numbers. At the end of the day, the most we should expect is that the management and team should know what they're doing and even though mistakes have been made, they've certainly done enough to earn our trust in their decisions for the time being.

 

We can discuss all we want because that's what this forum is for, but I wouldn't believe that what I see is how management sees it and if they do something different than our opinion doesn't make them wrong either.

 

If the Sedins return, there will be debate over it for sure, but I will trust the management team believes in something in them (leadership, points, etc) and will support them because I don't think they are trying to intentionally screw the team up.

[aGENT]

15 hours ago, theminister said:

You take out the Sedins and Vanek, and add one more person who can skate, and players like Granlund, Eriksson and Gaunce will need to keep up.

 

4 hours ago, theminister said:

When you have enough players that add both speed and size...it makes the rest of the team pick up their feet and stand taller. You get more from certain players by surrounding them with the right mix. That many have a hard time understanding this shocks me. There is almost zero understanding of the nuances of team building amongst local sports commentators. 

Sounds a lot like like a certain ex-Giant I know you secretly love

 

And amen on that last sentence. So much sports commentary in our media (and here on CDC) is cringe-worthy in it's ignorance and oversimplification. 

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

 For example, I don't think anyone here thought we would go for young players during the trade deadline (at least not the ones we got), and when we did there was some drama and overreaction as to why we made those moves.

 

I thought it was a definite possiblity - and proposed as much on a number of occassions.   And once it became clearer how the deadline was playing out I expected a comparable to the Holm deal to be the result of a Vanek deal .   I may be in the minority, but I would have been every bit as thrilled with bringing in a player like Cirelli - or I proposed a Justin Bailey/Hutton deal as the type of possibility I thought we might see - as I would getting a pick.  I think Benning's draft success has lead to a general over-valuation of picks, and the concentration upon / expectation of consistent outliers with mid round picks.   That might not be very realistic - and for all the talk about how deep this draft is I've yet to see the evidence of that.

.I didn't expect these particular two players - didn't necessarily see either LV (who are fairly deep in NHL ready talent after the ED) or Columbus to be principal buyers at the deadline (although less surprised by Columbus and proposed a few deals involving Tanev or Baertschi to the CBJ).  In any event, I was thrilled with both these results - particularly the Vanek deal because that was truly a deadline necessity if at all possible (Holm's rights we would have retained regardless but I'm happy with what I think is a transition uptick on that asset).  Like these players - was hoping for this type of value at the deadline, but not expecting it.

[Gaudette Celly]

7 hours ago, theo5789 said:

My question about this is that is what we see really what the team sees? For example, I don't think anyone here thought we would go for young players during the trade deadline (at least not the ones we got), and when we did there was some drama and overreaction as to why we made those moves.

 

Why not?  Every TDL that's exactly what they've done.

2015:  Acquired Baertschi

2016:  Acquired Granlund

2017:  Acquired Dahlen

2018:  Acquired Leipsic and Motte

 

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

Why not?  Every TDL that's exactly what they've done.

2015:  Acquired Baertschi

2016:  Acquired Granlund

2017:  Acquired Dahlen

2018:  Acquired Leipsic and Motte

 

Thanks for proving my point further.

 

Why the overreaction and drama every year it happens even with our history of doing so? Look at every thread when the trades happened (aside from Dahlen and that's only because he's more prospect rather than a ready to go young player). All of those trades Benning has done well and yet every year we hear how management doesn't know what they're doing only to be proven wrong time and time again. And yet there are claims that we as fans see things that management should obviously see when in reality us fans know far less than what goes on.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

Why not?  Every TDL that's exactly what they've done.

2015:  Acquired Baertschi

2016:  Acquired Granlund

2017:  Acquired Dahlen

2018:  Acquired Leipsic and Motte

 

I honestly don't know why so many were caught off guard. 

 

Never mind completely whiffing on the value of the guys we got/the late picks we didn't. 

[theo5789]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

I thought it was a definite possiblity - and proposed as much on a number of occassions.   And once it became clearer how the deadline was playing out I expected a comparable to the Holm deal to be the result of a Vanek deal .   I may be in the minority, but I would have been every bit as thrilled with bringing in a player like Cirelli - or I proposed a Justin Bailey/Hutton deal as the type of possibility I thought we might see - as I would getting a pick.  I think Benning's draft success has lead to a general over-valuation of picks, and the concentration upon / expectation of consistent outliers with mid round picks.   That might not be very realistic - and for all the talk about how deep this draft is I've yet to see the evidence of that.

.I didn't expect these particular two players - didn't necessarily see either LV (who are fairly deep in NHL ready talent after the ED) or Columbus to be principal buyers at the deadline (although less surprised by Columbus and proposed a few deals involving Tanev or Baertschi to the CBJ).  In any event, I was thrilled with both these results - particularly the Vanek deal because that was truly a deadline necessity if at all possible (Holm's rights we would have retained regardless but I'm happy with what I think is a transition uptick on that asset).  Like these players - was hoping for this type of value at the deadline, but not expecting it.

You would be one of the few to have believed we would go that route then. And you were one of the few actually calling the trades as good as they happened. But even with that said, none of us suggested going after players like Leipsic and Motte, most likely ignored due to their size and production to date, however the management did a good job here and I laugh at the ones that jump to conclusions or think they know what management is thinking only to be time and time again proven wrong.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

You would be one of the few to have believed we would go that route then. And you were one of the few actually calling the trades as good as they happened. But even with that said, none of us suggested going after players like Leipsic and Motte, most likely ignored due to their size and production to date, however the management did a good job here and I laugh at the ones that jump to conclusions or think they know what management is thinking only to be time and time again proven wrong.

I wouldn't have guessed that either of them would be available tbh.  I doubt the other targets we might have named would have been either.   It was surprising.

I get the possible desperation of Columbus - to add to try to get back in that playoff spot / and get that revenue (the Tortorella fade) - but I'm surprised that Vegas needed a defenseman after selecting an entire battallion of 4D in the expansion draft.  The Knights are a strange phenomena in a lot of ways.

 

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

I wouldn't have guessed that either of them would be available tbh.  I doubt the other targets we might have named would have been either.   It was surprising.

I get the possible desperation of Columbus - to add to try to get back in that playoff spot / and get that revenue (the Tortorella fade) - but I'm surprised that Vegas needed a defenseman after selecting an entire battallion of 4D in the expansion draft.  The Knights are a strange phenomena in a lot of ways.

 

But this is exactly why I would not suggest that what we see is what management sees because management certainly knows more about who's available and what value players bring to their teams.

 

I remember when Benning first joined the Canucks, his office walls were full of every team's rosters and depth charts, so I think he has a good idea of which players are underutilized and have potential for improvement in different roles that we could provide.

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

But this is exactly why I would not suggest that what we see is what management sees because management certainly knows more about who's available and what value players bring to their teams.

 

I remember when Benning first joined the Canucks, his office walls were full of every team's rosters and depth charts, so I think he has a good idea of which players are underutilized and have potential for improvement in different roles that we could provide.

Well of course they have a better idea of who's available, etc.

People here on the other hand tend to have pie-in-the-sky expectations and/or are determined to judge a guy like Benning - negatively - in spite of the fact they know neither who is available, or a whiff about most of the players in question.  

These were two highly under-rated pickups at the deadline imo - easily as good of a deadline as last year's, when Benning was praised.  Strange market tbh - moody, irrational, unanalytical in general.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Thanks for proving my point further.

You said, "I don't think anyone here thought we would go for young players during the trade deadline" but that's patently false.  Plenty of us here expected it and continue to because (1) it's what they said they're going to do and (2) because they've done it every time.  The "anyone" are simply the vocal ones who wring their hands in despair and don't understand what's going on... and seem happy to shout that fact out to the world.

 

Quote

Why the overreaction and drama every year it happens even with our history of doing so?

Maybe that's a rhetorical question, but it's not the one you should be asking of us.  IMO it's simply a vocal and reactionary minority, and the polls here on Benning's performance and such prove that.

[theo5789]

7 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

You said, "I don't think anyone here thought we would go for young players during the trade deadline" but that's patently false.  Plenty of us here expected it and continue to because (1) it's what they said they're going to do and (2) because they've done it every time.  The "anyone" are simply the vocal ones who wring their hands in despair and don't understand what's going on... and seem happy to shout that fact out to the world.

 

Maybe that's a rhetorical question, but it's not the one you should be asking of us.  IMO it's simply a vocal and reactionary minority, and the polls here on Benning's performance and such prove that.

And if you read the entire post I added "(at least not the ones we got)" which shows that I acknowledged some did predict it, but simply not expecting us to get who we did. You can get stuck up on one word all you want, but I was clear in what I've said if you had comprehended what I had said instead of highlighting one thing that bothered you and took it out of context (Vancouver media style) plus ignoring the point of the post.

 

In fact weren't you one of those vocal and reactionary minority that criticized the Leipsic trade?

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, theo5789 said:

And if you read the entire post I added "(at least not the ones we got)" which shows that I acknowledged some did predict it, but simply not expecting us to get who we did.

 

I think that's a pretty tall ask of CDC'ers. There are literally hundreds of 'Motte's', 'Leipsic's' etc around the world, in assorted leagues, in the other 30 teams 50 allowed contracts + unsigned players. We're not talking to other GM's to see who is or isn't available or would have interest in a player like Vanek. The best we can do is make an educated guess on trade value and throw some names out. Guessing the exact player (never mind extra pieces like Jokkinen) would be akin to finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.

 

Old News for instance threw out the (good IMO) suggestion of Hutton for Justin Bailey of BUF. A not dissimilar player to a Motte or a Leip for what that's worth. I don't think either of us would have imagined Benning would be able to get a similar value Motte for nothing more than Vanek (and taking back Jokkinen). Just like I doubt very few would have thought he could get Dahlen last year for Burrows. 

 

Both are exceedingly good trade value IMO...and yet one move was praised and the other panned by a few noisy, ignorant media and fans. If history is any indication, we should stop listening to either of them.

[Gaudette Celly]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

And if you read the entire post I added "(at least not the ones we got)" which shows that I acknowledged some did predict it, but simply not expecting us to get who we did. You can get stuck up on one word all you want, but I was clear in what I've said if you had comprehended what I had said instead of highlighting one thing that bothered you and took it out of context (Vancouver media style) plus ignoring the point of the post.

 

In fact weren't you one of those vocal and reactionary minority that criticized the Leipsic trade?

The issue is broadbrushing, as if you're the only rational one here or such when that's not the case.  Maybe not your intent but fact of that matter, that WAS the full context of your statement and now instead of backing off you're doubling down accusing me of being a whinger. 

 

Instead of accusing, why not verify first?  I did not oppose the Leipsic trade but at first questioned the rationale behind it until more information came out, probably on the first or second page.  For the record, to my recollection I have never done a single "vocal and reactionary" post to any move the team has made, because inevitably the reasoning behind it comes out which explains why they were done.  Go ahead, check the Granlund/Shinkaruk, Gudbranson, Vey, Forsling, Sutter, whatever thread you want.

 

In fact, the "out of context" issue is how you took my original comment of management seeing things if we see them.  It was specifically in regard to when the Sedins are on the ice versus the rest of the lines and the resultant pace of the game.  You then took that and applied it to something completely different.