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

[Qwags]

14 hours 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

 

Still don't know how we got Dahlen for Burr.

[Gaudette Celly]

4 minutes ago, Qwags said:

Still don't know how we got Dahlen for Burr.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

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.

And once again, I acknowledged the fact that some have made the suggestions of looking at prospects, but no one was suggesting to get smaller skilled players and that was the reaction that most were upset with (another smallish winger?). I'm not suggesting that we could have figured out the exact player, but the fact of the matter was no one figured out what type of player management was and if anything was thrown off based on Benning's comments.

 

This is a forum and there is nothing wrong with throwing ideas out there, but based on the suggestions of moves that were made, it was pretty clear that the large majority had no idea what could've been in store. And the reaction (for some) after the deals had happened proved that they didn't even have the same vision that the management had, but yet will question or criticize management only to be proven wrong time and time again. I agree we should stop listening to them, but maybe they should also learn from the previous lessons and maybe give some trust to management or at least take a breather and soak it in before jumping the gun. It is just getting tiring that people are thinking they know more than what the management does or thinks things are so obvious and if they do something that differs their opinions, then they criticize and when they're proven wrong, they just ignore what they've said and move on to the next complaint they have until they're proven wrong again.

[Qwags]

25 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Thicc boi.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

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. 

The expectation the whole year has been that we will move players for picks, that’s why people were caught off guard.  You were one of the people making the statements that Canucks should be able to acquire picks at the deadline throughout the entire year.  I don’t see too much complaining about the value that Canucks ended up getting, as the market is what it is for the assets we are selling.  But I do see people disappointed, which in fairness, make sense.  JB also had to be a little bit disappointed the market as well.  

 

“We wanted picks back. It wasn't available to us and we had to do the next best thing.”

 

I don’t know what you get out of that statement, but most people can see that they valued picks most  (like a lot of people on this forum), they tried to get them, couldn’t and settled with the next closest thing on the market.  People can try to spin it that Motte’s has more value than getting picks back but JB obviously doesn’t agree with. 

[theo5789]

27 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

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.

I never said you opposed the trade, but you had the same reaction of the many who instantly (reactionary) questioned why we are getting more small forwards (vocal) instead of waiting for the rationale to come out first. There's free speech and this is a forum and you can question whatever you want, but IMO that groups you with those who would not agree with the move initially, whether that was your stance or not. That was my view of things and if I was wrong about that, then I apologize, but hope you see where I am coming from.

 

The context of my post if we are specifically talking about the Sedins is that you might see it one way, but perhaps the coaching and management do in fact see it differently than you (or others with this view). Maybe the coaching likes that there are players that can slow the game down or whatever reason, but we are seeing it as them being slow players. Maybe they are deployed where they are because we don't have the players to take their roles and no prospect is a guarantee to do so just yet. There are many possible reasons why they team is playing the Sedins and would consider to bring them back that we may not even consider that goes beyond analytics or whatever reasoning we have. Suggesting that something should be so obvious to management when there have been plenty of times that we, yes that includes me, were wrong (which is why I've brought up other examples), is just a belief that I don't agree with.

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The expectation the whole year has been that we will move players for picks, that’s why people were caught off guard.  You were one of the people making the statements that Canucks should be able to acquire picks at the deadline throughout the entire year.  I don’t see too much complaining about the value that Canucks ended up getting, as the market is what it is for the assets we are selling.  But I do see people disappointed, which in fairness, make sense.  JB also had to be a little bit disappointed the market as well.  

 

“We wanted picks back. It wasn't available to us and we had to do the next best thing.”

 

I don’t know what you get out of that statement, but most people can see that they valued picks most  (like a lot of people on this forum), they tried to get them, couldn’t and settled with the next closest thing on the market.  People can try to spin it that Motte’s has more value than getting picks back but JB obviously doesn’t agree with. 

I thought we 'might' get a few picks back but we hardly had any pending UFA's to move for futures (picks OR prospects) this year. I was open to but not expecting moves of guys like Edler or Tanev for futures as well. And my 'statements' largely were in favour of the short term UFA signings that we can flip for futures down the line and not necessarily this year or at least not this TDL (there's still pre draft and post free agency).

 

If people were expecting some giant windfall of picks this year, AT the TDL, then it's their expectations that were out of whack. And neither I or the team need to apologize for that.

 

'Value picks'...what a typically nebulous and meaningless statement. Would I (or Benning) have preferred an early 2nd over Motte? Sure! Would I (or Benning) have preferred a late 4th or 5th over Motte...probably not. Were any picks even offered in the soft market? Not by the sounds of it.

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I thought we 'might' get a few picks back but we hardly had any pending UFA's to move for futures (picks OR prospects) this year. I was open to but not expecting moves of guys like Edler or Tanev for futures as well. And my 'statements' largely were in favour of the short term UFA signings that we can flip for futures down the line and not necessarily this year or at least not this TDL (there's still pre draft and post free agency).

 

I could pull quote where you specifically claimed flipping ufa signing this year for picks. Everyone expected it. The fact that JB called 30 other teams on vanek means he expected it. But that market wasn’t there. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

If people were expecting some giant windfall of picks this year, AT the TDL, then it's their expectations that were out of whack. And neither I or the team need to apologize for that.

 

Again you are trying to come across that you knew from the get go that the ufa players we signed weren’t going to obtain picks.  Which doesn’t align with your post history as 3 weeks prior to the TD you claimed vanek should be able to get a 3 if not a 2nd. Expectations from The initial signing was we’d be able to flip vanek for picks.  It didn’t happen. That’s not the teams fault as no one can predict the market but that doesn’t mean people were out to lunch for having that expectation.  

 

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

'Value picks'...what a typically nebulous and meaningless statement. Would I (or Benning) have preferred an early 2nd over Motte? Sure! Would I (or Benning) have preferred a late 4th or 5th over Motte...probably not. Were any picks even offered in the soft market? Not by the sounds of it.

No picks weren’t offered but did we (or JB) really expect vanek being worth a 2nd.  He ended his conference saying he will be trying to add more picks at the draft. Clearly you arent grasping what he values and wants to obtain. 

[Alflives]

15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

I could pull quote where you specifically claimed flipping ufa signing this year for picks. Everyone expected it. The fact that JB called 30 other teams on vanek means he expected it. But that market wasn’t there. 

 

 

 

Again you are trying to come across that you knew from the get go that the ufa players we signed weren’t going to obtain picks.  Which doesn’t align with your post history as 3 weeks prior to the TD you claimed vanek should be able to get a 3 if not a 2nd. Expectations from The initial signing was we’d be able to flip vanek for picks.  It didn’t happen. That’s not the teams fault as no one can predict the market but that doesn’t mean people were out to lunch for having that expectation.  

 

No picks weren’t offered but did we (or JB) really expect vanek being worth a 2nd.  He ended his conference saying he will be trying to add more picks at the draft. Clearly you arent grasping what he values and wants to obtain. 

I think we will try to add picks, but who do we have to trade that has that value?  We don't want to trade any young guys for sure.  So who does that leave?  Tanev?  He's definitely got value.  But guys like Baer, Goldy, Granny don't really (IMHAO) have any value for picks.  So who does JB trade for picks?  

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

I could pull quote where you specifically claimed flipping ufa signing this year for picks. Everyone expected it. The fact that JB called 30 other teams on vanek means he expected it. But that market wasn’t there. 

 

 

 

Again you are trying to come across that you knew from the get go that the ufa players we signed weren’t going to obtain picks.  Which doesn’t align with your post history as 3 weeks prior to the TD you claimed vanek should be able to get a 3 if not a 2nd. Expectations from The initial signing was we’d be able to flip vanek for picks.  It didn’t happen. That’s not the teams fault as no one can predict the market but that doesn’t mean people were out to lunch for having that expectation.  

 

No picks weren’t offered but did we (or JB) really expect vanek being worth a 2nd.  He ended his conference saying he will be trying to add more picks at the draft. Clearly you arent grasping what he values and wants to obtain. 

I'm sure you could find all manner of quotes for flipping Vanek for picks, futures etc (and Vanek is just one player THIS year FYI). Not actually what I'm saying at all. Estimate of values does not = expectation. But you keep being you Forsy.

 

I grasp Benning's intent just fine, thanks.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Maybe the coaching likes that there are players that can slow the game down or whatever reason, but we are seeing it as them being slow players. Maybe they are deployed where they are because we don't have the players to take their roles and no prospect is a guarantee to do so just yet. There are many possible reasons why they team is playing the Sedins and would consider to bring them back that we may not even consider that goes beyond analytics or whatever reasoning we have. Suggesting that something should be so obvious to management when there have been plenty of times that we, yes that includes me, were wrong (which is why I've brought up other examples), is just a belief that I don't agree with.

From everything they've said, no -- both Benning and Green have been clear that they want a fast-skating attacking team with four scoring lines.  The only reasons the Sedins would be re-signed would be for veteran leadership/mentorship and because other prospects aren't ready.  The way things are looking, both Gaudette and Pettersson will be ready this Fall (JB has implied as much) and they plan to sign UFAs this summer.  That alone is problematic for bringing the Sedins back.  Plus we have Eriksson, Sutter, MDZ, Tanev etc. to fill that elder leadership role, and Bo, Granlund, Gudbranson, Baertschi are no longer prospects.  The Sedins are no longer "needed".

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

From everything they've said, no -- both Benning and Green have been clear that they want a fast-skating attacking team with four scoring lines.  The only reasons the Sedins would be re-signed would be for veteran leadership/mentorship and because other prospects aren't ready.  The way things are looking, both Gaudette and Pettersson will be ready this Fall (JB has implied as much) and they plan to sign UFAs this summer.  That alone is problematic for bringing the Sedins back.  Plus we have Eriksson, Sutter, MDZ, Tanev etc. to fill that elder leadership role, and Bo, Granlund, Gudbranson, Baertschi are no longer prospects.  The Sedins are no longer "needed".

I agree the Twins may no longer be needed, but I wonder about Baer and Granny being back too.  Maybe they are both trade bait for picks come summer?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I think we will try to add picks, but who do we have to trade that has that value?  We don't want to trade any young guys for sure.  So who does that leave?  Tanev?  He's definitely got value.  But guys like Baer, Goldy, Granny don't really (IMHAO) have any value for picks.  So who does JB trade for picks?  

Hopefully tanev. Possibly packaging up Hutton and baertschi 

[Alflives]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Hopefully tanev. Possibly packaging up Hutton and baertschi 

I wonder if JB trades Tanev for 2019 picks, considering the draft is here?

I really don't see value in Hutton and (or) Baer for picks.  I think they could return a player of equal age, but not picks.  I hope I'm wrong though.  Tatar returned three very good draft picks, so I guess it's possible.

[UFCanuck]

16 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

From everything they've said, no -- both Benning and Green have been clear that they want a fast-skating attacking team with four scoring lines.  The only reasons the Sedins would be re-signed would be for veteran leadership/mentorship and because other prospects aren't ready.  The way things are looking, both Gaudette and Pettersson will be ready this Fall (JB has implied as much) and they plan to sign UFAs this summer.  That alone is problematic for bringing the Sedins back.  Plus we have Eriksson, Sutter, MDZ, Tanev etc. to fill that elder leadership role, and Bo, Granlund, Gudbranson, Baertschi are no longer prospects.  The Sedins are no longer "needed".

The Sedins mean to Petterson what Sundin meant to them.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I wonder if JB trades Tanev for 2019 picks, considering the draft is here?

I really don't see value in Hutton and (or) Baer for picks.  I think they could return a player of equal age, but not picks.  I hope I'm wrong though.  Tatar returned three very good draft picks, so I guess it's possible.

I’d assume it would be for 2018 picks since that would give us a better idea on what player we are getting.  Seperately I don’t think Sven and Hutton bring much. But put them in a package possibly add some more pieces and they can bring back some sort of value. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I’d assume it would be for 2018 picks since that would give us a better idea on what player we are getting.  Seperately I don’t think Sven and Hutton bring much. But put them in a package possibly add some more pieces and they can bring back some sort of value. 

Baer + Hutton + flyer on Goldobin...gotta be worth something to someone.

 

Could very well be 2019 picks if trades happen after free agency. If TOR skuffles in the playoffs and miss out on the Carlsson, Green etc UFA sweepstakes...

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, playboi19 said:

The Sedins mean to Petterson what Sundin meant to them.

No doubt would be, but we're not talking about bringing back one player but two.  Unless we see some other forwards shipped out there simply is no room.  At this point it's a luxury that isn't practical.

[rekker]

14 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

No doubt would be, but we're not talking about bringing back one player but two.  Unless we see some other forwards shipped out there simply is no room.  At this point it's a luxury that isn't practical.

That really is the big issue. They come as a package deal. Two roster spots. It's the main reason they have never been all that tradeable. Love them. But time to move on.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

From everything they've said, no -- both Benning and Green have been clear that they want a fast-skating attacking team with four scoring lines.  The only reasons the Sedins would be re-signed would be for veteran leadership/mentorship and because other prospects aren't ready.  The way things are looking, both Gaudette and Pettersson will be ready this Fall (JB has implied as much) and they plan to sign UFAs this summer.  That alone is problematic for bringing the Sedins back.  Plus we have Eriksson, Sutter, MDZ, Tanev etc. to fill that elder leadership role, and Bo, Granlund, Gudbranson, Baertschi are no longer prospects.  The Sedins are no longer "needed".

Signing UFAs could mean re-signing the Sedins since they are UFAs and what other UFAs will be available that can put up 40-60 points that will come at a much lower price tag considering they won't sign anywhere else. This is also on top of their leadership role and also keeping the pressure of the captaincy off Horvat for another year to get them closer to being a successful team before passing on the reigns. Signing the Sedins also means a one year deal instead of term which other UFAs may want and truly be holding up a spot in the lineup. Unless of course they said they will sign UFAs other than the Sedins which I haven't heard. Also could mean they sign some guys for Utica depth.

 

Benning also said just before the trade deadline that he is looking for a big forward with skill and look how that turned out. Who really knows what their gameplan is other than them? If they show respect for the Sedins, it is also something for the young players to see that if they put in great careers with the Canucks, they will be respected right until the end as well instead of only focusing on the business side of things. It gives the young players more perspective as well to not think the team only sees them as assets rather than people. They are plenty of reasons why the Sedins could be kept for at least another year from the Canucks perspective. As for them being "needed", it's up to the prospects to prove themselves here first before that is decided.

 

Gaudette may be ready or could start next season in Utica and be an early call up, same goes for Pettersson if he even decides to come to NA next season as his current GM has said it's up to Pettersson and not the Canucks and especially considering he hasn't even signed a contract yet. Utica time will not hinder them with inevitable injuries giving them plenty of call up opportunities and playing in a good developmental system. A lot of solid players have a year or partial year in the AHL. Gaudette is really my only expectation of possibly getting a roster spot to start the year simply because of his maturity physically and mentally.