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

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


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, iinatcc said:

This is complete BS for the record I don't completely blame Jim Benning for this since the trade market and other GMs had Vanek's value pretty low. And why? Only because he lacked "intangibles" I'm sorry but that's just stupid. Points are points and you need them to score goals and win games. 

 

So yeah screw CBJ for not even giving up a pick and screw all the other GMs hiding behind the word "intangibles" for their anti europan bias. 

 

Fine if they want to build their team around players based on intangibles and not skill or production why don't they build their team around 18 Erik Gudbransons. 

No picks were offered is what you are told and conditioned to believe in lol. 

 

Good GMs make trades happen. Mediocre GMs wait for trades to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

No picks were offered is what you are told and conditioned to believe in lol. 

 

Good GMs make trades happen. Mediocre GMs wait for trades to happen. 

Or maybe nothing was offered. Zero. And a good GM got something like Motte by working the phones hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

He’s a very likeable guy.  If Columbus makes the playoffs, I’m cheering for them, and specifically for Vanek.  

There are players who you just have positive thoughts about and Vanek is one. He was solid in almost all aspects of the game. Positive attitude and a desire to win that never weakened. Team player who reached out to the youth. Never felt that way about Vrbata. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Boudrias said:

There are players who you just have positive thoughts about and Vanek is one. He was solid in almost all aspects of the game. Positive attitude and a desire to win that never weakened. Team player who reached out to the youth. Never felt that way about Vrbata. 

Vanek is the anti-Vrbata. He's also a hell of a lot more physically capable than that flaky winger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rekker said:

Vrbata and his mopey     "I only want to play with the twins to pad my stats" can bite me. 

As well as Willie D and his "season is done but I won't put Vrbata with the twins to inflate his trade value" can bite me too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked Vanek, he seems like a decent guy, and played very well for us.  I'm happy that he will get a legit chance in the playoffs with a strong CBJ team.  I hope he gets a standing O on Saturday.

 

Jokinen has been an adequate replacement for Vanek to finish up the season, and has been (sadly) one of our better players since the deal.  I think Motte will be in Utica next year, and can hopefully recover some of his abilities that he had at UofM.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add Vanek to the recent list of our players that other GM's wouldn't buck up for at the deadline that would of made their team better.  Stars wouldn't buck up for Hamhuis. Ducks should of bucked up for Miller last year. Now Vanek. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2018 at 1:21 PM, BCNate said:

I really liked Vanek, he seems like a decent guy, and played very well for us.  I'm happy that he will get a legit chance in the playoffs with a strong CBJ team.  I hope he gets a standing O on Saturday.

 

Jokinen has been an adequate replacement for Vanek to finish up the season, and has been (sadly) one of our better players since the deal.  I think Motte will be in Utica next year, and can hopefully recover some of his abilities that he had at UofM.  

Motte will not be in Utica next year, Benning won't want the big part of his trade deadline deal toiling in the minors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's going to be an interesting summer. We have a LOT more players and potential players than we have room for. 

For sure. Not sure what kind of trade value some of these players have but if some can be moved out for young D or a physical forward I'm guessing it may happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, rekker said:

For sure. Not sure what kind of trade value some of these players have but if some can be moved out for young D or a physical forward I'm guessing it may happen.

Or maybe those mid-late draft picks many were up in arms about :bigblush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aGENT said:

It's going to be an interesting summer. We have a LOT more players and potential players than we have room for. 

We have some 3rd and 4th line depth would describe it better? Motte, Goldobin, Boucher? If they want to be here it is up to them! 

 

Which we can choose to insulate, give a roster spot? Or let them earn a spot. Which is exactly what Jim wants them to do & the position they will be put in. And have the fallback of starting some young players in Utica if it falls somewhere in between?  ie the rookie plays about as well as someone like Motte, so Motte is spared waivers.

 

Baer Bo Brock

Danny Hank Petterson

Granlund Sutter Eriksson

Leipsic Gaudette Jake

Goldobin Gaunce Motte **

* Gagner a casualty > JB has put Burmistrov, Higgins, Prust, Rodin, Wiercioch etc on waivers, believe he will put whom deserves to be there in Utica.

** By natural attrition there will be at least one, if not two guys on the IR. Bingo, Gagner & Motte fit. Or the extra UFA, Kane, we want to sign?

 

Really, we can still also sign Kane or Vanek. And still have the competitive camp we want.  Where, as above, if it is really a grey area as to whom jas earned a spot? Pettersson & Gaudette could start in Utica.

 

Having some, Gagner, Boucher or otherwise, not make our team is a great problem! What we should be planning for? We are actually right where we want to be, not with too many bodies...

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...