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

[Discussion] Our Weakest Link: Defense. Can We Afford to Lose Forwards for D Via Trades?


Recommended Posts

We have Hughes in the wing, developing his game in NCAA and I can see him make the team as soon as he decide to sign with us, OJ is in Utica developing his game and should be up with the big club sooner than later, and Tryamkin has 2 season left from his KHL contract and just too far away for an immediate help.  We still see a big hole in our D and our forward group is set for years to come with great prospects in Lind, Dalhen, Gaudette, Gadjovich, and Palmu.   Woo is years away and we still don't know what Brisebois, Chatfield can bring to this club as MDZ, Pouliot and Edler are hurting this team with bad D zone coverage and giveaways.  If there's injury to Edler/Tanev, there's suddenly not enough depth as it happened last year.  

 

There are two options we can do: trade Sutter for a top 4 D or Horvat for a top D. If we were to trade away Horvat, we have Gaudette replacing Horvat if he pans out and I'd like to see a few games from Gaudette first before trading away Horvat.  If Gaudette does pan out, we can afford to lose a C for a top pairing D and bump down Edler in the depth chart.  I don't think Horvat has NTC or NMC so his value is at its highest.   So hence, my question is to you, what could we fetch for a D if we offer Horvat as a part of the deal?    What is he worth for a straight up one on one deal and who might this D be?  Petterson is a 1C for sure with Horvat being 2C if Petterson keeps it up for first two months.  The earlier we discuss this, the better the deal would be if it ever comes up in near future.    For now, the D is obvious the weakest link and we do not want to become an Oilers/Maple Leafs with great offense but bad defence.   I'm more interested in what we can get for Horvat and would it make any difference if we ever decide to make this move?  If Eriksson ever rebounds to his normal level by playing with Petterson, we can then get something from Eriksson next summer and his stock might rise again would also be an option.  

 

My answer: yes, we can afford to lose Horvat and still have Guadette as our 2C without missing any beat.   If any team is desparate for a 1C, let them think that Horvat is 1C in exchange for #1 D.   I just do not think that Horvat is 1C as proven when playing against a harder match-up.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these so called theoretical positions are soooo weak 

 

if you think sutter or horvat will fetch a top d man (and not just a prospect who requires additional development)

please identify the player you target and explain why his team would entertain such a deal

otherwise this is wishful thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have d prospects coming in Juolevi, Woo, Hughes, Brisbois, Sautner etc. Plus with the emergence of EP maybe we become more of a FA destination for incoming dmen to make us a more well rounded team. Getting a quality D via trade will cost a quality forward. You plug a hole by making another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Qwags said:

We have D coming in Hughes, Woo, Juolevi, Breezy, and possibly Tryamkin. We just have to be patient.

Yes, they are years away and earlier we can bring them in is next season and even if Juolevi beign called up, the depth is not enough

 

3 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

We have d prospects coming in Juolevi, Woo, Hughes, Brisbois, Sautner etc. Plus with the emergence of EP maybe we become more of a FA destination for incoming dmen to make us a more well rounded team. Getting a quality D via trade will cost a quality forward. You plug a hole by making another.

The question is, can we afford to lose a quality forward for a quality defence with plenty of quality prospects forwards.

 

21 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

these so called theoretical positions are soooo weak 

 

if you think sutter or horvat will fetch a top d man (and not just a prospect who requires additional development)

please identify the player you target and explain why his team would entertain such a deal

otherwise this is wishful thinking

I am not sure as I have not studied other teams in the league to figure out who is #1 D but their #1 D are better than our #1D anyways.   Sutter might get us top 4 D straight up who might also be better than our current top 4 D but Horvat could get us #1 depending who you are talking about.   So that is why I ask questions. I also ask: can we afford to lose Horvat if Gaudette pans out?   I am not interested in packages, I want to know who can bring back D from that trade.   Our Defence is just too slow to make their passes when breaking out resulting in turnovers.  If I'm talking about 3rd liner forward or 4th liner, then we can talk packages but I'm not even interested in that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're overvaluing Horvat tbh. Horvat has yet to show he's capable of locking down a 1c role and any team with professional scouts worth their salt is going to know that. He's also worth more to us on the team than he is to us in a trade. Right now he's likely a #2 currently playing #1 by default until Elias runs away with it. You don't get a #1D for Horvat, it's a lot easier to acquire a 2c. Gaudette likely needs a couple more seasons to develop too, whether it be in the NHL or AHL. It's hard to say what he becomes but he's likely closer to panning out as a 3c than anything more.

 

Sutter probably gets you a #3-4 D tops.

 

We're better off being patient and seeing what we've got in our own young D than plugging a hole only to open another anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the grinder said:

you be stupid to trade Horvat  when we have hughes coming in next year 

I agree, I'm looking forward for Hughes coming in but my concern, do we have enough depth seeing that Edler will not be back and I don't even want him back?   Is Horvat a #1C to you?  Petterson might overtake him with 1C and be a 2C but Gaudette might become 2C and because of Horvat's reputation around the league might fetch us a #1 D.    Can we even afford to lose a quality forward depth like Horvat if Gaudette can do what he did in NCAA?   I'm not talking about this year, I'm talking years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Qwags said:

We have D coming in Hughes, Woo, Juolevi, Breezy, and possibly Tryamkin. We just have to be patient.

The key word is patience. The names being brought up are not even bonified NHLers yet and we all know there are many players who do well in the minors but just can't make the jump to the NHL. When Gaudette is playing regular minutes on the big club is when we can begin this conversation. Until then, its develop this core and then see what we have. I see Hughes and OJ PROBABLY making the team sooner rather then later anyway so lets at least wait until that time before we assess our D core.

This year is more of an assessment year and wins and losses are not the main concern at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

The key word is patience. The names being brought up are not even bonified NHLers yet and we all know there are many players who do well in the minors but just can't make the jump to the NHL. When Gaudette is playing regular minutes on the big club is when we can begin this conversation. Until then, its develop this core and then see what we have. I see Hughes and OJ PROBABLY making the team sooner rather then later anyway so lets at least wait until that time before we assess our D core.

This year is more of an assessment year and wins and losses are not the main concern at this stage.

Depth will take a hit once Edler become a free agent, MDZ's contract expires at end of this season and Pouliot is given his last chance to prove himself and we don't know what Hutton can bring and he is slow to making a decision when it comes to breakout passing.   Tanev and Gudbransen will be with us for a few more years and we have spots to fill.  Hughes is not a guarantee as NHL game is faster and bigger than the NCAA.   Juolevi is one I can see filling up as soon as this season with injury call-up.   We still need only one top 4 D or a top D and Hughes might be top D.   We are short for D depth in case of injury next season.   Would one D in a trade make a big difference to our development and team system in the current season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can never have enough centers on your team Horvat is built for playoff hockey and the canucks need that type of player,  we have drafted d men this year and last year and prolly again next year ,  yes our d needs a huge upgrade  but I believe woo and hughes will be impact players the canucks need on d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

 

Depth will take a hit once Edler become a free agent, MDZ's contract expires at end of this season and Pouliot is given his last chance to prove himself and we don't know what Hutton can bring and he is slow to making a decision when it comes to breakout passing.   Tanev and Gudbransen will be with us for a few more years and we have spots to fill.  Hughes is not a guarantee as NHL game is faster and bigger than the NCAA.   Juolevi is one I can see filling up as soon as this season with injury call-up.   We still need only one top 4 D or a top D and Hughes might be top D.   We are short for D depth in case of injury next season.   Would one D in a trade make a big difference to our development and team system in the current season?

I am not disagreeing with you in that our D needs a major overhaul right now but should we give up "future" for that increased depth "Now"? Our core is not set so I think we have time to acquire defensive depth and I don't think we need to start getting rid of key elements of our team now to do that. Maybe a trade does materialize or a FA becomes available, who knows, but I don't think there is panic at this point and patience is probably the more safer route to travel at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I am not disagreeing with you in that our D needs a major overhaul right now but should we give up "future" for that increased depth "Now"? Our core is not set so I think we have time to acquire defensive depth and I don't think we need to start getting rid of key elements of our team now to do that. Maybe a trade does materialize or a FA becomes available, who knows, but I don't think there is panic at this point and patience is probably the more safer route to travel at this time.

There is a fine line of losing their confidence on their D and this is a development year and we don't want their play to become a habit for forwards sulking if their D doesn't get better and can become a domino effect for a few seasons.    If we get better D then we can concentrate for the real development in other area and forward can concentrate their role for the offense with defensive responsibilities without doing too much by covering for more mistakes by D.  With that confidence, we can still develop and lose games without losing their confidence with their D.     If the D continues to be that bad for a whole year, it can also ruin the development year for our current group and also ruin the confidence of the goaltender in Markstrom/Nilsson.  They deserve to have some stability on D so that goaltender can develop with their game as well could be used as a chip for a trade later once Demko and DiPietro are ready to take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add to my recent post, if Markstrom is a light out with better D, we can then replace him with a lost center by Horvat via trades if Demko or DiPietro is even better than Markstrom when times comes and he would be #1 elsewhere with team that is desperate for a starter like Maple Leafs or any team with strong offense but weaker goaltender and the return might be good with center coming back to replace Horvat.   So food for thoughts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

I want to add to my recent post, if Markstrom is a light out with better D, we can then replace him with a lost center by Horvat via trades if Demko or DiPietro is even better than Markstrom when times comes and he would be #1 elsewhere with team that is desperate for a starter like Maple Leafs or any team with strong offense but weaker goaltender and the return might be good with center coming back to replace Horvat.   So food for thoughts.  

Since when is Toronto desperate for a staring goaltender? Anderson is a solid starter. Much more so than Markstrom 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Since when is Toronto desperate for a staring goaltender? Anderson is a solid starter. Much more so than Markstrom 

I have no confidence toward him if I were them.

 

3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Very pleased you are not the GM of the Vancouver Canucks.

I don't even want a GM job.  The thread is all about feedbacks and ideas how to stabilize the D via the trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the idea that defense is our weakest position and it makes sense to look at moving forwards to improve it, but trading Horvat is nuts. He's the next captain and he's staying here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- changed the title to [Discussion] Our Weakest Link: Defense. Can We Afford to Lose Forwards for D Via Trades?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...