The_Rocket Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Pretty simple proposal. Vancouver has too many forwards. Edmonton has to many defensemen. The idea is to swap players with similar ability, value, cap hits etc. Based on positional need. Scenerio 1: Matt Benning for Markus grandlund. Somewhat versitile bottom 6 forward with some limited offensive upside for a bottom 6 RHD with some offensive upside. Similar ages and (likely) similar cap hits Scenerio 2: Kris Russel for Brandon Sutter. 3rd line centre PK specialist (they have literally no one for this role) for 3rd pairing LHD who plays on the right side and is basically a poor mans chris tanev. Similar ages and similar cap hits. Which one, if either, would you do? I genuinely believe no team will be willing to part with a draft pick for either of these forwards so this is probably the best way to get rid of one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 Never on #1. Benning is their Stecher. Maybe on #2. Edm is low on D though. And Russell has some jam. I'd do it, doubt Edm would. Sutter probably will be moved to a playoff bound team at the TDL. Maybe Edmonton. But do you know what? I expect these young guys to be better than last year, and we may also be chasing a spot later into the season again. And Sutter, if he stays healthy, will be part of the reason and be part of the plan/solution going into the dance. How about we try to get Poolparty for spare parts? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) I would do the Granlund for Matt Benning trade but I doubt GMJB would. The 1st bad play Matt Benning makes and all we will hear on CDC is that he is only here because he is the nephew of the GM...nepotism personified. Benning must be fired!!! We can't even accept a coach having a former junior player on the roster....how are fans/media ever going to accept a family relationship? Why in the world would either Benning want the hassle? Edited May 21, 2019 by Rick Blight 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, xereau said: Never on #1. Benning is their Stecher. Maybe on #2. Edm is low on D though. And Russell has some jam. I'd do it, doubt Edm would. Sutter probably will be moved to a playoff bound team at the TDL. Maybe Edmonton. But do you know what? I expect these young guys to be better than last year, and we may also be chasing a spot later into the season again. And Sutter, if he stays healthy, will be part of the reason and be part of the plan/solution going into the dance. How about we try to get Poolparty for spare parts? How is Edmonton low on D?? 8 defensemen under contract next year not including Bouchard, Bear, and Jones (3 of their top 5 prospects). They have too many. All of them overpaid besides nurse and klefbom. I also think you’re misjudging Bennings value. He’s a bottom pair D-man on the team about to be passed by younger players. Edmonton has tried to trade him before, recently. He’s very expendable for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 Russel has a NMC so thats problematic. Benning would be a decent add, but I would doubt they view Granny as an upgrade, even though he would actually be a useful player for them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glug Datt Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, The_Rocket said: How is Edmonton low on D?? 8 defensemen under contract next year not including Bouchard, Bear, and Jones (3 of their top 5 prospects). They have too many. All of them overpaid besides nurse and klefbom. I also think you’re misjudging Bennings value. He’s a bottom pair D-man on the team about to be passed by younger players. Edmonton has tried to trade him before, recently. He’s very expendable for them assuming this is true, why exactly would we want him? it seems to me we have enough 3rd pair D anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 19 minutes ago, Glug Datt said: assuming this is true, why exactly would we want him? it seems to me we have enough 3rd pair D anyways He’s a step up from Biega and Schenn. Mostly this trade is a way to clear roster space up front. Canucks have far to many forwards under contract next year. Pure asset management move Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glug Datt Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 1 minute ago, The_Rocket said: He’s a step up from Biega and Schenn. Mostly this trade is a way to clear roster space up front. Canucks have far to many forwards under contract next year. Pure asset management move hmm.. I guess so? Schenn will get a season to prove himself - whether he can be effective for a full season remains to be seen.. Biega is a tough call.. guy seems content to play in the A until called upon, doesn't cost much.. almost ideal 8th D at this stage. MB would be an upgrade on him I suppose. I sure am curious to see what moves JB pulls off this summer.. there's a few too many dudes at the ranch Tempering expectations so far.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 55 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Russel has a NMC so thats problematic. Benning would be a decent add, but I would doubt they view Granny as an upgrade, even though he would actually be a useful player for them . On July 1st it becomes a limited ntc. Submits a 10 team list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 I’ve wondered the sutter for Russell swap myself id do it. We’re thin on the blueline as it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hindustan Smyl Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 I like the Granlund for Benning idea but I don’t think the Oilers bite on that. I have one: Baertschi for Sekera. Oilers reduce cap space while the Canucks get a dman that can play top 4. Sekera is coming off of an injury but he likely still has game. He can also play both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckinEdm Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, The_Rocket said: How is Edmonton low on D?? 8 defensemen under contract next year not including Bouchard, Bear, and Jones (3 of their top 5 prospects). They have too many. All of them overpaid besides nurse and klefbom. I also think you’re misjudging Bennings value. He’s a bottom pair D-man on the team about to be passed by younger players. Edmonton has tried to trade him before, recently. He’s very expendable for them I would say all of Edmonton's D are on fair deals their issue is goaltending and scoring besides McD, Dri and RNH. Sekera @ 5.5 is fair (maybe a little high) hes a 6g 30-40 point dman problem is hes been hurt 2 years in a row. Klefbom @ 4.1 is actually a great deal. i think hes a 10 goal 40 point guy when healthy Larsson @ 4.1 is a good deal a steady top 4 stay at home 20 point dman Russell @ 4 is a good deal consistently one of the best shot blockers in the NHL and gets 20 points and is a even (roughly) player Nurse @ 3.2 is an unreal contract 10 goals 40 point physical dman. Edited May 21, 2019 by CanuckinEdm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
18W-40C-6W Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 No to any Dmen from Edmonton not Named Nurse or Larsson. They have too much suckage melted into their synapses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now