Rumour: Canucks very active in trade market (Canucks looking at D options)

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Rule of thumb: if you are making a trade because you have assets you don't think provide you value, you are in the wrong line of work. EVERY assets that can be traded has value and it sucks to have to let that value go. Otherwise, why is the other team going to want your garbage?

 

Mental state: it's a thing. To get something of value you have to give something of value, by thinking our stuff is crap, you're getting nowhere because how can you expect the other team to think that stuff is good? Think like a businessman and not like a fan for these things. Sell me a pencil, and then sell the other team a Sutter!

On one hand you are saying we pay too much

on the other hand you not enough

 

I am too old for you to be lecturing me....but...

 

if you read what I have said, I have said both for and against and you are still not happy

 

Have a nice day...………….

[Darkstar]

Ghost would be an amazing pick-up. He's had a slow year, but he's an excellent offensive defenseman. 

 

Zaitsev would be a disaster. 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said:

On one hand you are saying we pay too much

on the other hand you not enough

 

I am too old for you to be lecturing me....but...

 

if you read what I have said, I have said both for and against and you are still not happy

 

Have a nice day...………….

Not happy about what? I just think it's important to look out for our team and the value we have accumulated. We want the right assets but not for the wrong price. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps I'm speaking in riddles a bit, but don't get your panties too caught up here.

[Pears]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I think any offer probably starts with Marky (they need a goalie). Unsure what else we would be adding though based on their needs (top 6 F, left D). I also think we'd need to 'overpay' as we'd likely be looking at a quantity for quality situation. And I'd probably be ok with that depending on what's going back.

Yea it would take an overpayment for sure. I’m thinking something like Marky, Baertschi, Madden, Goldobin, and a 1st next year. Even then I’m not sure that would be enough. 

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

My guy is Pesce……………..

 

Tanev + Juolevi + Sutter + 2021 1st

Or we sign a free agent and keep our 4 pieces.

[J.I.A.H.N]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Not happy about what? I just think it's important to look out for our team and the value we have accumulated. We want the right assets but not for the wrong price. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps I'm speaking in riddles a bit, but don't get your panties too caught up here.

Panties are not too tight,,,,but…...you have spoke about our assets, but not Pesce, who is a consenus top 4, if not higher, and is at any rate a very proven good young Dman

 

Tanev is a stop gap to take Pesce's place shortterm

Sutter is a cash dump or close to it

Juolevi has solid upside which has not been proven

and the 1st is 4 to 6 years away from helping us

 

the flip on that is...……….

 

Tanev never gets injured again

Sutter find his spot on their roster

Juolevi becomes Pesce

and the 1st become Boeser

 

That is how trades work

But usually the team with the best piece wins the trade

But there is always risk

 

Calgary paid 2-1st and a 2nd for Hamilton...………….was it good value?

Edited June 15, 2019 by janisahockeynut

[oldnews]

If I were Benning, I'd certainly be 'interested' in Zaitsev - leading them on with every step....their leverage gets weaker and weaker with every day imo.

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Panties are not too tight,,,,but…...you have spoke have our assets, but not Pesce, who is a consenus top 4, if not higher, and is at any rate a very proven good young Dman

 

Tanev is a stop gap to take Pesce's place shortterm

Sutter is a cash dump or close to it

Juolevi has solid upside which has not been proven

and the 1st is 4 to 6 years away from helping us

 

the flip on that is...……….

 

Tanev never gets injured again

Sutter find his spot on their roster

Juolevi becomes Pesce

and the 1st become Boeser

 

That is how trades work

But usually the team with the best piece wins the trade

But there is always risk

 

Calgary paid 2-1st and a 2nd for Hamilton...………….was it good value?

But see, that's the problem with this: you are giving Carolina 4 chances to have the best piece over our 1. Let me give you what I think is a reasonable comparison: Keith Ballard.

 

Ballard looked like a great trade. He was a solid defenseman when we traded for him, arguable similar to Hamhuis. Then he got a concussion. Grabner wasn't looking like he was going to be good, and then he got better. So we got the better piece at first, but because of 1 asset out of 3 (I think Bernier and a pick (Howden) was the other 2 assets) became better than Ballard, we lost that trade. Ballard got a concussion and, what we thought wouldn't be an injured defenseman, suddenly was.

 

What you are suggesting is for a piece similar to Ballard I would think; yet, you are offering more than what we even offered to get Ballard.

Edited June 15, 2019 by The Lock

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

If I were Benning, I'd certainly be 'interested' in Zaitsev - leading them on with every step....their leverage gets weaker and weaker with every day imo.

Just a couple of questions...……….

 

#1...….why Zaitsev?

#2...….Do you actually think Betteman would fine TM is they went over for a month...….they would probably just ask for an extension and the league would give it to them.

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

But see, that's the problem with this: you are giving Carolina 4 chances to have the best piece over our 1. Let me give you what I think is a reasonable comparison: Keith Ballard.

 

Ballard looked like a great trade. He was a solid defenseman when we traded for him, arguable similar to Hamhuis. Then he got a concussion. Grabner wasn't looking like he was going to be good, and then he got better. So we got the better piece, but because of 1 asset out of 3 (I think Bernier and a pick (Howden) was the other 2 assets), we lost that trade. Ballard got a concussion and, what we thought wouldn't be an injured defenseman, suddenly was.

 

What you are suggesting is for a piece similar to Ballard I would think; yet, you are offering more than what we even offered to get Ballard.

Did you see what Pears just suggested for Ghost...………...not much difference if any really

 

A quantity for quality trade...………...

 

Trades always have that risk, no matter what...……..

 

Go back and look at the Espo for Ratelle trade...…………..imagine if  Ratelle and Park had gotten hurt and never played again...……...that is pretty much what you are saying

 

You can't worry about that...………….it is todays value for todays value, with all aspects taking into consideration

 

If you think Pesce is going to help and fill in for the next 5 years, and raise our bar, you have to consider it

 

Or go out and buy a UFA, for nothing but money...…….it is a choice

[babalu]

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

If I were Benning, I'd certainly be 'interested' in Zaitsev - leading them on with every step....their leverage gets weaker and weaker with every day imo.

Zaitsev has severely underperformed and his contract is for 5 more years. Hard pass unless they are giving us Kapanen to take him.

[Pears]

4 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Did you see what Pears just suggested for Ghost...………...not much difference if any really

 

A quantity for quality trade...………...

 

Trades always have that risk, no matter what...……..

 

Go back and look at the Espo for Ratelle trade...…………..imagine if  Ratelle and Park had gotten hurt and never played again...……...that is pretty much what you are saying

 

You can't worry about that...………….it is todays value for todays value, with all aspects taking into consideration

 

If you think Pesce is going to help and fill in for the next 5 years, and raise our bar, you have to consider it

 

Or go out and buy a UFA, for nothing but money...…….it is a choice

And Carolina will want value for a guy like Pesce. The package you offered is not that. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

Matter of a fact it is Overpayment

That's an understatement. 

[The Lock]

7 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Did you see what Pears just suggested for Ghost...………...not much difference if any really

 

A quantity for quality trade...………...

 

Trades always have that risk, no matter what...……..

 

Go back and look at the Espo for Ratelle trade...…………..imagine if  Ratelle and Park had gotten hurt and never played again...……...that is pretty much what you are saying

 

You can't worry about that...………….it is todays value for todays value, with all aspects taking into consideration

 

If you think Pesce is going to help and fill in for the next 5 years, and raise our bar, you have to consider it

 

Or go out and buy a UFA, for nothing but money...…….it is a choice

Quanity for quality trades are very rare. I haven't read about that other trade, but if it's quanity for quality, it probably wouldn't work unless if Philly or Carolina or whoever we're dealing with sees similar value in that trade.

 

There has to be a reason why the other team wants your assets and not someone else's assets, If another team offers something of quality for Pesce or Ghost or whoever you want while you are offering quantity, you're probably not getting very far in those negotiations.

 

Now, having said that, I don't think Tanev or any of the assets you are willing to trade are crap. There's some value in each of those assets. That's why I think it would be a gross overpayment, Why trade for 1 Pesce now if we can get 2 similar players over a period of time for the same price because we didn't just throw all of our money away in a trade.

Edited June 15, 2019 by The Lock

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 minute ago, Pears said:

And Carolina will want value for a guy like Pesce. The package you offered is not that. 

 

1 minute ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

That's an understatement. 

 LOL...now that is funny! Back to back hits!

[48MPHSlapShot]

Just now, The Lock said:

Quanity for quality trades are very rare. I haven't read about that other trade, but if it's quanity for quality, it probably wouldn't work unless if Philly or Carolina or whoever we're dealing with sees similar value in that trade.

 

There has to be a reason why the other team wants your assets and not someone else's assets, If another team offers something of quality for Pesce or Ghost or whoever you want while you are offering quantity, you're probably not getting very far in those negotiations.

 

Now, having said that, I don't think Tanev or any of the assets you are willing to trade are crap. There's some value in each of those assets. That's why I think it would be a gross overpayment, Why trade for 1 Pesce now if we can get 2 similar players over a period of time for the same price because we didn't just throw all of our money away in a trade.

Some of the proposals here are absolutely nuts. I thought we were a 'rebuilding team'. Now people are suggesting coughing up Juolevi, 1st rd picks, Madden, etc etc etc for middle pairing blueliners. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Quanity for quality trades are very rare. I haven't read about that other trade, but if it's quanity for quality, it probably wouldn't work unless if Philly or Carolina or whoever we're dealing with sees similar value in that trade.

 

There has to be a reason why the other team wants your assets and not someone else's assets, If another team offers something of quality for Pesce or Ghost or whoever you want while you are offering quantity, you're probably not getting very far in those negotiations.

 

Now, having said that, I don't think Tanev or any of the assets you are willing to trade are crap. There's some value in each of those assets. That's why I think it would be a gross overpayment, Why trade for 1 Pesce now if we can get 2 similar players over a period of time for the same price because we didn't just throw all of our money away in a trade.

It is a question of when do you take the plunge?

If you can move cap, sign some UFA's, make a good trade (aka Ghost/Pesce) and keep your 2019 and 2020 1st's, you will be set for the present and the future......

at some point you have to $hit or get off the pot

[The Lock]

Just now, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Some of the proposals here are absolutely nuts. I thought we were a 'rebuilding team'. Now people are suggesting coughing up Juolevi, 1st rd picks, Madden, etc etc etc for middle pairing blueliners. 

And this is why I take most proposals here with a grain of salt. No offense to anyone by the way. Trades aren't easy. They never have been and never will be. They take time to negotiate and figure out what's going to work and what doesn't.

[48MPHSlapShot]

Just now, The Lock said:

And this is why I take most proposals here with a grain of salt. No offense to anyone by the way. Trades aren't easy. They never have been and never will be. They take time to negotiate and figure out what's going to work and what doesn't.

Honestly, I think people are getting a bit too caught up in the idea of making the playoffs next year, especially with St Louis doing what they just did. There's never been better proof that all you have to do is get in and you've got a chance. 

 

Funny thing is, I'm normally an advocate of making the playoffs, and would love to next season as well, but it's just not the time to cough up multiple futures.

[The Lock]

Just now, janisahockeynut said:

It is a question of when do you take the plunge?

If you can move cap, sign some UFA's, make a good trade (aka Ghost/Pesce) and keep your 2019 and 2020 1st's, you will be set for the present and the future......

at some point you have to $hit or get off the pot

You don't take those plunges. Burke took the plunge on getting Kessel to Toronto and Toronto hurt big time. Milbury took several plunges and the Islanders ended up with one of the worst teams in the league. Usually, teams who take such a plunge end up lower in the standings and without assets that could have prevented such an occasion.

 

I also want to stress the "make a good trade" part you mentioned. A plunge, as evidenced by the above paragraph, usually ends up being a bad trade. Sometimes monumentally bad.