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

[Rumour] Senators trying to trade for forward


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

He could be shopping Leivo? I don't think he's in our long term plans moving forward, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was his last season here.

 

Leivo is a good depth piece but we just have too many forwards and I expect things to get even more crowded next year with guys like Lind, Jasek and MacEwen pushing for a spot on the team. There's also a chance Gaudette moves over to the wing if we don't end up moving a center. So if I'm Green (and we all know he loves his 4th line) Leivo is the odd man out. Rousell's return is coming...

*Was

 

I doubt he was shopping Leivo, in the summer.  As per the discussion Surfer and I were having.

 

Now, with Roussel coming back, somebody has got to go and it could very well be him.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Yeah we do, this is a long term move. If Ottawa offers any draft pick of value, I'd run with it. This is the best time to do it IMO when hes playing well and most of all, when he's healthy. That cap space is for the eventual Petey, Hughes contract as well as, Im not sure if its going to happen, Markstroms contract

We have cap to move that doesn't involve a perfectly useful Sutter that's playing well on a team that's winning and a Gaudette who's still not shown he's ready to replace him.

 

We need to move out some of the log jam of middle 6 wingers, not C's. It's a poor fit with Ottawa's needs.

 

Sutter also has a M-NTC. HIGHLY doubt he'd waive for Ottawa.

 

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Sutter is having a great year and the Canucks are doing very well.

 

...and people want to trade Sutter??!!

 

Haha..how stupid.  :picard:

To be fair, that's how you get value in a trade. Management has to decide the value of having him versus whatever potential return we could get for him depending on long term plans (or short term goals).

 

Everyone wants to trade the garbage/underperforming players, but either you're not going to find a trading partner or the return will be meh and people will then complain about why we got so little back.

 

Sutter has been great whenever he's in the lineup, but at the same time he hasn't been in the lineup much over the last few years, so has he overcome his injury issues and can be a full time contributor or is he a ticking time bomb? Gaudette isn't ready to replace him just yet, but he's there as depth if need be. Graovac again not a replacement, but had a decent preseason and is decent depth for injury call up.

 

Benning has said he would like to recoup the 1st that he traded, so that can only happen by trading a player while their value is high. None of the wingers that may be expendable are going to net that return. Sutter, Tanev and one of our goalies may be the only ones capable of doing this.

 

With that said, I think Sutter is more likely moved in the off season and hopefully after relatively healthy strong season. But sometimes situations arise that forces to make decisions earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

To be fair, that's how you get value in a trade. Management has to decide the value of having him versus whatever potential return we could get for him depending on long term plans (or short term goals).

 

Everyone wants to trade the garbage/underperforming players, but either you're not going to find a trading partner or the return will be meh and people will then complain about why we got so little back.

 

Sutter has been great whenever he's in the lineup, but at the same time he hasn't been in the lineup much over the last few years, so has he overcome his injury issues and can be a full time contributor or is he a ticking time bomb? Gaudette isn't ready to replace him just yet, but he's there as depth if need be. Graovac again not a replacement, but had a decent preseason and is decent depth for injury call up.

 

Benning has said he would like to recoup the 1st that he traded, so that can only happen by trading a player while their value is high. None of the wingers that may be expendable are going to net that return. Sutter, Tanev and one of our goalies may be the only ones capable of doing this.

 

With that said, I think Sutter is more likely moved in the off season and hopefully after relatively healthy strong season. But sometimes situations arise that forces to make decisions earlier.

Just as a point of information, I am in the no to trading Sutter, at least for this season (and barring a really, really, really good offer).

 

I don't see the Canucks getting a 1st for Sutter, at least not from the Senators, and certainly not right now. He may fetch a 1st at a trade deadline maybe next year, depending on his performance. For right now, age, contract and injury history don't make him a very valuable guy to the Senators. At most I could see him bringing back one of the three 2nd round picks the Senators have, or possibly a prospect of some sort. To another team, at another time, the return would (likely?) be greater.

 

                                                                    regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Sutter is having a great year and the Canucks are doing very well.

 

...and people want to trade Sutter??!!

 

Haha..how stupid.  :picard:

Relax!!!! Gaudette is our future, not Sutter right?? Nothing wrong to trade Sutter if we can get decent returns.... OR make them take Eriksson!! Even better!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Virtanen#18 said:

Relax!!!! Gaudette is our future, not Sutter right?? Nothing wrong to trade Sutter if we can get decent returns.... OR make them take Eriksson!! Even better!!

I doubt the Sens want Sutter.  They are rebuilding and would way prefer our Hockey Gaud, and that's not happening.  

I wonder more about a D man like Stecher going their way?  He's young, and proven he can play heavy minutes.  Would JB accept a second round pick for Troy as a return?  Sens second rounder would be 32 to 35 I think.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Sutter is having a great year and the Canucks are doing very well.

 

...and people want to trade Sutter??!!

 

Haha..how stupid.  :picard:

Well that is kind of how good GMs do business.  Trade a player when he is hot, rather than wait until he is playing terrible and has less value.

 

I am not in a rush to trade Sutter, but if there is any reasonable return then go for it.  If we could create a package that gets us better than a 3rd liner for example, or if we could package Eriksson with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

Well that is kind of how good GMs do business.  Trade a player when he is hot, rather than wait until he is playing terrible and has less value.

 

I am not in a rush to trade Sutter, but if there is any reasonable return then go for it.  If we could create a package that gets us better than a 3rd liner for example, or if we could package Eriksson with him.

is it? how often do teams trade productive forwards mid-season for picks or "3rd liners" when the team is competitive? 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

is it? how often do teams trade productive forwards mid-season for picks or "3rd liners" when the team is competitive? 

 

Yes, it is.

We have a roster crunch with Roussel coming back, Sutter's history for a very long sample size suggests that his play and production isn't going to stay at this pace.... which isn't actually very good anyways if someone takes more than a couple seconds to look beyond his 5 points.  His underlying numbers are atrocious right now in the sample size, and he has been dreadful in faceoffs.   All of his goals and most of his points came in a single game where we scored 8 goals and the other team completely rolled over.

I also said if you can create a package that gets us "better than a 3rd liner", so you misquoted me.

In summary: Sutter isn't playing well, though his points may trick folks into thinking he is; we have too many bottom six bodies; he has a big cap hit in relation to his production; and we have at least replacement level alternatives to slot in his roster spot if he is moved.  There is little informed reason to think moving Sutter does nothing but increase our team's competitiveness both in the short and long term.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yes, it is.

We have a roster crunch with Roussel coming back, Sutter's history for a very long sample size suggests that his play and production isn't going to stay at this pace.... which isn't actually very good anyways if someone takes more than a couple seconds to look beyond his 5 points.  His underlying numbers are atrocious right now in the sample size, and he has been dreadful in faceoffs.   All of his goals and most of his points came in a single game where we scored 8 goals and the other team completely rolled over.

I also said if you can create a package that gets us "better than a 3rd liner", so you misquoted me.

In summary: Sutter isn't playing well, though his points may trick folks into thinking he is; we have too many bottom six bodies; he has a big cap hit in relation to his production; and we have at least replacement level alternatives to slot in his roster spot if he is moved.  There is little informed reason to think moving Sutter does nothing but increase our team's competitiveness both in the short and long term.

 

sorry for the misquote. But I'm still not sure about the good GMs part - can you give me an example of a competitive team that did a mid-season trade like this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Sutter has been great whenever he's in the lineup, but at the same time he hasn't been in the lineup much over the last few years, so has he overcome his injury issues and can be a full time contributor or is he a ticking time bomb?

Problem being, I can't see another GM overlooking these things either and offering full trade value, even with him playing well.

 

Perhaps if his play and health carries on closer to January (or more likely IMO, next summer) it becomes more of a reality. But as of right now, I doubt Benning's seeing the offers worthwhile to neutering our C depth and moving a perfectly capable player, on a team that's winning as constructed. 

 

If that's not the case, I'm happy to have my mind changed by a solid trade return ;) 

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Problem being, I can't see another GM overlooking these things either and offering full trade value, even with him playing well.

 

Perhaps if his play and health carries on closer to January (or more likely IMO, next summer) it becomes more of a reality. But as of right now, I doubt Benning's seeing the offers worthwhile to neutering our C depth and moving a perfectly capable player, on a team that's winning as constructed. 

 

If that's not the case, I'm happy to have my mind changed by a solid trade return ;) 

Ultimately we only make a deal if the offer is good. I don't think many are suggesting we dump him for cap reasons or whatever. If GMs don't want to give good value, then there is no reason to move Sutter for the time being. As I've mentioned before, I think it's more likely we move him in the off season with hopefully a healthy productive season.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Ultimately we only make a deal if the offer is good. I don't think many are suggesting we dump him for cap reasons or whatever. If GMs don't want to give good value, then there is no reason to move Sutter for the time being. As I've mentioned before, I think it's more likely we move him in the off season with hopefully a healthy productive season.

 

That doesn't sound like what OTT wants to do. They're not giving up key, quality rebuilding assets, in the middle of a rebuild. They'd want a cheap to acquire stop gap, or a young guy they can use as one of their pieces (if they're giving up other ones). Neither of those = Sutter.

 

I'm glad we can agree this 'potential' trade is likely a non-starter ;) 

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Sutter is having a great year and the Canucks are doing very well.

 

...and people want to trade Sutter??!!

 

Haha..how stupid.  :picard:

You have to figure out whether there will be significant drop in overall team effectiveness if Sutter is replaced by Gaudette (or if Beagle get more ice time).  

If Sutter's trade value is as high as it will be going forward.  Can the amount of money saved from him being off the books be better utilized?

 

If there's a net positive, make a trade.  If not, keep him.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless someone else is going on I/R, the team HAS TO trade someone who is making more than a couple million in order to activate Roussel from I/R. 
 

So, I’m guessing they’ll have to trade either Baertschi or Sutter, or pay through the nose for someone to take Eriksson. Personally, I’d be glad to move on from Sutter’s cap hit.

  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Unless someone else is going on I/R, the team HAS TO trade someone who is making more than a couple million in order to activate Roussel from I/R. 
 

So, I’m guessing they’ll have to trade either Baertschi or Sutter, or pay through the nose for someone to take Eriksson. Personally, I’d be glad to move on from Sutter’s cap hit.

They are under the cap with Roussel included.    

 

Dealing with injuries could be problematic though as there is not much cap space.  They'll probably operate with 22 players rather than 23 like they are now to bank some cap space.  

 

If they have a few short term injuries they could invoke emergency cap relief - they would need to play short-handed one game though and could only recall players making no more than 800K to benefit from the measure.


There are also the performance bonuses for Pettersson and Hughes that will need to be accounted for and any overage would be carried over to next season.  

 

Edited by mll
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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