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

[proposal] Jacob Markstrom to Calgary for Cam Talbot + defenseman / A flier on Jesse Puljiujarvi


Recommended Posts

[proposal] Jacob Markstrom to Calgary for Cam Talbot + defenseman / A flier on Jesse Puljiujarvi

 

Looking at this Canucks team, I think there are two main areas that we need to address.

 

1) Another top 6 scoring forward.

2) Another defenseman that is capable of playing on the top 4 incase of injuries (and not being exposed long term as a guy that shouldn't be on your top 4).

 

I think most of us can agree on the following:

 

1) Trading for a current top 6 forward will cost an arm and a leg.

2) Demko shouldn't be the clear cut #1 taking on a heavy #1 load right now, but he's likely at a point now where he could benefit from getting more starts and maybe even getting 50% of the games.   

3) It's important for a team to have atleast two solid goalies.     

 

Jesse Puljiujarvi would be a classic case of buying relatively low.    Even though he's been a bust at the NHL level so far, the fact of the matter is that many young players have struggled in Edmonton in the past (for whatever reason) only to develop their games elsewhere.    While it's only the Finnish league, Puljiujarvi does have 23 points in 20 games thus far.   If the Canucks are looking for a guy that could play with Horvat for the short term, Jesse Puljiujarvi might be your guy.   

 

To Edmonton:   Josh Levio + Olli Juolevi

To Vancouver:    Jesse Puljiujarvi + middling prospect defenseman

 

I would have suggested someone like Baertschi or Goldobin, but I can't see Edmonton going for that.   Oilers would likely ask for Virtanen, but I would say no to that.    Two talented prospects that haven't lived up to expectations get fresh starts.    

 

Markstrom + defenseman to Calgary for Talbot and *upgrade* defenseman

 

Calgary gets a true #1 goalie, while the Canucks get a 1A goalie that can take pressure off of Demko as the Canucks slowly try and push Demko into the #1 role (or atleast give Demko 50% of the starts).   Even with the downgrade from Markstrom to Talbot, the Canucks goaltending position could still be considered a strength since both goalies wouldn't look out of place playing as the #1 goalie for an extended period of time.    

 

Since the Canucks, in this hypothetical, would be willing to downgrade their goaltending position, the expectation is that we'd be upgrading our defense.     Now - for this one, I'm not sure how it would manifest itself (Troy Stecher to Rasmus Andersson?  Fantenberg to Mark Stone?).     I'd probably be willing to do the former (Markstrom + Stecher for Talbot + Andersson).

 

Summary:

 

To Edmonton:   Josh Leivo + Olli Juolevi  

To Vancouver:   Jesse Puljiujarvi + [middling defensive prospect]

 

To Calgary:    Jacob Markstrom + Troy Stecher

To Vancouver:    Cal Talbot + Rasmus Andersson

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Puljiujarvi

Ferland-Sutter-Virtanen

Schaller-Beagle-Motte

 

Roussel

 

Edler-Myers

Hughes-Tanev

Benn-Andersson

 

Fantenberg

 

Demko

Talbot

 

This roster would be under the assumption of 100% full health.    This is an entirely different issue that I'm about to bring up, but it looks like the Canucks will have some tough decisions to make when Roussel returns.   It would be an injustice of Gaudette got sent down to the A, but then what becomes of Sutter?    If you move Sutter to the wing, then which other player comes out of the line-up?   If the answer to that is Virtanen, then perhaps Virtanen is one of the guys that you move for Puljiujarvi +.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Edited by Hindustan Smyl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At that point I'd rather just keep Markstrom. If it comes down to it I'd rather just see what we have in Juolevi and our other Utica guys. With Brodie out I don't imagine Calgary's looking to move a D anyway. 

 

Not interested in Puljiujarvi, if we're looking to bolster our top six with a prospect I'd rather take a hard look at what we've got in Hoglander next training camp. Hell, I'd sooner convert Gaudette exclusively to wing and give him the rest of the season to show his stuff in an offensive role. 

 

Sooner or later we've got to see what we've got in these guys, I'd rather take that route before trading assets to fill holes. The guys we've got could very well be the pieces that could fill those holes. 

Edited by Coconuts
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

What is the cost of all this?

I would go:

 

1) Levio or Juolevi for JP (or Leivo and Juolevi for JP + a young middle of the road defense prospect in the Oilers system).

2) Markstrom + one of our defenseman for Talbot + an upgrade over said defenseman that we trade (I was thinking Stecher to Andersson, but it could be anything really.......as long as the upgrade is approximately the equivalent of the downgrade involved from going from Markstrom to Talbot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see Talbot’s last game? Or the last season? Don’t answer that cause clearly you didn’t. No. Not just no. Hell no. F no feels a bit light. I couldn’t no this any harder even if I channeled my inner Steve Carrell and went Super Saiyan.

 

You’re welcome fellow nerds for the Dragon Ball reference. I’m sure all two of you enjoyed it.

Edited by N7Nucks
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:

Did you see Talbot’s last game? Or the last season? Don’t answer that cause clearly you didn’t. No. Not just no. Hell no. F no feels a bit light. I couldn’t no this any harder even if I channeled my inner Steve Carrell and went Super Saiyan.

 

You’re welcome fellow nerds for the Dragon Ball reference. I’m sure all two of you enjoyed it.

It's one game dude.   Everyone has a bad game every now and then.

 

When you look at Talbot's entire body of work though, the logical conclusion that one can come to is that he's an extremely good back-up goalie.........and a decent 1A goalie that wouldn't look completely out of place if the starter on the team was out with an extended injury.   

 

IF Demko is the future of this team, and IF there would be a benefit in giving Demko more games this season (40-50% of the games as opposed to 15-20%), then maybe you consider a deal like this.   

 

You take the downgrade in net (Markstrom to Talbot) with the expectation that you'd be upgrading your defense (for example, a Stecher for an Andersson.........or something to that effect).     

 

As far as level goes, there hasn't been that much of a difference between Demko and Markstrom if any.    Canucks will have to cut ties with one of those guys in the future anyways.    It might not hurt to explore options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pears said:

How often do midseason trades happen between division rivals? Especially one where one team is significantly upgrading the other? Hard pass. 

Not often if ever.   

 

It doesn't have to be Calgary by the way.     I'm more interested in exploring the idea of trading Markstrom to a team that could use an upgrade in net.   In return, we'd get a very good back-up/1A type goalie, plus a better defenseman (assuming that we'd package Markstrom with one of our dman).   

 

Markstrom + dman for downgrade in net + upgrade on d.    

 

That's what I had in mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

just wondering... How is Andersson an upgrade over Stecher? 

He’s bigger and has a much better shot, and I’ve heard people mention that his upside is similar to that of Edler.   Again, I have no idea how accurate that is or not.

 

Like I said in my post above, I’m more interested in the CONCEPT of what I’m proposing rather than the actual players.

 

Markstrom + one of our defensemen for a very good back-up/1A goalie + a defenseman.

 

The trade off being that we downgrade our goaltending (good starting goalie for a 1A) while upgrading whichever dman we trade (however that manifests itself). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

[proposal] Jacob Markstrom to Calgary for Cam Talbot + defenseman / A flier on Jesse Puljiujarvi

 

Looking at this Canucks team, I think there are two main areas that we need to address.

 

1) Another top 6 scoring forward.

2) Another defenseman that is capable of playing on the top 4 incase of injuries (and not being exposed long term as a guy that shouldn't be on your top 4).

 

I think most of us can agree on the following:

 

1) Trading for a current top 6 forward will cost an arm and a leg.

2) Demko shouldn't be the clear cut #1 taking on a heavy #1 load right now, but he's likely at a point now where he could benefit from getting more starts and maybe even getting 50% of the games.   

3) It's important for a team to have atleast two solid goalies.     

 

Jesse Puljiujarvi would be a classic case of buying relatively low.    Even though he's been a bust at the NHL level so far, the fact of the matter is that many young players have struggled in Edmonton in the past (for whatever reason) only to develop their games elsewhere.    While it's only the Finnish league, Puljiujarvi does have 23 points in 20 games thus far.   If the Canucks are looking for a guy that could play with Horvat for the short term, Jesse Puljiujarvi might be your guy.   

 

To Edmonton:   Josh Levio + Olli Juolevi

To Vancouver:    Jesse Puljiujarvi + middling prospect defenseman

 

I would have suggested someone like Baertschi or Goldobin, but I can't see Edmonton going for that.   Oilers would likely ask for Virtanen, but I would say no to that.    Two talented prospects that haven't lived up to expectations get fresh starts.    

 

Markstrom + defenseman to Calgary for Talbot and *upgrade* defenseman

 

Calgary gets a true #1 goalie, while the Canucks get a 1A goalie that can take pressure off of Demko as the Canucks slowly try and push Demko into the #1 role (or atleast give Demko 50% of the starts).   Even with the downgrade from Markstrom to Talbot, the Canucks goaltending position could still be considered a strength since both goalies wouldn't look out of place playing as the #1 goalie for an extended period of time.    

 

Since the Canucks, in this hypothetical, would be willing to downgrade their goaltending position, the expectation is that we'd be upgrading our defense.     Now - for this one, I'm not sure how it would manifest itself (Troy Stecher to Rasmus Andersson?  Fantenberg to Mark Stone?).     I'd probably be willing to do the former (Markstrom + Stecher for Talbot + Andersson).

 

Summary:

 

To Edmonton:   Josh Leivo + Olli Juolevi  

To Vancouver:   Jesse Puljiujarvi + [middling defensive prospect]

 

To Calgary:    Jacob Markstrom + Troy Stecher

To Vancouver:    Cal Talbot + Rasmus Andersson

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Puljiujarvi

Ferland-Sutter-Virtanen

Schaller-Beagle-Motte

 

Roussel

 

Edler-Myers

Hughes-Tanev

Benn-Andersson

 

Fantenberg

 

Demko

Talbot

 

This roster would be under the assumption of 100% full health.    This is an entirely different issue that I'm about to bring up, but it looks like the Canucks will have some tough decisions to make when Roussel returns.   It would be an injustice of Gaudette got sent down to the A, but then what becomes of Sutter?    If you move Sutter to the wing, then which other player comes out of the line-up?   If the answer to that is Virtanen, then perhaps Virtanen is one of the guys that you move for Puljiujarvi +.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Ok Markstrom is playing better than Talbot without question which makes Demko's transition that much easier.  Why downgrade to continue that transition....makes literally no sense.  As for trading Leivo.  The guys a solid player and you want to trade him for [unknown defensemen] when we actually have a glut of defensemen in the bigs and waiting to come up, without mentioning the Tryamkin equation.  Just because you want to make trades doesn't mean any are necessary, needed or wanted.

 

We don't NEED to compete this year let alone deal with the small amount of assets we have to simply move sideways.  All we need to do is compete and spend one more year developing and stockpiling.

 

It's a no for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Ok Markstrom is playing better than Talbot without question which makes Demko's transition that much easier.  Why downgrade to continue that transition....makes literally no sense.  As for trading Leivo.  The guys a solid player and you want to trade him for [unknown defensemen] when we actually have a glut of defensemen in the bigs and waiting to come up, without mentioning the Tryamkin equation.  Just because you want to make trades doesn't mean any are necessary, needed or wanted.

 

We don't NEED to compete this year let alone deal with the small amount of assets we have to simply move sideways.  All we need to do is compete and spend one more year developing and stockpiling.

 

It's a no for me

the original idea pretty much allows Calgary to knock us out of the playoffs. No thanks.

 

Maybe NJ could use Marky but we're not getting a Hall for him. 

 

Why would Holland want an injured Juolevi?

 

So many questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the original idea pretty much allows Calgary to knock us out of the playoffs. No thanks.

 

Maybe NJ could use Marky but we're not getting a Hall for him. 

 

Why would Holland want an injured Juolevi?

 

So many questions. 

So many unanswered needless trades for the sake of trades

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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