Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
All Threads Must Contain Tags!
Forum Closure

[proposal Stecher + 3rd for a rental on defense

Patel Bure

By Patel Bure
in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing

 Share

Recommended Posts

Patel Bure Canucks Second-Line

Patel Bure

Posted
Posted

[proposal Stecher + 3rd for a rental on defense
 

The Canucks aren’t bringing Stecher back anyways, and so I wouldn’t mind seeing them trade Stecher + 3rd for an expiring UFA.   I’d prefer defense, but maybe this rental could be a forward as well (Wayne Simmonds comes to mind, but Simmonds likely wouldn’t cost both Stecher and a 3rd).   
 

The Canucks’ defense could actually look pretty solid if

 

1) Tryamkin returned

 2) Stecher + 3rd rounder lead to an upgrade on Stecher.

 

Edler-New Guy

Hughes-Tanev

Tryamkin-Myers

 

Fantenberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VegasCanuck Canucks Star

VegasCanuck

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal Stecher + 3rd for a rental on defense
 

The Canucks aren’t bringing Stecher back anyways, and so I wouldn’t mind seeing them trade Stecher + 3rd for an expiring UFA.   I’d prefer defense, but maybe this rental could be a forward as well (Wayne Simmonds comes to mind, but Simmonds likely wouldn’t cost both Stecher and a 3rd).   
 

The Canucks’ defense could actually look pretty solid if

 

1) Tryamkin returned

 2) Stecher + 3rd rounder lead to an upgrade on Stecher.

 

Edler-New Guy

Hughes-Tanev

Tryamkin-Myers

 

Fantenberg

#1. We don't know for sure that we're not bringing Stecher back, complete speculation, although, I'll be surprised if he's back next season, he'll likely be traded.

#2. I don't "think" that we'll move any defensive depth before the playoffs, I think Benning likes our depth at that position, and any team that has gone deep into the playoffs will tell you, you have to have depth on defense.

 

If we were to acquire Simmonds, I think the obvious player that would be the center of the trade would be Baerstchi. He doesn't fit into our long-term plans, and he's a position that we have enough depth at.

 

Playoff series are won more by depth at defense than forward, IMO. I think it would be more likely if we did something like:

 

To NJ:

Baerstchi

6th or 7th

 

To Van:

Simmonds

25% retained

 

Now, I really don't think this will happen as I do think Tryamkin is coming back, and I think that we will save our LTIR space to bring him in.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patel Bure Canucks Second-Line

Patel Bure

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

#1. We don't know for sure that we're not bringing Stecher back, complete speculation, although, I'll be surprised if he's back next season, he'll likely be traded.

#2. I don't "think" that we'll move any defensive depth before the playoffs, I think Benning likes our depth at that position, and any team that has gone deep into the playoffs will tell you, you have to have depth on defense.

 

If we were to acquire Simmonds, I think the obvious player that would be the center of the trade would be Baerstchi. He doesn't fit into our long-term plans, and he's a position that we have enough depth at.

 

Playoff series are won more by depth at defense than forward, IMO. I think it would be more likely if we did something like:

 

To NJ:

Baerstchi

6th or 7th

 

To Van:

Simmonds

25% retained

 

Now, I really don't think this will happen as I do think Tryamkin is coming back, and I think that we will save our LTIR space to bring him in.

 

Hey yo,

 

I agree with you about defensive depth.

 

My idea for moving Stecher + 3rd is for a better defenseman! (That just so happens to be a rental).   Whoever that guy is + the return of Tryamkin = our defense being pretty damned good.

 

ps - I can’t see Baertschi being moved until the end of the summer at 50% retention (ie teams will have their cap figured out by then heading into 2020/2021 and will have a better idea as to whether they can accommodate one year of Baertschi).

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VegasCanuck Canucks Star

VegasCanuck

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Hey yo,

 

I agree with you about defensive depth.

 

My idea for moving Stecher + 3rd is for a better defenseman! (That just so happens to be a rental).   Whoever that guy is + the return of Tryamkin = our defense being pretty damned good.

 

ps - I can’t see Baertschi being moved until the end of the summer at 50% retention (ie teams will have their cap figured out by then heading into 2020/2021 and will have a better idea as to whether they can accommodate one year of Baertschi).

Someone will take him, will be easier in the summer when teams have a little more flexibility.

 

Worst case, we buy him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
komodo0921 Canucks Prospect

komodo0921

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

#1. We don't know for sure that we're not bringing Stecher back, complete speculation, although, I'll be surprised if he's back next season, he'll likely be traded.

#2. I don't "think" that we'll move any defensive depth before the playoffs, I think Benning likes our depth at that position, and any team that has gone deep into the playoffs will tell you, you have to have depth on defense.

 

If we were to acquire Simmonds, I think the obvious player that would be the center of the trade would be Baerstchi. He doesn't fit into our long-term plans, and he's a position that we have enough depth at.

 

Playoff series are won more by depth at defense than forward, IMO. I think it would be more likely if we did something like:

 

To NJ:

Baerstchi

6th or 7th

 

To Van:

Simmonds

25% retained

 

Now, I really don't think this will happen as I do think Tryamkin is coming back, and I think that we will save our LTIR space to bring him in.

 

We're in a tough spot when it comes to moving a dman before the playoffs.

We simply don't have enough quality blueliners ready in our system right now.

Imo, the most logical move would be to let Tanev walk at seasons end and re-sign Stetch.

A lot of fans talk about good asset management. In this case, letting a player walk is the better option to losing a good defensive dman in Stetch.

We open a roster spot and keep a quality blueliner who is able to stay healthy.

Another option is taking a chance that Tryamkin will adequately fill Tanev's boots and deal Tanev by Monday.

TO's in need of some defensive help.

Tanev to TO for a pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
khay Canucks First-Line

khay

Posted
Posted

I hope we can but logically speaking, I don't think it will happen.

 

So let's say there is a defenceman named "A" who is an upgrade over Stecher, who by the way, is a rental himself since his contract expires this season.

 

If the team that has "A" is a seller, then they don't need Stecher because they'd rather tank for better draft odds. This team can simply get a better deal from another team. Since "A" is an upgrade over Stecher, who himself could probably get us a 3rd rounder, they should be able to get at least a 2nd for "A". 

 

If that team is a playoff team, then they are selling a defenceman they need in the playoffs for a downgrade in Stecher for what? A 3rd round pick? The GM would be fired if they exit the playoffs earlier than expected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VegasCanuck Canucks Star

VegasCanuck

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, komodo0921 said:

We're in a tough spot when it comes to moving a dman before the playoffs.

We simply don't have enough quality blueliners ready in our system right now.

Imo, the most logical move would be to let Tanev walk at seasons end and re-sign Stetch.

A lot of fans talk about good asset management. In this case, letting a player walk is the better option to losing a good defensive dman in Stetch.

We open a roster spot and keep a quality blueliner who is able to stay healthy.

Another option is taking a chance that Tryamkin will adequately fill Tanev's boots and deal Tanev by Monday.

TO's in need of some defensive help.

Tanev to TO for a pick.

That's exactly what I'm saying and why I didn't suggest moving a dman. I suggested moving an excess forward, playing in Utica if we need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alflives Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Alflives

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Stecher and a pick for a rental? Why?

Stecher is all heart.  He’s a coming RFA who’s qualifying offer is going to be a lot more than he’s worth.  He’s following Hutton out the door July 1.  He has no trade value.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alflives Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Alflives

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, KnuckleHead16 said:

What the deal with Dustin Byfuglien? Can we make room, cap wise to acquire him? Then add a guy like Wayne Simmonds for our playoff run:) is that possible? Be nice to have those two guys skys the limit then. 

Love Buff, but is he even able to play anymore?  Guy isn’t exactly known for staying in shape, right?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RowdyCanuck Canucks Regular

RowdyCanuck

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Not a lot available that would be a real upgrade over Stech.  Would love Manson from Anaheim but the cost would be way too high.

Well it's been rumoured Guads name is some what out there for the right price....maybe Guad +stecher+OJ for Manson ......I could live with that but I would miss Guad but Manson would make up for it and would give us a number one D pairing which every cup team needs....

hughes and Manson sounds perfect

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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