Me_ Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 44 minutes ago, Squamfan said: Drancer : "there’s a certain first-line Canucks centreman that would be absolutely furious if the organization made such a move." Who? ”I can play without him” Pettersson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 minute ago, gurn said: I you wish to make your decision based on 10 games after a trade, feel free. I like to wait till the after the trade surge, and the player returns to his normal play before making a judgement on who is better, and who to keep. it's not like Toffoli is some unknown guy..........Canucks fans are well acquainted with what Toffoli brings to the table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, stawns said: when Brock isn't scoring, he's completely invisible and ineffective. When Toffoli isn't scoring, you still notice him. Ultimately, TT is one piece of the return BB would bring in, it's not a one for one swap. No it is not one for one- Toffoli already cost Madden, Schaller a second and a conditional 4th to acquire, now you suggest adding on Boeser in order to keep Toffoli? No thanks 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, stawns said: it's not like Toffoli is some unknown guy..........Canucks fans are well acquainted with what Toffoli brings to the table Yes, and it is not a point per game, like this last after trade bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 minute ago, gurn said: No it is not one for one- Toffoli already cost Madden, Schaller a second and a conditional 4th to acquire, now you suggest adding on Boeser in order to keep Toffoli? No thanks that's a fair point what is it that makes BB so untouchable for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, stawns said: so then why are people so hyped on him as an elite player if he won't even garner a top 4d? He was the shiny new toy who jump onto the scene. I like Brock, wasn't a fan of how much he got on a bridge deal. He does need to improve his foot speed imo and gaining better defensive zone awareness would be nice but I believe that can come with proper coaching and more time in the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bree2 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, stawns said: you don't like Toffoli's 24 goals this season? sure but Toffoli hasn't always got "24 goals" he has had not great years himself. 2018/19 he was a minus 16. i don't think Boeser has ever been a minus player. yes Toffoli played well with us for 10 games while Boeser was out. it would be a shame for the Canuck org. to give away a pure goal scorer and just another mistake the canucks would make!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 If Brock does want to be closer to home then we need to obviously look into this. Unsure how his Dad's health has been with the whole virus but aside from that Brock does seem to enjoy playing in Vancouver. Who wouldn't if you could play on a PP with EP and QH tho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bree2 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 21 minutes ago, stawns said: Jake is far more valuable to the lineup than he is as a tradeable asset, which isn't very much right now. I have zero doubts he will b moved into a top 6 role if BB is moved and do very well there. that would be a huge mistake, he couldn't stay there when Boeser was out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, bree2 said: that would be a huge mistake, he couldn't stay there when Boeser was out! Jake doesn't bring it on a consistent enough basis unfortunately. He has the raw talent, wish we would slot him on the LW as he has scored some nice goals off that side and grew up playing that position when drafted. Green has always given Jake tough love, he has responded to it with spurts of good play but to me hasn't garnered enough trust from coach Green for him to trust Jake in a top 6 role permanently. Keep Brock unless he wants a move and try to keep Toff in the mix as well. Might mean we move Jake with a bad contract to make some cap room, but management might be okay with it knowing Podz is coming after 1 more year. Team was high enough on him to draft him at #10 so they knew that would likely cause a log jam on the team at some point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 28 minutes ago, gurn said: No it is not one for one- Toffoli already cost Madden, Schaller a second and a conditional 4th to acquire, now you suggest adding on Boeser in order to keep Toffoli? No thanks That’s not how it works. First of all, the Toffoli deal cannot be better than what it is. It’s nothing short of great. You don’t add Boeser to the deal. That would just mean losing Boeser. Almost like now when he’s injured. The deal is done already. Can’t just add him to the deal. You trade Boeser to improve the team somewhere else. Of any time when the Canucks could be in a position to do such a trade, it would be at this time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stawns said: Jake is far more valuable to the lineup than he is as a tradeable asset, which isn't very much right now. I have zero doubts he will b moved into a top 6 role if BB is moved and do very well there. You seem sold on (and blind to) this contradiction. You've been touting Virtanen (here and elsewhere) as a more complete, albeit currently less productive, player than Boeser. Valuable in the lineup (which I don't disagree with) and you have 'no doubt, he'll be moved in to a top 6 role here' if we move Boeser. The player you're describing has trade value. Contrary to your claim. Is it as much as Boeser? No (which should tell you something). Would it be enough to get a bonafide top pair/#1 or #2 D? Almost certainly not. But perhaps packaged with a prospect or Stecher or maybe Demko etc, etc... I think he could certainly be part of a deal to get us a younger 'Tanev' level #2B/#3A RD (or a younger guy trending to that level with 'JT Miller-esque', first pair upside). So which is it? It's Virtanen actually the player you claim him to be and hence with trade value? Or is he not the player you claim him to be but has the negligible trade value you claim he has? You can't have it both ways to suit your argument. Edited July 13, 2020 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Provost Posted July 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2020 36 minutes ago, gurn said: No it is not one for one- Toffoli already cost Madden, Schaller a second and a conditional 4th to acquire, now you suggest adding on Boeser in order to keep Toffoli? No thanks That is really tortured and false logic... it has nothing to do with the situation. Toffoli cost what he cost. Trading Boeser is an entirely different deal and will involve a return back to us. The actual way to look at it is asset management. Toffoli as a pending UFA is not an asset and Boeser who is club controlled is. If you sign Toffoli, he becomes an asset. They bring comparable value in the top six in the short term. Boeser may score more, but Toffoli is more physical and better all around. Swapping Toffoli for Boeser is probably a downgrade. Swapping out Boeser for a top 4D PLUS cap space by ditching a small cap dump like Baertschi PLUS being able to add Toffoli makes our team better. It ain’t rocket surgery... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 38 minutes ago, gurn said: No it is not one for one- Toffoli already cost Madden, Schaller a second and a conditional 4th to acquire, now you suggest adding on Boeser in order to keep Toffoli? No thanks But you forgot to mention what trading Brock would add to the Canucks..... so your right Canucks would lose Brock , madden , second and a fourth but would add TT ( hopefully on a decent deal) a D partner for Hughes ( a tanev with a mean streak) And I haven't even mentioning about the picks Jim could get back...... to me if trading Brock lands us a josh Manson type d man I'm pumped cause that would give us a legit top pairing , something we have never truly had in Van. Not to mention if Jim did get a first then he could draft TT replacement and their Elc will come in handy and that's if VP doesn't come over here and shine and if Jake doesnt take anymore steps forward so.... So that's two players that style would benefit petey more then Brock would imho 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, aGENT said: You seem sold on (and blind to) this contradiction. You've been touting Virtanen (here and elsewhere) as a more complete, albeit currently less productive, player than Boeser. Valuable in the lineup (which I don't disagree with) and you have 'no doubt, he'll be moved in to a top 6 role here' if we move Boeser. The player you're describing has trade value. Contrary to your claim. Is it as much as Boeser? No (which should tell you something). Would it be enough to get a bonafide top pair/#1 or #2 D? Almost certainly not. But perhaps packaged with a prospect or Stecher or maybe Demko etc, etc... I think he could certainly be part of a deal to get us a younger 'Tanev' level #2B/#3A RD (or a younger guy trending to that level with 'JT Miller-esque', first pair upside). So which is it? It's Virtanen actually the player you claim him to be and hence with trade value? Or is he not the player you claim him to be but has the negligible trade value you claim he has? You can't have it both ways to suit your argument. You and I know both know numbers have more percieved value on the market and I'm not discounting BB's offense in any way. I just look for and value a complete player more than a one dimensional one. So for me, the juice of trading BB for the return he'd bring would be worth the squeeze, whereas Jake brings a lot of intangibles that you don't measure in numbers and the return for him would not be worth what he provides to the lineup and that juice would not be worth the squeeze for me. Just a personal preference Edited July 13, 2020 by stawns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, stawns said: You and I know both know numbers have more percieved value on the market and I'm not discounting BB's offense in any way. I just look for and value a complete player more than a one dimensional one. So for me, the juice of trading BB for the return he'd bring would be worth the squeeze, whereas Jake brings a lot of intangibles that you don't measure in numbers and the return for him would not be worth what he provides to the lineup and that juice would not be worth the squeeze for me. Just a personal preference So your just going to side step your contradiction...? I think it's safe to say that unlike fans, NHL GM's are well aware of 'intangibles' and would value Jake at pretty much what he's actually worth. Which, as a young, club controlled, physical, exceedingly fast, 40+ point (with more ceiling), (if inconsistent) middle 6 F, developing 2 way F with a solid shot, would have plenty of value. We're fortunate to have a replacement waiting in the wings in Podkolzin that makes Jake somewhat expendable. That Boeser has more value (and unlike Jake, we don't have a replacement for) speaks to exactly why he's not the one to aim to move IMO. Edited July 13, 2020 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3. Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 AKA we are screwed with Jim giving bottom six players lottery contracts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, b3. said: AKA we are screwed with Jim giving bottom six players lottery contracts AKA whatever you say bud because if Beagle and Roussel aren’t here, the Canucks are that much worse and the kids that much less competitive. Edited July 14, 2020 by Me_ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Canuckster86 said: Jake doesn't bring it on a consistent enough basis unfortunately. He has the raw talent, wish we would slot him on the LW as he has scored some nice goals off that side and grew up playing that position when drafted. Green has always given Jake tough love, he has responded to it with spurts of good play but to me hasn't garnered enough trust from coach Green for him to trust Jake in a top 6 role permanently. Keep Brock unless he wants a move and try to keep Toff in the mix as well. Might mean we move Jake with a bad contract to make some cap room, but management might be okay with it knowing Podz is coming after 1 more year. Team was high enough on him to draft him at #10 so they knew that would likely cause a log jam on the team at some point He had 15 points in 16 games when injuries hit this roster. Is he a point per game guy? No, but he brings points regularly as well as physicality. Especially when he plays with good players. I don't see how people expect him to produce 50+ points with guys like Beagle, Roussel, and Sutter as his linemates. Gaudette is okay, but lacks any sort of defensive game and faceoff skills to make that line work regularly. People are unbelievably hard on a guy that was on pace for 40+ points 20+ goals playing 13 minutes a game. That seems pretty good, if not great, scoring for a 3rd liner that also lays the body and mixes it up in scrums. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post -Vintage Canuck- Posted July 13, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2020 Benning vs. Sekeres | Round 1: 1 1 1 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts