[Proposal]Virtanen + Stecher + Tryamkin rights for a “highish” 2020 1st round pick?

[RomanP]

4 minutes ago, Pink Sock said:

You are clueless when it comes to value. You have to be trolling because every trade proposal you make is god awful. 

No GM is taking spare parts for a top tier talent.

Would you trade Hughes for Greenway, Stalock, Eriksson Ek, Kunin and Hunt? Of course not. 

Well, with the trades that he's proposing, he just might lol

[qwijibo]

On 9/18/2020 at 10:09 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

Yes.
 

To be honest, I probably wouldn’t make a move like this due to the risks involved (ie picks don’t always pan out), but it is quite delicious in theory.   
 

The modern day “Lindros package.”

 

There are some bottom feeding teams out there that.....

 

1) Have tons of cap space

2) Probably are tired of getting lottery picks year after year without having much to show for it.  
 

I’m just spitballing here, but what if the Canucks offered a package of

 

Demko + rights to Tryamkin + Gaudette + Virtanen + Stecher + Motte.

 

What would teams be willing to give up for that?    We all saw the three game Patrick Roy like performance that Demko had.  We’ve seen what kind of compete level that Motte has.   Questionable attitude or not, Virtanen still netted 18 goals with Caitlyn Jenner ice time.   Tryamkin is a big boy while Stecher is an honest and young solid 3rd pairing guy that wouldn’t look out of place playing higher.
 

Would I be correct in assuming that a package like the above could net a 1st or 2nd overall pick?   Would Jack Hughes be worth taking a gamble on?  Would a team like the Sabres be willing to move Dahlin?   
 

Obviously, the above is highly unlikely to occur but I can’t help but wonder....... 

 

 

You’re kidding right? Tell me you don’t actually think that package lands you 1st or 2nd OA.  

[Gollumpus]

On 9/18/2020 at 10:09 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

Yes.
 

To be honest, I probably wouldn’t make a move like this due to the risks involved (ie picks don’t always pan out), but it is quite delicious in theory.   
 

The modern day “Lindros package.”

 

There are some bottom feeding teams out there that.....

 

1) Have tons of cap space

2) Probably are tired of getting lottery picks year after year without having much to show for it.  
 

I’m just spitballing here, but what if the Canucks offered a package of

 

Demko + rights to Tryamkin + Gaudette + Virtanen + Stecher + Motte.

 

What would teams be willing to give up for that?    We all saw the three game Patrick Roy like performance that Demko had.  We’ve seen what kind of compete level that Motte has.   Questionable attitude or not, Virtanen still netted 18 goals with Caitlyn Jenner ice time.   Tryamkin is a big boy while Stecher is an honest and young solid 3rd pairing guy that wouldn’t look out of place playing higher.
 

Would I be correct in assuming that a package like the above could net a 1st or 2nd overall pick?   Would Jack Hughes be worth taking a gamble on?  Would a team like the Sabres be willing to move Dahlin?   
 

Obviously, the above is highly unlikely to occur but I can’t help but wonder....... 

 

In my view you have to go a ways for this to be comparable to a "Lindros package". Looking at what is on the table, I see:

 

Demko, the best piece being offered.

 

Gaudette is perhaps only a top-9 player who can sometimes play in the top-6 if needed, but may never get past being a bottom-6 type of player.

Motte is a good player, but once again, he is probably not going to be more than a top-9 around here, but perhaps has a ceiling of top-6(?) in the right situation.

Stecher is a decent puck moving, bottom pairing, offensive d-man who is not big and as a result can have problems in his own end when trying to handle larger forwards

Tryamkin, is big, he might (or might not) return to the NHL, and is rated by some as being no better than a #4 d-man, and perhaps is only a bottom pairing guy

Virtanen, has perhaps the most to offer among these 5. This being said, there are still big holes in his game and he needs work. Consistency, consistency, consistency...

 

Assuming I'm another team which has a "high pick" that I would be willing to move, I'd really have to want Demko as my goalie of the future/now. The rest of what is on offer are 5 contracts that I'd have to work into my team and cap structure. Are these other 5 guys enough of an enticement to trade this 1st? I'm thinking not.

 

                                                           regards,  G.

[Odjick the Warrior]

The Canucks are better off to use Virtanen and Stetcher as part of a package to try and get OEL out of Arizona as they badly want to shed payroll on older players and the Canucks have some younger players that are NHL regulars on cheap deals that have upside with  ore playing time (Virtanen, Stetcher, Gaudette) and some that are ready to fight for a spot (Juolevi, Woo, Lind, Tryamkin, Lockwood) but might not be in the Canucks future plans and the yotes would have to take on Ericksson or Sutter for cap purposes for everything to work and the Canucks would have to take Grabner who could be flipped right away. Canucks don’t need another draft pick with a player that is 2 or 3 years away from even coming to the AHL, they need a top 4 defenseman to replace Tanev and in my opinion OEL can be had for a cheaper price then Ekblad and is better in his own zone then Subban and Dumba and is a minute eater and has not missed more then 8 games his entire career on teams he has had to play every role at 18-22 minutes a night. For all the people saying $8+ million for 6 years is too much when the Canucks have Hughes and Pettersson deals coming up, I say that Edler’s contract is up after next season and he is getting $6 million and then the dead cap space comes off the books in 2022-2023 and the same with the bloated contracts of Roussel, Beagle and either Ericksson or Sutter will be too with the cheap ELC of Hoglander, Rathbone, Podkolzn, Lind, DiPietro, Lind, Woo and Juolevi so the Canucks are going to be fine with the cap in the future even if $20 million goes to Petey and Hughes. 

[Patel Bure]

5 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

 

In my view you have to go a ways for this to be comparable to a "Lindros package". Looking at what is on the table, I see:

 

Demko, the best piece being offered.

 

Gaudette is perhaps only a top-9 player who can sometimes play in the top-6 if needed, but may never get past being a bottom-6 type of player.

Motte is a good player, but once again, he is probably not going to be more than a top-9 around here, but perhaps has a ceiling of top-6(?) in the right situation.

Stecher is a decent puck moving, bottom pairing, offensive d-man who is not big and as a result can have problems in his own end when trying to handle larger forwards

Tryamkin, is big, he might (or might not) return to the NHL, and is rated by some as being no better than a #4 d-man, and perhaps is only a bottom pairing guy

Virtanen, has perhaps the most to offer among these 5. This being said, there are still big holes in his game and he needs work. Consistency, consistency, consistency...

 

Assuming I'm another team which has a "high pick" that I would be willing to move, I'd really have to want Demko as my goalie of the future/now. The rest of what is on offer are 5 contracts that I'd have to work into my team and cap structure. Are these other 5 guys enough of an enticement to trade this 1st? I'm thinking not.

 

                                                           regards,  G.

Yes that’s more or less what I was going for in my above proposal (I.e. “The Lindros deal”).   Obviously, it likely wouldn’t be practical in the cap era that we live in, and I doubt that I’d be willing to do it even if it was practical (ie even trading for high picks comes with risk because high picks do not always pan out.  One strong suit of the Canucks is team chemistry and so trading away so many players could affect our strength), but I just thought I’d contemplate the idea outloud.  
 

I also figured that there are number of current bottom feeding teams out there that have had a string of 1st round picks in recent years and still haven’t really taken off as a team (Buffalo, NJ, etc.,) and so perhaps they’d be willing to explore a different route (ie acquire a handful of young cost controlled assets who are further along the developmental curve and are either RFA’s or will be RFA’s when their next contract expires).  These young RFA players could then complement the recently previous string of 1st round picks that said teams had (ie “the age gap” model for conducive team chemistry that Benning often talks about - so for example - my above package complementing there likes of Eichel and Dahlin in Buffalo, or Hischier and Hughes in NJ.  With the trade off being that we would shed salary while significantly increasing our chances of adding a MASSIVE future piece).

 

Now - does our above package put us in the conversation for 2nd Overall or 3rd Overall?   No, not likely.   But maybe we get into that 6-8 range (around where NJ and Buffalo are drafting) and we select Jamie Drysdale).

Edited September 20, 2020 by DarkIndianRises

[Patel Bure]

5 hours ago, qwijibo said:

 

6 hours ago, qwijibo said:

You’re kidding right? Tell me you don’t actually think that package lands you 1st or 2nd OA.  

Definitely not 1st since that’s Lafreniere.   Extremely unlikely for a 2nd or 3rd overall as well.

 

My line of thinking however is that a team like NJ or Buffalo might be willing to bite in the above proposal (for reasons that I expressed in my previous post directly above this one).   
 

If that’s the case, then this would put us in the 6-8 range that might put us in the conversation for a Jamie Drysdale.   
 

Would I myself pull the trigger on this deal?  Probably not.   One of the Canucks massive strengths is team chemistry and so run the risk of ruining that when you trade so many players away all at once.   As alluring as high picks are, you also run the risk that they don’t live up to the hype (ie Nolan Patrick, Jesse Puljiujarvi).

[Patel Bure]

6 hours ago, Pink Sock said:

You are clueless when it comes to value. You have to be trolling because every trade proposal you make is god awful. 

No GM is taking spare parts for a top tier talent.

Would you trade Hughes for Greenway, Stalock, Eriksson Ek, Kunin and Hunt? Of course not. 

LOL.   Well I guess I should apologize this.  
 

Perhaps it’s better to understand my perspective in creating these proposals.  When I often create my proposals, I don’t believe in the mass majority of them and more times than not, am either looking to take a Devil’s Advocate position (ie take a stance that is often polar opposite of mine in order to collect responses that reinforce my true beliefs), or am simply looking to facilitate discussion.   For example - I create a proposal that I know wouldn’t work or know isn’t the greatest idea, but can’t put a finger on as to why (or can’t articulate it in my mind) and so I create a thread that answers my questions more or less.   Other threads are just created to facilitate discussion on a slow day.  Perhaps I’m trolling in that sense (not with the intention of getting a rise out of people in a negative way, but perhaps in the sense that I’m looking to get responses out of people to discuss hockey), but there are a few handful of trade proposals that I’ve suggested that I’ve truly been behind.  I would happy to point these ones out if you wanted.

 

The Boeser and Sutter for Dumba and Dubnyk proposal for instance, is something that I would strongly consider (this proposal would actually save us a lot of money and clear a lot of cap space for us while allowing us to retain our level of play).  
 

IN:  Dumba + Dubnyk 

OUT:  Boeser + Sutter + Markstrom + Tanev

 

(contingent on Toffoli re-signing with us).

Edited September 20, 2020 by DarkIndianRises