[Rumour] Canucks have not offered C.Tanev a contract extension

[Rush17]

I'd love a cernak but I don't see how they would move him even with the rumblings. 

[Devron]

22 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

I'd love a cernak but I don't see how they would move him even with the rumblings. 

I’d rather see us make a bold move like acquiring a Cernak oppose to trying to plug holes with other vets. If they cant make a deal. Play a couple kids. See if they even show potential to be top 4 then access the defence next year. We all know the defence needs to improve but we shouldn’t be signing guys to pretend like we are improving it lol

[Kobayashi Maru]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I'm not sure why Erik Johnson would be considered a cap dump realm player.

I'd take that deal anyday, all day - without a second thought - but I don't think it's realistic.

 

Top pairing RHD - partners with Girard the vast majority of the time, they get the most overall minutes on that blueline.

Good underlying numbers, good goal metrics, solid, gritty, their top penalty killer.

He may make 6 million, but that's the price of that role.  Also owns a NMC, so it would be in his hands, and he'd require protection in the e.d.

 

Yeah it would likely be an add on our side but not a ton as it would be for others.  If I’m not mistaken he’s mostly playing third pairing now. Not a perfect choice but an adequate replacement for Tanev.  Personally my main target would be Ristolainen still as he’d give us a young puck moving/gritty D, which gives us another offensive option.  Would cost a lot but with the rumours out of Buffalo last year he may not require a premium like Ekblad.

[mll]

4 hours ago, Robert Long said:

it all depends n the game plan, I can see them wanting both a guy that can help transition and also add a bruiser too. 

 

But you could be right, maybe the answer lies within too. 

 

I do think Toronto was a $&!#ty place for Barrie for a bunch of reasons, more than his game declining tho. 

 

I'm more yapping about Barrie vs Dumba - I'd rather have Barrie because it doesn't cost us in trade. 

 

Russo on his podcast says he really doesn't think that Vancouver has as much interest in Dumba as was initially reported.  

 

Guerin was on a zoom call with fans this week and talked about the Dumba situation.  He says if there's an offer that make them better he'll make the move but for now there's nothing that makes sense.  He says they can protect 4 Ds in expansion.  He says they are going to hold and concluded that sometimes the best thing is to do nothing at all.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by mll

[JM_]

12 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

I am only taking Barrie at 3.5m, tops. Lol. And that's only assuming Tanev's asking price is in the 5m per range. Even then if I had to choose I'd rather just give Tanev 5m and stay away from Barrie. Barrie doesn't bring anything to the blueline that 3 others don't already bring. In some cases they bring more. And the other 3 are far better defensively. So he doesn't really fit anywhere unless we want the softest blueline in the league.

thats a concern with him for sure. But Hughes on his own isn't enough, as amazing as he is. When he's targeted and/or gets injured, who's driving the play from the back? I don't see anyone else in the current group with that capability. 

 

There are other options in trade and maybe free agency if some guys don't get QO's... but I just wouldn't be that surprised if Benning ends up signing him on a discount if he can't pull off any trades in the next two weeks.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Robert Long

[JM_]

10 hours ago, mll said:

 

Russo on his podcast says he really doesn't think that Vancouver has as much interest in Dumba as was initially reported.  

 

Guerin was on a zoom call with fans this week and talked about the Dumba situation.  He says if there's an offer that make them better he'll make the move but for now there's nothing that makes sense.  He says they can protect 4 Ds in expansion.  He says they are going to hold and concluded that sometimes the best thing is to do nothing at all.

 

makes complete sense to me with both the cost in trade, and Barrie out there for "free" 

[rekker]

19 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

thats a concern with him for sure. But Hughes on his own isn't enough, as amazing as he is. When he's targeted and/or gets injured, who's driving the play from the back? I don't see anyone else in the current group with that capability. 

 

There are other options in trade and maybe free agency if some guys don't get QO's... but I just wouldn't be that surprised if Benning ends up signing him on a discount if he can't pull off any trades in the next two weeks.

 

Yip. It seems as though it's aligning that way. Who would offer Barrie a long term contract after last year, expansion draft looming, flat cap. I see a short term, show me deal coming up. JB tried to aquire Barrie last draft so wouldn't surprise me at all if this happens. Barrie and Eddy would be a good combo. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by rekker

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, rekker said:

Yip. It seems as though it's aligning that way. Who would offer Barrie a long term contract after last year, expansion draft looming, flat cap. I see a short term, show me deal coming up. JB tried to aquire Barrie last draft so wouldn't surprise me at all if this happens. Barrie and Eddy would be a good combo. 

or Tryamkin-Barie. It might be an occasional disaster but Russian tank may kill you. It would be a paring that wasn't boring to watch at least 

[rekker]

3 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

or Tryamkin-Barie. It might be an occasional disaster but Russian tank may kill you. It would be a paring that wasn't boring to watch at least 

All bets are off if the big, ill fitting helmet Ruskke is back. Love that guy and it would put a big smile on my face to open a thread on his signing someday. 

[Steven Stamkos]

Has anyone ever signed a front loaded 3 year contract? I wonder if a 3 year 13.5m contract that was a 7m, 5.5m, 1m with all years being paid out as a signing bonus would entice Tanev. He gets his money up front and if he gets hurt or is not as efficient in the final year of his contract it makes it easier to move him to a team close to the cap floor because no money would be owed if the trade was made after the bonus. Or flip side he plays well and has a good show me season for a retirement contract. 

[mll]

On 9/27/2020 at 5:59 PM, Steven Stamkos said:

Has anyone ever signed a front loaded 3 year contract? I wonder if a 3 year 13.5m contract that was a 7m, 5.5m, 1m with all years being paid out as a signing bonus would entice Tanev. He gets his money up front and if he gets hurt or is not as efficient in the final year of his contract it makes it easier to move him to a team close to the cap floor because no money would be owed if the trade was made after the bonus. Or flip side he plays well and has a good show me season for a retirement contract. 

The CBA does not allow that kind of structure on front loaded deals.  The highest salary can't be more than 2x the lowest - ie if the lowest salary is 1M than the highest cannot be more than 2M.  There's also a variability rule between years for deals that are considered front-loaded where the difference from year-to-year can't be more than 35% of the 1st year of the contract.  In this example 35% of 7M is 2.45M - the difference between years can't be more than that amount. 

 

Escrow is on a decreasing scale per the recently approved CBA.  It's more advantageous to have the salary paid once escrow drops.  It's 20% next year and will drop to 6% in 2023/24.  Players will probably want buyout protection and ask for higher signing bonuses in the later years.

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by mll

[oldnews]

31 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

thats a concern with him for sure. But Hughes on his own isn't enough, as amazing as he is. When he's targeted and/or gets injured, who's driving the play from the back? I don't see anyone else in the current group with that capability. 

 

There are other options in trade and maybe free agency if some guys don't get QO's... but I just wouldn't be that surprised if Benning ends up signing him on a discount if he can't pull off any trades in the next two weeks.

 

It depends what you mean by 'driving play'. 

That tends to be a meaningless word, used by canuckarmy types, new age analytics types, to refer to players with what appear to be high corsi / 'underlying' numbers.

The problem however, is that it has to be asked how good their actual possession numbers are, and perhaps more importantly, how good their goal metrics are.

 

For example, did Barrie "drive play" for the Toronto Maple Leafs?

If we corsi gaze, we assume he did - he had the highest corsi on the Leafs blueline (53.8%).

Now how misleading is that?

He also had the highest ozone starts on the Leafs blueline by a considerable margin.

 

Let's look at where that single indicator falls apart as an indicator of "play driving".

Perhaps before we do that we should figure out what the (hipster?) term means - because it's something that tends to rely on two misleading things moreso than a more fundamental assessment of their overall impact on the ice - he carries and moves the puck reasonably well, which creates some shooting/scoring opportunities - and from an 'eye test' point of view you can 'watch the game' and see some dynamism when he's in possession.  From a more strict possession and goal metrics sense however, the 'play driving' claim doesn't really stand up.

 

As noted about - 53.8% corsi.....(58.2% ozone starts).

 

Let's look at the rest of Toronto's D regulars (corsi and zone starts, 5 on 5).

 

Dermott 49.8% corsi / 52.7% ozone starts

Reilly 51.5 / 50.0

Muzzin 52.9 / 46.1

Ceci 49.6 / 45.2

Holl 51.3 / 41.2

 

What is notable from those numbers? 

Muzzin and Holl, with comparable corsi, and considerably lower ozone starts.

The only other D aside from Barrie with a negative differential was Dermott.

Who actually, in an integrated, two way sense, "drives play" on that blueline?  Isn't Muzzin the 'better' play driver?  Isn't Reilly?  Is Holl?  Who isn't better than Barrie?

Keeping in mind that players that get in the range of 58.2% ozone starts - are deployed/weighted to production - so they also tend to situationally have the 'best' offensive forwards rolled out with them, to take advantage of those ozone circumstances, and often to try to take advantage of matchups (or icings, etc).  How inflated are Barrie's underlying/'possession'/

'play driving' numbers?  Highest ozone starts, worst plus/minus on the Leafs.

 

Does Barrie truly 'drive play' or are we talking about a (relatively misleading) one way effect?

 

To take this a step further let's look at goal metrics (5 on 5).

On ice goals for and against per 60....

 

Reilly 3.4 / 3.3

Barrie 3.1 / 3.2

Muzzin 3.8 / 3.0

Holl 3.0 / 2.5

Dermott 3.1 / 2.3

Cece 2.6 / 2.2

 

What is, once again, notable there?

Again the Leafs were more productive with Muzzin on the ice, and gave up less goals/60.

In fact, the entire blueline had positive goal differentials, with the exception of Barrie.

What does the term 'play driver' mean, when Barrie has nowhere near the best 'possession' numbers (taken in more context) and the worst goal metrics on the team?

 

So my initial answer to your question - was....Troy Stecher - who is under-rated imo. 

39.3% ozone starts, 48.7% corsi

2.6 on ice goals for per 60, 2.2 against (5 on 5).

No - Stecher doesn't have the size folks want....but neither does Barrie.

Aside from Stecher, who else 'drives play' from the back end?  Edler, Tanev....

Hughes - when we look closer at the 'play driving' thing - has similar outcomes to Barrie - albeit Hughes was a rookie, and he was apparently playing on a team that was perceived to be not as 'good' as the Leafs....But in any event, Hughes drives scoring chances - the importance of which should not be underplayed - however he doesn't necessarily drive 'play' - play is a two way thing, with two way factors - and in the end, goals determine victories.

 

Barrie - lead the Leafs blueline in powerplay minutes (2:40/g) = had 1 pp goal, 11 pp assists

Hughes lead the Canucks (3:48) = he had 3 ppg, and 22 assists.

 

Bottom lines regarding Barrie imo....

1) can a team 'afford' to have a Barrie on the ice, 5 on 5, when they already have a Hughes?

2) what is likely to happen to Barrie's production when Hughes both takes precedence over him in terms of creating situational/deployment opportunities for Hughes to produce within and be successful - and Hughes takes precedence over him on the #1 powerplay unit.

I'd argue that Hughes 'drives' play, in context, better than Barrie does, already, and is a more effective powerplay quarterback.

 

No real room or need, for Barrie.  He won't make this team better, as he didn't make the Leafs better imo - that is, unless there is a much better Barrie hidden inside the player he's actually been. Were his outcomes really much different before going to Toronto?  No, not really - there is/was relative continuity, with the exception of a drop in powerplay productivity in Toronto.  Is powerplay productivity really a need for the Canucks?   I'd argue that far more important than that, would be the 5 on 5 effect.  Pass on Barrie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JM_]

37 minutes ago, oldnews said:

It depends what you mean by 'driving play'. 

That tends to be a meaningless word, used by canuckarmy types, new age analytics types, to refer to players with what appear to be high corsi / 'underlying' numbers.

The problem however, is that it has to be asked how good their actual possession numbers are, and perhaps more importantly, how good their goal metrics are.

 

For example, did Barrie "drive play" for the Toronto Maple Leafs?

If we corsi gaze, we assume he did - he had the highest corsi on the Leafs blueline (53.8%).

Now how misleading is that?

He also had the highest ozone starts on the Leafs blueline by a considerable margin.

 

Let's look at where that single indicator falls apart as an indicator of "play driving".

Perhaps before we do that we should figure out what the (hipster?) term means - because it's something that tends to rely on two misleading things moreso than a more fundamental assessment of their overall impact on the ice - he carries and moves the puck reasonably well, which creates some shooting/scoring opportunities - and from an 'eye test' point of view you can 'watch the game' and see some dynamism when he's in possession.  From a more strict possession and goal metrics sense however, the 'play driving' claim doesn't really stand up.

 

As noted about - 53.8% corsi.....(58.2% ozone starts).

 

Let's look at the rest of Toronto's D regulars (corsi and zone starts, 5 on 5).

 

Dermott 49.8% corsi / 52.7% ozone starts

Reilly 51.5 / 50.0

Muzzin 52.9 / 46.1

Ceci 49.6 / 45.2

Holl 51.3 / 41.2

 

What is notable from those numbers? 

Muzzin and Holl, with comparable corsi, and considerably lower ozone starts.

The only other D aside from Barrie with a negative differential was Dermott.

Who actually, in an integrated, two way sense, "drives play" on that blueline?  Isn't Muzzin the 'better' play driver?  Isn't Reilly?  Is Holl?  Who isn't better than Barrie?

Keeping in mind that players that get in the range of 58.2% ozone starts - are deployed/weighted to production - so they also tend to situationally have the 'best' offensive forwards rolled out with them, to take advantage of those ozone circumstances, and often to try to take advantage of matchups (or icings, etc).  How inflated are Barrie's underlying/'possession'/

'play driving' numbers?  Highest ozone starts, worst plus/minus on the Leafs.

 

Does Barrie truly 'drive play' or are we talking about a (relatively misleading) one way effect?

 

To take this a step further let's look at goal metrics (5 on 5).

On ice goals for and against per 60....

 

Reilly 3.4 / 3.3

Barrie 3.1 / 3.2

Muzzin 3.8 / 3.0

Holl 3.0 / 2.5

Dermott 3.1 / 2.3

Cece 2.6 / 2.2

 

What is, once again, notable there?

Again the Leafs were more productive with Muzzin on the ice, and gave up less goals/60.

In fact, the entire blueline had positive goal differentials, with the exception of Barrie.

What does the term 'play driver' mean, when Barrie has nowhere near the best 'possession' numbers (taken in more context) and the worst goal metrics on the team?

 

So my initial answer to your question - was....Troy Stecher - who is under-rated imo. 

39.3% ozone starts, 48.7% corsi

2.6 on ice goals for per 60, 2.2 against (5 on 5).

No - Stecher doesn't have the size folks want....but neither does Barrie.

Aside from Stecher, who else 'drives play' from the back end?  Edler, Tanev....

Hughes - when we look closer at the 'play driving' thing - has similar outcomes to Barrie - albeit Hughes was a rookie, and he was apparently playing on a team that was perceived to be not as 'good' as the Leafs....But in any event, Hughes drives scoring chances - the importance of which should not be underplayed - however he doesn't necessarily drive 'play' - play is a two way thing, with two way factors - and in the end, goals determine victories.

 

Barrie - lead the Leafs blueline in powerplay minutes (2:40/g) = had 1 pp goal, 11 pp assists

Hughes lead the Canucks (3:48) = he had 3 ppg, and 22 assists.

 

Bottom lines regarding Barrie imo....

1) can a team 'afford' to have a Barrie on the ice, 5 on 5, when they already have a Hughes?

2) what is likely to happen to Barrie's production when Hughes both takes precedence over him in terms of creating situational/deployment opportunities for Hughes to produce within and be successful - and Hughes takes precedence over him on the #1 powerplay unit.

I'd argue that Hughes 'drives' play, in context, better than Barrie does, already, and is a more effective powerplay quarterback.

 

No real room or need, for Barrie.  He won't make this team better, as he didn't make the Leafs better imo - that is, unless there is a much better Barrie hidden inside the player he's actually been. Were his outcomes really much different before going to Toronto?  No, not really - there is/was relative continuity, with the exception of a drop in powerplay productivity in Toronto.  Is powerplay productivity really a need for the Canucks?   I'd argue that far more important than that, would be the 5 on 5 effect.  Pass on Barrie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, I'm not a hipster so lets get that out of the way first 

 

What I mean is by "play driver" is someone like you describe that can be relied on for 5 on 5 and PP production from the defence. 

 

On the TO numbers - thats a little misleading just to look at his time there, given the criticism that  was he wasn't deployed properly by Babcock according to the TO media (https://theleafsnation.com/2020/08/22/did-the-tyson-barrie-experiment-fail/). So maybe Babcock owns some of that production decline too. 

 

A lot depends on his partner historically. If that works, you have a 50+ point producer. Depending on the price I'm not sure thats so easily dismissed as not needed. What if you got him at 4.5 on a 1 year deal? 

 

I'm also taking about this in terms of Dumba vs Barrie - assuming that Benning has decided this type of player is needed - I'd much rather risk the money on Barrie than pay for the risk in assets and money for Dumba. 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Robert Long

[oldnews]

30 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

well, I'm not a hipster so lets get that out of the way first 

 

What I mean is by "play driver" is someone like you describe that can be relied on for 5 on 5 and PP production from the defence. 

 

On the TO numbers - thats a little misleading just to look at his time there, given the criticism that  was he wasn't deployed properly by Babcock according to the TO media (https://theleafsnation.com/2020/08/22/did-the-tyson-barrie-experiment-fail/). So maybe Babcock owns some of that production decline too. 

 

A lot depends on his partner historically. If that works, you have a 50+ point producer. Depending on the price I'm not sure thats so easily dismissed as not needed. What if you got him at 4.5 on a 1 year deal? 

 

I'm also taking about this in terms of Dumba vs Barrie - assuming that Benning has decided this type of player is needed - I'd much rather risk the money on Barrie than pay for the risk in assets and money for Dumba. 

 

None of that changes a thing imo.

First, it's absurd to 'blame' Babcock for Barrie's weak performance.

 

Two things.

Morgan Reilly produced 10 pp pts, in 2:20 average of pp ice time over 47 games.

Barrie produced 12 pts in 2:40 of pp ice time av over 70 games.

 

Goals for per 60 on the powerplay = Reilly 8.1, Barrie 7.0.

 

Was Babcock 'wrong' to utilize Reilly on the #1 unit, or did the genius of Sheldon Keefe = "everything changed!!!!" when Keefe arriveded!!

Sorry, don't buy that fluff for a second.

Was it 'genius'....or did Reilly get injured?

 

And what in the end, were the results?

Er, um - another first round exit, in which Barrie produced nothing (except negative goal metrics).

And as far as partners are concerned, he spent the majority of the season with Muzzin as his most frequent partner, and Reilly second - yeah, he needs a Muzzin beside him - who is the actual "play driver" wadr to Barrie.   The last part of that source is more telling imo....

 

Quote

“the fact that, we weren’t able to get it done and I wasn’t able to help more, and kind of, take this team to the next step.” [Barrie]

Those last three words have proved what this trade meant for the Maple Leafs. It hasn’t set them in the right direction, but rather it’s left them searching for a new defenceman, either within or outside the organization.

 

He'd face precisely the same situation here = Hughes is the #1 pp D - I'd prefer they go an alternative route.   Further - this team isn't built to 'score all the goalz' - it's built for balance - and a fundamentally different bottom six - a 'foundational' one, while they young top 6 and Hughes are enabled.....I don't see Barrie as the right fit in this mix, and not at this point/stage - I think they're better off going more 'solid' - with an actual two way 'play driver' - like Tanev - and then likewise, more solidity right down the right side. 

I'd much prefer to see Juolevi come in - play with a solid right side - and allow him to be the secondary 'puck mover' while having a balanced two way game.

That is what I would build for - not alterring the build to accommodate a Barrie, which doesn't make sense imo (any more than chasing a Karlsson would have and putting him in Hughes' way).   We don't need a second 'play driver' - in the hipster sense of the term (you didn't originate that usage, I'm not calling you a hipster - I'm distinguishing between actual 'play driving' and perceived 'play driving' of more one way players with the puck presumed to be on their stick....)

Pass on Barrie - focus on having the 'right' partner for Juolevi - remembering that there is already the need to have the 'right' partner for Hughes.

 

 

Hughe Tanev

Edler (Stecher?) / Cernak? Mayfield?  (or focus on a future, like Foote?)

Juolevi Myers

 

My preference would be to forego Barrie entirely - and look at those other (type) options.

Could Edler enable Barrie?  Probably.   But I'd much rather make Edler's pairing the "foundation" - particularly if Tanev is divided off to play with Hughes - and Myers, another RHD that would not really suit Barrie, plays with Juolevi.

Fantenburg rounds out that group very well imo - no rush to move Juolevi in.

I think there's possiblty a rare opportunity - with the loomng e.d. - to pursue a guy like Foote (a true all situations RHD) - I'd make that a priority - asset cost or not - over Barrie types.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by oldnews

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

None of that changes a thing imo.

First, it's absurd to 'blame' Babcock for Barrie's weak performance.

 

Two things.

Morgan Reilly produced 10 pp pts, in 2:20 average of pp ice time over 47 games.

Barrie produced 12 pts in 2:40 of pp ice time av over 70 games.

 

Goals for per 60 on the powerplay = Reilly 8.1, Barrie 7.0.

 

Was Babcock 'wrong' to utilize Reilly on the #1 unit, or did the genius of Sheldon Keefe = "everything changed!!!!" when Keefe arriveded!!

Sorry, don't buy that fluff for a second.

Was it 'genius'....or did Reilly get injured?

 

And what in the end, were the results?

Er, um - another first round exit, in which Barrie produced nothing (except negative goal metrics).

And as far as partners are concerned, he spent the majority of the season with Muzzin as his most frequent partner, and Reilly second - yeah, he needs a Muzzin beside him - who is the actual "play driver" wadr to Barrie.

 

He'd face precisely the same situation here = Hughes is the #1 pp D - I'd prefer they go an alternative route.   Further - this team isn't built to 'score all the goalz' - it's built for balance - and a fundamentally different bottom six - a 'foundational' one, while they young top 6 and Hughes are enabled.....I don't see Barrie as the right fit in this mix, and not at this point/stage - I think they're better off going more 'solid' - with an actual two way 'play driver' - like Tanev - and then likewise, more solidity right down the right side. 

I'd much prefer to see Juolevi come in - play with a solid right side - and allow him to be the secondary 'puck mover' while having a balanced two way game.

That is what I would build for - not alterring the build to accommodate a Barrie, which doesn't make sense imo (any more than chasing a Karlsson would have and putting him in Hughes' way).   We don't need a second 'play driver' - in the hipster sense of the term (you didn't originate that usage, I'm not calling you a hipster - I'm distinguishing between actual 'play driving' and perceived 'play driving' of more one way players with the puck presumed to be on their stick....)

Pass on Barrie - focus on having the 'right' partner for Juolevi - remembering that there is already the need to have the 'right' partner for Hughes.

 

 

Hughe Tanev

Edler (Stecher?) / Cernak? Mayfield?  (or focus on a future, like Foote?)

Juolevi Myers

 

My preference would be to forego Barrie entirely - and look at those other (type) options.

Could Edler enable Barrie?  Probably.   But I'd much rather make Edler's pairing the "foundation" - particularly if Tanev is divided off to play with Hughes - and Myers, another RHD that would not really suit Barrie, plays with Juolevi.

Fantenburg rounds out that group very well imo - no rush to move Juolevi in.

I think there's possiblty a rare opportunity - with the loomng e.d. - to pursue a guy like Foote (a true all situations RHD) - I'd make that a priority - asset cost or not - over Barrie types.

 

 

If we could pry Cernak loose from Tampa that would be ideal. It won't be cheap tho, it will be another value for value deal like the Miller trade that I'm sure the talking heads will slam. But maybe they move Sergachev instead. We'll see. 

 

Benning really hasn't given any kind of indication as to what they have in mind to improve the d corps. All we have is vague stories from "insiders" most of which is usually horse crap. Jim's interest in Barrie, which was real at one point, may have dropped off when Hughes arrived for sure. 

 

[DeNiro]

I’m sure Benning already knows each UFAs demands by now and is confident that he can either get a deal done or walk away.

 

Knowing him he’s probably more focused on the upcoming draft than those contracts. Those can get done in short order.

[DefCon1]

17 hours ago, Devron44 said:

Please don’t sign Barrie. Rather see Rafferty play. Losing Tanev is a different story

How do you know? We are probably making space for Pietrangelo or Ekblad 

[DefCon1]

2 hours ago, Robert Long said:

 

If we could pry Cernak loose from Tampa that would be ideal. It won't be cheap tho, it will be another value for value deal like the Miller trade that I'm sure the talking heads will slam. But maybe they move Sergachev instead. We'll see. 

 

Benning really hasn't given any kind of indication as to what they have in mind to improve the d corps. All we have is vague stories from "insiders" most of which is usually horse crap. Jim's interest in Barrie, which was real at one point, may have dropped off when Hughes arrived for sure. 

 

I rather we do a miller trade than an Eriksson signing lol. People need to see that we have to give up something to get something and that would be fine with me. 

[Devron]

9 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

How do you know? We are probably making space for Pietrangelo or Ekblad 

Don’t know. But losing Tanev and adding someone not of his defensive caliber like a Barrie doesn’t help and probably makes things worse long term. If they are gonna improve the defence it better be via something like the 2 you mentioned or second tier with youth like a Cernak. Cause we can’t pretend to fix our defence anymore. If a reasonable deal can’t be done. Play the Raffertys and Joulevis see where they are at. Re access next year

[DefCon1]

37 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Don’t know. But losing Tanev and adding someone not of his defensive caliber like a Barrie doesn’t help and probably makes things worse long term. If they are gonna improve the defence it better be via something like the 2 you mentioned or second tier with youth like a Cernak. Cause we can’t pretend to fix our defence anymore. If a reasonable deal can’t be done. Play the Raffertys and Joulevis see where they are at. Re access next year

As I mentioned before, Barrie wont be our target if we lose our best defensive D man. Also we want to improve so we should be adding to Tanev not subtracting. If we lose Tanev, it will be because of his term or money, as Canucks will look to improve on D. Barrie doesnt improve our defense.