[proposal] Vancouver Canucks and Montreal Canadiens:

[Patel Bure]

To Habs:  Jake Virtanen + 2nd (+Rafferty if necessary?)

 

To Canucks:  Brendan Gallagher

 

I think Jake + 2nd should be enough to get Gallagher, but maybe we’d have to go as high as Rafferty being included?   Or maybe Virtanen and Rafferty but no 2nd?

 

Lets make no mistake about this however:  If we do trade for Gallagher, it’s a one year deal and then GTFO.   Canucks won’t be able to afford Gallagher next season, and so the expectation would be Podkolzin being a top 6 forward for us next season (which is what I think Benning is projecting, which was one reason why I believe Benning felt comfortable in letting Toffoli walk).   
 

I’m going to stray a way a little from the topic, and also make a prediction that the next player  we bring in will only be here for one season, whether that player comes in the form of Sami Vatanen, Travis Hamonic, or Brendan Gallagher.   Benning won’t admit as such and will keep his poker face on in public (as he did with Markstrom, Toffoli, and Tanev), but I think the next guy he brings in will be a one and done.

 

Anyways, back on topic, where do you see the Canucks going with the line-up below?   My prediction would be another 2nd round showing:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Gallagher

Roussel-Gaudette-MacEwen

Motte-Beagle-Sutter

 

Ferland or Eriksson

 

Edler-Schmidt 

Hughes-Myers

[Juolevi or Rathbone]-Benn

 

[Juolevi or Rathbone]

 

Demko (50-50)

Holtby (50/50)

[qwijibo]

Not remotely close enough.  A bottom 6 winger and a 2nd for a 30 goal top line winger on a cheap contract 

 

I don’t believe Montreal will move him, but if they do there will be teams lined up for him.  They’ll get a substantial return. Not scraps 

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

Pearson+ Lind+2nd 

[Nucker 67]

In addition to Jacques Virtanen, give them Roussel and Brisebois. Oui!

[Patel Bure]

17 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Not remotely close enough.  A bottom 6 winger and a 2nd for a 30 goal top line winger on a cheap contract 

 

I don’t believe Montreal will move him, but if they do there will be teams lined up for him.  They’ll get a substantial return. Not scraps 

Fair enough point.

 

Would adding Rafferty to the above package get it done?

 

My line of thinking is that Gallagher being one year away from UFA could lower his value a little, not to mention the flat cap Covid world that we’re now living in.  

[Patel Bure]

14 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

Pearson+ Lind+2nd 

That’s pretty good, but I suspect that Montreal will want a younger and more established asset that could play for them long term.  
 

Pearson will be a UFA next season, while Lind is still very much a question mark.

[qwijibo]

If they move him. Think Hoglander and a 1st. 

[Fanuck]

2 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

If they move him. Think Hoglander and a 1st. 

If that's the price, which I think is high imo, the answer is 100% no thanks. 

[RonMexico]

2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Fair enough point.

 

Would adding Rafferty to the above package get it done?

 

My line of thinking is that Gallagher being one year away from UFA could lower his value a little, not to mention the flat cap Covid world that we’re now living in.  

Your assessment of the value of the Canucks pieces you are offering is too high.

 

Even besides that, Canucks need to move salary out to sign him to the big money and term he appears to be looking for.

 

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, RonMexico said:

Your assessment of the value of the Canucks pieces you are offering is too high.

 

Even besides that, Canucks need to move salary out to sign him to the big money and term he appears to be looking for.

 

1) Agreed that my offer likely wouldn’t be enough (Virtanen + 2nd + Rafferty).  

 

2) My expectation of the Canucks acquiring Gallagher is that he would only be with us for one year.  No intent to re-sign Gallagher after this season.  Podkolzin takes his place next season.   Whether it’s Gallagher, Hamonic, or Sami Vatanen, my belief is that these players should only be with us for one year.

[Nuxfanabroad]

I don't see a deal here. If Habs are confident of a strong return in this current market, someone else should stumble into that.

 

This little guy plays with tenacity, but multiple injuries will soon leave a toothless-tiger. Steer clear.

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, qwijibo said:

If they move him. Think Hoglander and a 1st. 

You’re probably right.   
 

I would possibly consider this if:

 

1) We could fit Virtanen, Gallagher, and anyone else that needs to be signed under the cap this year.  
 

2) Virtanen (instead of Hoglander) replaces Pearson next season on the 2nd line as the LW there.  Podkolzin would take Gallagher’s spot on 2nd line RW.

 

3) The Canucks would have enough cap space to sign Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko (obviously).

 

Proposal:  Hoglander + 1st to Montreal for Gallagher.

 

2020-2021:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser 

Pearson-Horvat-Gallagher

Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-MacEwen

 

Sutter

 

Edler-Schmidt 

Hughes-Myers

[Juolevi or Rathbone]-Benn

 

[Juolevi or Rathbone]
 

Demko

Holtby

 

2021-2022:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Virtanen-Horvat-Podkolzin

Roussel-Gaudette-MacEwen

Motte-Beagle-NewGuy

 

Hughes-Schmidt

Juolevi-Myers

Rathbone-Tryamkin

 

Demko

[Holtby or Dipietro]

[Patel Bure]

4 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

I don't see a deal here. If Habs are confident of a strong return in this current market, someone else should stumble into that.

 

This little guy plays with tenacity, but multiple injuries will soon leave a toothless-tiger. Steer clear.

To your last point, I would only want Gallagher for one year.  We wouldn’t be able to afford him beyond this season.

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 minute ago, DarkIndianRises said:

To your last point, I would only want Gallagher for one year.  We wouldn’t be able to afford him beyond this season.

Yeah, understandable. Don't wanna sidetrack your topic, but would prefer we get cost-certain(suffer through 1 more yr of expensive depth), while taking a good look at many of the youth.

[Patel Bure]

42 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Yeah, understandable. Don't wanna sidetrack your topic, but would prefer we get cost-certain(suffer through 1 more yr of expensive depth), while taking a good look at many of the youth.

I’d be on board with this if Management has a clear plan in terms of being able to 

 

1) Comfortably re-up Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko

2) Have a viable strategy for keeping the defense afloat once they walk away from Edler next season (which they seem to have achieved by bringing in Schmidt, although the loss of Edler will still be felt.  Hopefully, one of Juolevi, Rathbone, or a returning Tryamkin can help fill the void to some extent).

 

Personally speaking?   I would avoid trading for players or signing players that have deals longer than one year.  
 

Go for guys like Hamonic, Vatanen (my first defensive choice by the way, or a Brendan Gallagher if you must, but shake hands and wish them well at the end of the season.  
 

If Ferland or Eriksson decide to retire, then the situation would chance obviously, but I’d highly advise against bringing in contracts longer than a year right now.

[BigTramFan]

I like Gallagher as a player, but you are spending A LOT to get him for just one season.

 

There are some good UFAs desperate to find a team that we could get for one season without spending assets and for less than $3.75m.

[garthsbutcher]

1 hour ago, DarkIndianRises said:

To your last point, I would only want Gallagher for one year.  We wouldn’t be able to afford him beyond this season.

We would if Brock gets moved for a first and a prospect

[Junkyard Dog]

3 minutes ago, garthsbutcher said:

We would if Brock gets moved for a first and a prospect

Eh I'd keep Brock. Rather trade Roussel when he'll have a year left and let go of Pearson. We could afford him then. Might have to trade Pearson+ to get Gallagher anyway.

 

Also might afford him depending on who Seattle takes too.

[qwijibo]

He’s signed.  Shut’er down 

[Patel Bure]

44 minutes ago, garthsbutcher said:

We would if Brock gets moved for a first and a prospect

That’s a good point, but I think Benning likes the fact that Brock is....

 

1) Young and fits the age our core much better

2) An integral part of our core and is really tight with Petey, Bo, and Quinn.

 

I suspect that this was one of the biggest reasons why Benning didn’t elect to sign Toffoli and trade Brock (Benning may have analyzed the market for Brock and may have concluded that an appropriate return wouldn’t have been there).