[Proposal] Third line center 2nd unit powerplay and a 1st or 2nd unit PK

[Arrow 1983]

All this Bennett talk started making me think who could fill a 3rd line Center role 2nd unit PP and a 1st or 2nd unit PK and then I realized there is one guy out there that we could actually get.

 

First why not Bennet

Bennett is a center Virtanen is a winger makes no sense for Cal to make the trade straight up so what else are you willing to give up.

 

Then the problem would be that Bennett would be behind both Petey and Horvat. That's his current problem now he is behind 2 centers. how long before he wants a trade from Van.

 

Where does that put Gaud. Gaud doesn't want to be traded out. So now Benning will have to move Gaud out and have a new guy complaining about his mins. Then Bennett asks for a trade and we end up with what at 3rd line center. Plus what does Bennett do to the Chemistry in the room.

 

So my Proposal is 

 

Van

Virtanen and Gaud 

to

 

Nash 

for Mikael Granlund

 

First the quarantine issue, Virtanen isn't even in the line-up right now and Gaud doesn't play PK and Sutter can fill his role on the 2nd unit PP for 2 weeks.

 

Why Nash does it they get 2 younger players, Nash could use some new faces new life they are currently Playing .500. Both players could be trade assets down the road 

 

Why Van does it, we have to much redundancy Virtanen doesn't fit anymore and with Pod coming in May Jake is being pushed further down the depth chart, Gaud doesn't fit the role completely he doesn't PK. Granlund fills all the roles and is a great pick up for a real push.

 

Note, if not a trade this season how about a UFA signing next season fills Gaud and Sutter role with one player. Will still have to get rid of Virtanen

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Nucker 67]

Hope I'm wrong, but I would think Sutter would love to play in "hometown" CGY. Bennett is a C/LW, whereas Sutter is  C/RW. It would be a bad mistake though IMO to trade Sutter. Is Benning that in-love with Jake that he'd move a veteran bottom 6 winger out to make room for him? Hope not, but Jake was his 1st ever Canucks draft pick, so maybe there is some sentimental value for Jim. 

 

[Arrow 1983]

4 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Hope I'm wrong, but I would think Sutter would love to play in "hometown" CGY. Bennett is a C/LW, whereas Sutter is  C/RW. It would be a bad mistake though IMO to trade Sutter. Is Benning that in-love with Jake that he'd move a veteran bottom 6 winger out to make room for him? Hope not, but Jake was his 1st ever Canucks draft pick, so maybe there is some sentimental value for Jim. 

 

The problem I have with a Van Cal trade is we still have 8 games against each other, Look at what Toffoli and Marky has done to the Canucks so far does Benning want Virtanen or Sutter biting him in the behind as well

Edited January 31, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Phil_314]

Granlund's 3rd on their team in scoring (the first two guys, Forsberg and Arvidsson, have each played 8 games).

For a bargain signing on a team needing scoring, I'm not sure they're so quick to sell him off for two younger guys who aren't getting ice time.

[Arrow 1983]

7 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

Granlund's 3rd on their team in scoring (the first two guys, Forsberg and Arvidsson, have each played 8 games).

For a bargain signing on a team needing scoring, I'm not sure they're so quick to sell him off for two younger guys who aren't getting ice time.

Granlund isn't the same player he was 5 years ago and that's what I'm betting on he didn't even want to sign with Nash and only did so last min. 

 

As a UFA signing this year it would have made no sense but as a trade where we can move pieces out it does. Better yet it would have been best if we didn't resign Gaud or Jake and just signed Granlund

Edited February 1, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[qwijibo]

7 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Granlund isn't the same player he was 5 years ago and that's what I'm betting on he didn't even want to sign with Nash and only did so last min. 

 

As a UFA signing this year it would have made no sense but as a trade where we can move pieces out it does. Better yet it would have been best if we didn't resign Gaud or Jake and just signed Granlund

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his signing, you’re ignoring what Phil_314 said. Granlund  is producing in Nashville. What’s their motivation in moving him for 2 bottom 6 players who aren’t producing 

[Phil_314]

9 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Granlund isn't the same player he was 5 years ago and that's what I'm betting on he didn't even want to sign with Nash and only did so last min. 

 

As a UFA signing this year it would have made no sense but as a trade where we can move pieces out it does. Better yet it would have been best if we didn't resign Gaud or Jake and just signed Granlund

Guys like Ryan Johansen and Matt Duchene aren't who they were either, and the Predators have needed offensive help for a couple of years now.  Short of a star (Fiala, anyone?) joining the team they're going to need to score by committee, and for his cheap contract they might not let him go, at least not without a decent pick coming back instead of two middling guys.

[Arrow 1983]

7 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his signing, you’re ignoring what Phil_314 said. Granlund  is producing in Nashville. What’s their motivation in moving him for 2 bottom 6 players who aren’t producing 

 

6 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

Guys like Ryan Johansen and Matt Duchene aren't who they were either, and the Predators have needed offensive help for a couple of years now.  Short of a star (Fiala, anyone?) joining the team they're going to need to score by committee, and for his cheap contract they might not let him go, at least not without a decent pick coming back instead of two middling guys.

You guys are making Gaud and Jake seem like chump change Jake had 18 goals last season 15 the year before Nash has center depth but their wings are week

And Gaud issuers they don't lose that center depth. Gaud last season had 33pts in 59games 

 

Problem with going to in-depth with the trade on both sides is the next group of posters are going to be like why should the Canucks give up Gaud and Jake

 

[Arrow 1983]

17 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding his signing, you’re ignoring what Phil_314 said. Granlund  is producing in Nashville. What’s their motivation in moving him for 2 bottom 6 players who aren’t producing 

Circumstances are important 

 

Nash will either have to trade him by the TD or lose him come next offseason via UFA 

[qwijibo]

3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

 

You guys are making Gaud and Jake seem like chump change Jake had 18 goals last season 15 the year before Nash has center depth but their wings are week

And Gaud issuers they don't lose that center depth. Gaud last season had 33pts in 59games 

 

Problem with going to in-depth with the trade on both sides is the next group of posters are going to be like why should the Canucks give up Gaud and Jake

 

You still haven’t provided a reason why they consider it. Guadette and Virtanen have a combined 2 points in 17 man games. Granlund has 4 points in 5 games. That’s not even factoring in the points of whatever player comes out of the lineup to make room for both Virtanen and Guadette. Maybe those numbers shift and the deal as l looks more attractive to the preds at some point.  But right now it’s a no brainer that they say no 

[qwijibo]

Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

Circumstances are important 

 

Nash will either have to trade him by the TD or lose him come next offseason via UFA 

Or re-sign him 

[Arrow 1983]

Just now, qwijibo said:

You still haven’t provided a reason why they consider it. Guadette and Virtanen have a combined 2 points in 17 man games. Granlund has 4 points in 5 games. That’s not even factoring in the points of whatever player comes out of the lineup to make room for both Virtanen and Guadette. Maybe those numbers shift and the deal as l looks more attractive to the preds at some point.  But right now it’s a no brainer that they say no 

because on are team Virtanen is redundant we have have to much winger depth Nash has a lack of winger depth. There is a spot for Jake on their team and I would guess playing would mean points.

Gaud is insurance policy that Nash doesn't lose it's center depth 

[Arrow 1983]

3 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Or re-sign him 

Granlund told Nash he wanted to test the free agent market this season and only signed last min, I don't know if that sounds like a guy who wants to be in Nash long term

[qwijibo]

Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

because on are team Virtanen is redundant we have have to much winger depth Nash has a lack of winger depth. There is a spot for Jake on their team and I would guess playing would mean points.

Gaud is insurance policy that Nash doesn't lose it's center depth 

Or they can keep the guy they have who is already doing very well rather than take a chance thst a change of scenery will finally jump start a player who has never really managed to put it all together consistently 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, qwijibo said:

Or they can keep the guy they have who is already doing very well rather than take a chance thst a change of scenery will finally jump start a player who has never really managed to put it all together consistently 

Absolutely don't know how both the Gm's are thinking it is just a proposal I don't know why every armchair GMing proposal has to always go this way, nobody here is a GM, and nobody here can read other peoples minds it really is just for fun. 

 

I kind of thought it was more for do you like the trade or not.

[Arrow 1983]

12 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

You still haven’t provided a reason why they consider it. Guadette and Virtanen have a combined 2 points in 17 man games. Granlund has 4 points in 5 games. That’s not even factoring in the points of whatever player comes out of the lineup to make room for both Virtanen and Guadette. Maybe those numbers shift and the deal as l looks more attractive to the preds at some point.  But right now it’s a no brainer that they say no 

Honestly I don't feel I have to provide any reason at all why either team would consider it. 

 

I'm not a GM 

[qwijibo]

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Honestly I don't feel I have to provide any reason at all why either team would consider it. 

 

I'm not a GM 

You do when you present a trade that clearly doesn’t fill a need for the other team.  This isn’t NHL20. Trades have to benefit both teams or they aren’t really worth discussing. 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, qwijibo said:

You do when you present a trade that clearly doesn’t fill a need for the other team.  This isn’t NHL20. Trades have to benefit both teams or they aren’t really worth discussing. 

that's your opinion 

I have mine 

So I am going to infer you do not like the trade 

[qwijibo]

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

that's your opinion 

I have mine 

So I am going to infer you do not like the trade 

Not for Nashville. 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, qwijibo said:

Not for Nashville. 

So you like it for the Canucks I will take 50% 

 

I am a Canuck fan after all