[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

4 out of 7 teams make the playoffs from each division.  Not sure why you seem to believe that all 7 of the Canadian teams would be trading their depth players ahead of the playoffs, when 4 of them make it.

 

Hope this helps.

Well that's 3 non playoff teams x 5-10 replacement level players per team, according to your logic, and 16-20ish playoff teams to trade with. You do the math.

 

I'm sure it won't help. 

 

It's good value as a trade for sure, that doesn't mean it's the right move for us. Just because value is there doesn't mean you automatically trade because, YAH, DRAFT PICK!

 

Boeser, Schmidt, and Demko also have inflated value right now. Does that mean you trade them too? A second pick isn't some massive asset like you think. Having to replace our most consistent bottom 6 when everyone is up in arms about the lack of quality there and again aging vets such as Beagle, Sutter, Roussel, would be shortsighted.  JB better have a plan if he's going to get rid of good players for most likely wasted picks.

[Convincing John]

12 hours ago, Rabid Rooster said:

He is still a one trick  pony. Trade him while he’s playing well 

Not to be condescending here but you haven’t payed close attention to how Brock has evolved without the puck. 

[Whorvat]

53 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

It's quite simple.

 

I could name many "Mottes" that we've had over the years.  In fact, in the last 10-15 years alone, we have had Dorsett, Hansen, Burrows (before AV  put him with the Twins), Torres, Richardson, Lapierre, Ruutu, etc.  You win with key bottom six players, but these players are not some sort of rarity.  Many players can kill penalties, provide energy, chip in with scoring.  And while Motte is a known commodity now, many 2nd round picks also tend to develop into "known commodities".  Motte himself was a 4th round pick, further suggesting that you could find a player like him in the middle portions of the draft.

 

I think many people seem to think that I'm actively looking to move Motte.  This isn't the case.  I'm simply saying that if a team comes around and offers something like a 2nd, you would be foolish not to take it from the Canucks standpoint.  Especially so since many on this board believe Benning to be some sort of draft genius.  You would think those same fans of Benning would want him to have picks for this reason.

Your Benning hate definitely doesn't shine through in every single post you make.

 

Motte for a 2nd? You'd have to be incredibly short sighted to do this trade. Motte for a 1st? Yea, lets talk.

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Well that's 3 non playoff teams x 5-10 replacement level players per team, according to your logic, and 16-20ish playoff teams to trade with. You do the math.

 

I'm sure it won't help. 

 

It's good value as a trade for sure, that doesn't mean it's the right move for us. Just because value is there doesn't mean you automatically trade because, YAH, DRAFT PICK!

 

Boeser, Schmidt, and Demko also have inflated value right now. Does that mean you trade them too? A second pick isn't some massive asset like you think. Having to replace our most consistent bottom 6 when everyone is up in arms about the lack of quality there and again aging vets such as Beagle, Sutter, Roussel, would be shortsighted.  JB better have a plan if he's going to get rid of good players for most likely wasted picks.

Actually, I never said that every team has 5-10 replacement players.  You simply inferred that/jumped to that conclusion on your own.  Your words, not mine.

 

You acknowledge that it's good value for a trade, so I'm still not sure what the problem is.  I'm not advocating we sell the whole team, am I?

 

Like a few other posters with Benning, you seem to let your emotions get the better of you because of personal feelings toward Motte.  By all means, be a fan, but don't let that cloud your judgment or take out frustrations on me.  Not healthy.

 

Hope this helps.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Whorvat said:

Your Benning hate definitely doesn't shine through in every single post you make.

 

Motte for a 2nd? You'd have to be incredibly short sighted to do this trade. Motte for a 1st? Yea, lets talk.

Acknowledging that selling high on a player can present benefits for the team =/= "Benning hate"

 

Hope this helps.

[JM_]

23 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

You're stretching. That's all I have to say to you.

replacing players is easy in fantasy hockey, not so much in real life. 

[Rabid Rooster]

2 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

Not to be condescending here but you haven’t payed close attention to how Brock has evolved without the puck. 

He has improved his game, no doubt. I’m not sure if it’s sustainable. He works very hard but there is much to his game that is lacking. He doesn’t pass well, and can’t stickhandle to save his life. Granted, he has many endearing qualities that make him difficult to trade away, however, I think from a hockey point of view he is more valuable as a trade.

 

[Whorvat]

5 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Acknowledging that selling high on a player can present benefits for the team =/= "Benning hate"

 

Hope this helps.

Motte for a 2nd is not 'selling high' on a player. 

 

Hope you get a clue

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Whorvat said:

Motte for a 2nd is not 'selling high' on a player. 

 

Hope you get a clue

According to who?

[Whorvat]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

According to who?

Whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not, in the next 1-2 years we would be searching for this type of player that we traded away for a mere 2nd round pick

 

Why would you sell now, only to need that same player as early a next season? Heck, we need that player this season too.

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we're already having trouble filling out our roster, why would we move Nate and Motte for picks that might help us, at best, 3 season from now?

 

It totally depends on the return Jimmy

 

Schmidt is 30 before the start of next season, with 4 more years of 6 Million, so yes, he is valuable, but in 2 years, will he have lost a step and not have anywhere near the same value? From past observation, it is his skates that put him in position and not IQ, not that he has low IQ, but the skates will fail first. So, you are 2 years down the road, and he is wavering, but you do not have a replacement, and Myers is doing exactly the same thing.

 

So, IMO, "IF" the return is solid........a 1st and a prospect or a 3/4 prospect that can take his place in 2 years, and a lower pick, then I think you have to consider it.

 

Same goes for Motte in a different way. Basically, Motte has shown to be a solid 4 liner, and he showed flashes in the playoffs, but that was really the only time I can remember where he showed those flashes. Solid 4th liner, yes, not above that, it is in question. In saying that, playoff teams are always betting on that, so, sure, if we can get a "beter" than  Lind prospect and a pick, sure , if all they offer us is a 3rd rounder, hey, thanks for calling.

 

My opinion on picks is this.............If you are offered a 1 - 45 pick, you take it, in the right deal

If you get offered a late 2nd round pick or later, then it totally depends on whether you had planned on keeping

him next year. (Which in Mottes and Schmidt's cases, I think Benning plans to do.

 

I am really focused on our Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser/Demko window, and I have to say, that Horvat really boarders/teeters on the edge of that.

So, IMO, any none core pieces, that will age out or are easily replaced, are expendable. IMO, we should be looking at "Core" pieces.

[McBackup]

16 hours ago, Convincing John said:

 

 

Torts would need lose fitting trousers if he had Motte on his bench. Andrew Peeke is a underachieving RHD with a monster shot. Perfect partner for QH. 

Torts already had Motte in CBJ.

[J.I.A.H.N]

@Jimmy McGill

 

Just a day dream, but thought I would ask you

 

So here is a question..........would you do this..............Now, what I am  offering is exposing Schmidt at the entry draft, and this is how it would look at the end

 

Schmidt, Eriksson and Roussel+ 3rd 

 

for

 

Seattle's 2nd

 

So, Basically Seattle takes Schmidt at the Expansion draft, and as part of a separate deal, or with the understanding that the remainder of the deal happens before the draft.

 

 

 

 

[Convincing John]

3 minutes ago, Bitter Melon said:

Torts already had Motte in CBJ.

Ya, I just really want Andrew Peeke in a canucks sweater. 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

It totally depends on the return Jimmy

 

Schmidt is 30 before the start of next season, with 4 more years of 6 Million, so yes, he is valuable, but in 2 years, will he have lost a step and not have anywhere near the same value? From past observation, it is his skates that put him in position and not IQ, not that he has low IQ, but the skates will fail first. So, you are 2 years down the road, and he is wavering, but you do not have a replacement, and Myers is doing exactly the same thing.

 

So, IMO, "IF" the return is solid........a 1st and a prospect or a 3/4 prospect that can take his place in 2 years, and a lower pick, then I think you have to consider it.

 

Same goes for Motte in a different way. Basically, Motte has shown to be a solid 4 liner, and he showed flashes in the playoffs, but that was really the only time I can remember where he showed those flashes. Solid 4th liner, yes, not above that, it is in question. In saying that, playoff teams are always betting on that, so, sure, if we can get a "beter" than  Lind prospect and a pick, sure , if all they offer us is a 3rd rounder, hey, thanks for calling.

 

My opinion on picks is this.............If you are offered a 1 - 45 pick, you take it, in the right deal

If you get offered a late 2nd round pick or later, then it totally depends on whether you had planned on keeping

him next year. (Which in Mottes and Schmidt's cases, I think Benning plans to do.

 

I am really focused on our Pettersson/Hughes/Boeser/Demko window, and I have to say, that Horvat really boarders/teeters on the edge of that.

So, IMO, any none core pieces, that will age out or are easily replaced, are expendable. IMO, we should be looking at "Core" pieces.

hey Jan

 

lots of qualifiers there. If Nate declines, if there's a capable prospect....lots of moving parts there. I think sometimes we under value the bird in the hand around here. Its really hard to get good players, even ones that might lose a 1/2 step over the next 3-4 years. 

 

Have to respectfully disagree on Motte for a 2nd, why move such a value for money guy for a 20% shot at the NHL a 3 to 4 years from now? 

 

Now if someone goes nuts and offers a 1st round pick, well thats a different story. But who has an extra 1st for Motte? 

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

Ya, I just really want Andrew Peeke in a canucks sweater. 

I would love to hear the announcer assists from A Peeke and Bo Horvat

 

Kinda of corny , Sorry! Tried too hard! 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

@Jimmy McGill

 

Just a day dream, but thought I would ask you

 

So here is a question..........would you do this..............Now, what I am  offering is exposing Schmidt at the entry draft, and this is how it would look at the end

 

Schmidt, Eriksson and Roussel+ 3rd 

 

for

 

Seattle's 2nd

 

So, Basically Seattle takes Schmidt at the Expansion draft, and as part of a separate deal, or with the understanding that the remainder of the deal happens before the draft.

 

 

 

 

hmm... well that might change things given the massive cap space boost. 

 

Who would we go after in FA... Hamilton? we could land him and still have 8 mil in cap left over. If Jim could pull that off, sure why not? 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[Gawdzukes]

46 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

So what you're saying is... with the 2nd, you could easily replace Motte or find someone even better? It's a crapshoot. You already have an excellent NHL player, yet, let's trade for a draft pick? See if we can get something more special... 

I don't think this guy values Motte correctly. He is a fourth line player and expendable in that sense, but taking him out of line-up for some plug makes our bottom 6 significantly worse for not even a decent chance at a half assed player four years down the road. Maybe if our bottom 6 was ripe with players but I don't see many.

 

@Alain Vigneault

 

So, if he's so easily replaceable let's hear some names as to who is available next year or this year. Remember that Motte willingly (for now) plays a fourth line role, having been given a chance by the Canucks. He's a gritty, tenacious player who scores nice goals, he's fast, he's an excellent PK'er (top line), he's relentless on the forecheck, he gives 110% every shift, and he raises his game significantly in the playoffs.

 

Who can we grab that will be happy playing on the fourth line wing and contribute like Motte?

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

hey Jan

 

lots of qualifiers there. If Nate declines, if there's a capable prospect....lots of moving parts there. I think sometimes we under value the bird in the hand around here. Its really hard to get good players, even ones that might lose a 1/2 step over the next 3-4 years. 

 

Have to respectfully disagree on Motte for a 2nd, why move such a value for money guy for a 20% shot at the NHL a 3 to 4 years from now? 

 

Now if someone goes nuts and offers a 1st round pick, well thats a different story. But who has an extra 1st for Motte? 

I am somewhat of the opinion that picks 25 to 45 are all basically the same, and it is more about choice.

 

aka.......Hoglander, Demko. Lind

 

And I think you have to be open and look at every offer in it entirety ....no absolutes

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

hmm... well that might change things given the massive cap space boost. 

 

Who would we go after in FA... Hamilton? we could land him and still have 8 mil in cap left over. If Jim could pull that off, sure why not? 

 

 

Well there you go, my point exactly

 

Thanks Jimmy