[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

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?

You are totally right in that Motte is what you say

 

But, given your question.................Lowry............I would take him over Motte in a heart beat

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

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

and I raise you Mallet, Rodin and Sauve 

 

I really dislike the idea of betting on 2nds or even late 1st as sure things, vs established veterans with good records.

 

But I do see your point, if there is a window that opens up to say move Schmid+Loui++ then thats hard to say no to, if you are fairly certain you can replace Nate. 

[Ovi one kenobi]

It would be a huge W if we make some profit on NS considering we only paid a 3rd for him. If a Goodrow deal exists for Motte we should take that as well. I see alot of people have concerns on replacing these players but people forget that free agency this year will have highly depressed prices with many players taking 1 year deals. Schmidt is good but the 6 mill freed up will allow the team to explore other opportunities in addition to whatever we get back.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Gawdzukes said:

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?

Who cares about this year or next year?  The GM just said the team won't be competitive for another two seasons.  Why worry about a bottom six player when we have the defence and top six to address, as well as the prospect pool?

 

To answer your question, literally take your pick at any expiring UFAs that have traditionally held places in the bottom-six and will come below 1.5M.  According to the GM, the pandemic has forced everybody's hands so this shouldn't be too hard to do.  Heck, a few top six players signed for under 2M just this past off-season.  Internal options may also be a solution if the former is not possible.  Maybe Bailey?  Hawrlyuk or Michaelis?  Idk, it's a 4th line spot and there are other holes to address.

 

I can't promise you there will be an exact replica of Tyler Motte lying around somewhere but I can say with absolute certainty that many players can PK, play gritty, score goalies, forecheck, etc.

[Gawdzukes]

6 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

You are totally right in that Motte is what you say

 

But, given your question.................Lowry............I would take him over Motte in a heart beat

Yeah Jan, definitely in on him if possible but isn't he playing a third line role and going to be up for about $3.5m type money? That would be a hard swing for us.

[BarnBurner]

35 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

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?

I personally don't believe he's been given the best opportunity to showcase the best player he can become. He has more offense than most believe. 

 

Granted, he had to start from the bottom, like most, fair enough. However, each player has to have that chance, otherwise you have no way of knowing what they really are. 

[Jester13]

5 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

I personally don't believe he's been given the best opportunity to showcase the best player he can become. He has more offense than most believe. 

 

Granted, he had to start from the bottom, like most, fair enough. However, each player has to have that chance, otherwise you have no way of knowing what they really are. 

Completely agree. I'd like to see Motte in the top 6 to see what he can do, as I truly feel he has the potential to turn into quite the player up there. We just will not get in return what Motte is worth, and I think JB knows this and won't be trading him any time soon.

[canuktravella]

   at expansion

protect

petey miller horvat boeser 

 

and 3 of these guys  2 will need trading before draft or u lose them for nothing 

 

 

virtanen

gaudette 

macewen

lind

motte

 

if motte gets u a late  1st or early second  you do it as well as trading pearson for a late 1st or early second 

you then either trade gaudette or virtanen or macewen   basically we dont wanna give seattle options for good young forwards but make them take a vet like myers roussel please 

[canuktravella]

Just now, canuktravella said:

   at expansion

protect

petey miller horvat boeser 

 

and 3 of these guys  2 will need trading before draft or u lose them for nothing 

 

 

virtanen

gaudette 

macewen

lind

motte

 

if motte gets u a late  1st or early second  you do it as well as trading pearson for a late 1st or early second 

you then either trade gaudette or virtanen or macewen   basically we dont wanna give seattle options for good young forwards but make them take a vet like myers roussel please 

   sutter 3rd rounder

   benn 4th rounder

   edler  late first or 2nd 

   motte late first or early second

   pearsonlate first or early second 

   baertchi for future considerations 

   

  give seattle a 2nd rounder to pick roussel  

 

at draft  2 1sts 2 2nds 2 3rds 2 4th 

 

 

 hoglander petey boeser

virtanen horvat  podkolzin

gaudette miller macewen

               beagle lind 

 

schimidt  hamonic 

hughes tryamkin 

juolevi myers         

 rathbone 

 

demko

holtby 

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

Trade schmidt for a 1st or early 2nd then use his money to sign RNH

[Provost]

43 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

Trade schmidt for a 1st or early 2nd then use his money to sign RNH

If we could get a 1st and a prospect for him now, I would do that.

 

We could get a decent RHD that might be a better fit for that haul in the offseason before expansion, probably less.

 

Like if you could get Ristolainen from a Buffalo team looking to retool in the offseason for the same assets or less assets than we got for Schmidt... that is a win in my books.

 

I have nothing against Schmidt at all, just a matter of it being an offer that is hard to turn down.  He is a pretty fair value for his cap hit and shouldn’t decline dramatically, at least due to age, by the time it expires.

 

Not sure who would really be in the market and have the cap space though.

 

 

[Gawdzukes]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Who cares about this year or next year?  The GM just said the team won't be competitive for another two seasons.  Why worry about a bottom six player when we have the defence and top six to address, as well as the prospect pool?

 

To answer your question, literally take your pick at any expiring UFAs that have traditionally held places in the bottom-six and will come below 1.5M.  According to the GM, the pandemic has forced everybody's hands so this shouldn't be too hard to do.  Heck, a few top six players signed for under 2M just this past off-season.  Internal options may also be a solution if the former is not possible.  Maybe Bailey?  Hawrlyuk or Michaelis?  Idk, it's a 4th line spot and there are other holes to address.

 

I can't promise you there will be an exact replica of Tyler Motte lying around somewhere but I can say with absolute certainty that many players can PK, play gritty, score goalies, forecheck, etc.

Ah I see. Unlike you I live in the real world and if I was GM I would certainly care about the next two years despite some soundbite you live your life by.

[AV.]

Just now, Gawdzukes said:

Ah I see. Unlike you I live in the real world and if I was GM I would certainly care about the next two years despite some soundbite you live your life by.

Cool.  Remind me who you are again?

[thaji]

If we are not making the playoffs this year. Which high probability then you sell whatever you can outside the core of (Petey, Boeser, Miller, Horvat, Hogz, Hughes) and other top prospects and accumulate as much draft capital or other prospects as possible. 

 

The collection of picks can then be used to help get rid inefficient contracts like Loui, Beagel, Roussel etc giving us much needed cap flexibility when it's going to still be a buyers market in Free Agency or even be able to take advantage of trades if teams have too many players to protect. 

 

But Jimbo is likely to much of a simpleton to think 10 steps ahead to make moves like these. Likely run out of time just deciding whether or not to even trade. 

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Cool.  Remind me who you are again?

Nobody cares who you are either. The only thing you're remembered for is making bad takes because of your obsession of criticizing Benning at all costs, even if the argument doesn't make sense.

 

You said, and I'm paraphrasing here because I'm too lazy to back to page 6, "Because there are dumb GMs" is not a very helpful way of understanding something. Your argument that Tyler Motte should be flipped for a high pick, yet in your words there are "lots of players" like Motte is illogical.

 

Hope that helps, but I know it doesn't.

[Dazzle]

17 minutes ago, thaji said:

If we are not making the playoffs this year. Which high probability then you sell whatever you can outside the core of (Petey, Boeser, Miller, Horvat, Hogz, Hughes) and other top prospects and accumulate as much draft capital or other prospects as possible. 

 

The collection of picks can then be used to help get rid inefficient contracts like Loui, Beagel, Roussel etc giving us much needed cap flexibility when it's going to still be a buyers market in Free Agency or even be able to take advantage of trades if teams have too many players to protect. 

 

But Jimbo is likely to much of a simpleton to think 10 steps ahead to make moves like these. Likely run out of time just deciding whether or not to even trade. 

"to much of a simpleton"?

 

Your whole post lacks proper grammar, and you're calling someone a simpleton? Yeesh.
 

I bring up grammar as a part of coherence. If you're not even taking the time to think about how you construct a sentence, you're probably not taking the time to think about what you post either.

 

Then again, some posters type fine and still make irrational conclusions. Never mind..

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Nobody cares who you are either. The only thing you're remembered for is making bad takes because of your obsession of criticizing Benning at all costs, even if the argument doesn't make sense.

 

You said, and I'm paraphrasing here because I'm too lazy to back to page 6, "Because there are dumb GMs" is not a very helpful way of understanding something. Your argument that Tyler Motte should be flipped for a high pick, yet in your words there are "lots of players" like Motte is illogical.

 

Hope that helps, but I know it doesn't.

Aren't you the guy that brings up Gillis at every turn to defend Benning?  I think yes.

 

Please do not project your vices onto me.

 

Hope this helps.

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Aren't you the guy that brings up Gillis at every turn to defend Benning?  I think yes.

 

Please do not project your vices onto me.

 

Hope this helps.

You do realize I haven't mentioned his name in a while, right? I deliberately didn't name drop him because I knew you'd read it

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You do realize I haven't mentioned his name in a while, right? I deliberately didn't name drop him because I knew you'd read it

Fantastic achievement, champ.

[AV.]

18 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

"to much of a simpleton"?

 

Your whole post lacks proper grammar, and you're calling someone a simpleton? Yeesh.
 

I bring up grammar as a part of coherence. If you're not even taking the time to think about how you construct a sentence, you're probably not taking the time to think about what you post either.

 

Then again, some posters type fine and still make irrational conclusions. Never mind..

Not everybody has the privilege of English being their native language.  Keep that in mind the next time you want to criticize somebody's grammar or sentence structure.

 

Hope this helps.