[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[BarnBurner]

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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.

So, what's your next excuse? Where does it stop?

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

So, what's your next excuse? Where does it stop?

The post I responded to was in relation to a comment made to the another user, not me.

 

Hope this helps.

[Nucker 67]

Teams might be calling, but I'm not sure Motte or Schmidt are traded anytime soon. It would have to be a heck of a deal for VAN.

 

e.g. Schmidt, Motte and Eriksson to MIN for Dumba   

[Russ]

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

That car accident really screwed up Sauve, he might have actually cracked the roster at some point.  

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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.

What he wrote doesn't have anything to do with English not being his native language. He clearly grasps English words very well; however, he has multiple grammatical mistakes that are just blatant. I'm not surprised you're defending your sheep who thinks Benning is bad, because he's bad.

 

Hope this helps

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dazzle
Oops, hope this helps ;)

[Master Mind]

I like seeing @Alain Vigneault and @Dazzle hoping to help each other with every post.

 

Very wholesome 

[lmm]

7 hours 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?

just spitballing but MacEwen, I heart LInd is pretty good, Hawryluk?

7 hours 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

Lowry would be our 3C

I'd take Lowry over Motte, Beagledog and Sutter in a heart beat

[AV.]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

What he wrote doesn't have anything to do with English not being his native language. He clearly grasps English words very well; however, he has multiple grammatical mistakes that are just blatant. I'm not surprised you're defending your sheep who thinks Benning is bad, because he's bad.

 

Hope this helps

Evidently, it doesn't seem like you've ever worked in ELL but you're doubling down anyway to "own the haterz".

 

Makes you wonder..

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Evidently, it doesn't seem like you've ever worked in ELL but you're doubling down anyway to "own the haterz".

 

Makes you wonder..

I do hope you're not a teacher. Good god. If your rhetoric is any sampling to how you understand logic, you are not a good teacher.

 

It's laughable how Motte can be replaced by "lots of players" (your words), but still have this high value in a trade. Lmfao. Basic reasoning skills you lack. Please stay out of the education field. Think about the children!

 

Critical thinking doesn't mean you are critical about someone that you are constantly thinking of. Hope that helps. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

56 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I do hope you're not a teacher. Good god. If your rhetoric is any sampling to how you understand logic, you are not a good teacher.

 

It's laughable how Motte can be replaced by "lots of players" (your words), but still have this high value in a trade. Lmfao. Basic reasoning skills you lack. Please stay out of the education field. Think about the children!

 

Critical thinking doesn't mean you are critical about someone that you are constantly thinking of. Hope that helps. 

It was Provost last week, me this week.  I'm beginning to see a link here between you bringing in aspects of people's personal lives (as if it shares any link to their opinions about hockey or how they go about articulating their thoughts in the first place) and the posts/posters you disagree with.  Pretty immature and a sign of a very poor, very lazy critical thinker.

 

I don't even work in ELL but interesting to see you went that route to "own me".

 

Makes you wonder..

Edited March 11, 2021 by Alain Vigneault

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

It was Provost last week, me this week.  I'm beginning to see a link here between you bringing in aspects of people's personal lives (as if it shares any link to their opinions about hockey or how they go about articulating their thoughts in the first place) and the posts/posters you disagree with.  Pretty immature and a sign of a very poor, very lazy critical thinker.

 

I don't even work in ELL but interesting to see you went that route to "own me".

 

Makes you wonder..

You were the one who questioned whether I worked in ELL. LOL.

Honestly dude, this is beyond sad that you are such a hypocrite.

 

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Evidently, it doesn't seem like you've ever worked in ELL but you're doubling down anyway to "own the haterz".

 

Makes you wonder..

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You were the one who questioned whether I worked in ELL. LOL.

 

 

I'm not sure how an honest observation about how YOU interpreted a situation ("there's no ELL-related errors here, poster is just dumb LOL") is bringing personal life into things.  It's not like I accused you of being xenophobic either lmfao. 

 

Very odd poster you are.

[Dazzle]

17 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I'm not sure how an honest observation about how YOU interpreted a situation ("there's no ELL-related errors here, poster is just dumb LOL") is bringing personal life into things.  It's not like I accused you of being xenophobic either lmfao. 

 

Very odd poster you are.

I'll take that as a compliment, considering you've been given so many chances to explain the logic that Motte can be replaced by "a lot of players", and oh, he should be flipped for a high pick.

 

On 3/9/2021 at 7:55 PM, Alain Vigneault said:

For what it's worth, I'm happy to keep Motte and Schmidt.  But if offers come along that make sense or are beyond their value, it's crucial we pull the trigger.  A lot of players can come in and do what Motte does.  Less so for Schmidt but he's also replaceable.

 

Development time is key but with our competitive timeline being pushed back by 2 years, we don't necessarily have a need for picks to develop straight away.  According to the experts on this board, Lind/Gadjovich/Woo are all studs in the making so we should be fine.

Umm...

 

What?

 

No one is going to give a high pick for Motte, if he can be replaced by a lot of players. Wait... does that mean your statement was wrong then?
 

Nah, I'm not expecting you'll see the errors of your judgements, nor admit it.

 

So yes, a very odd poster because I'm not one of the posters that take things at face value and agree with you just because you said it.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dazzle

[Master Mind]

25 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

No one is going to give a high pick for Motte, if he can be replaced by a lot of players. Wait... does that mean your statement was wrong then?

This happens every year. Playoff teams will overspend at the deadline. The sellers then replenish those players with prospects or free agents.

 

Is Barclay Goodrow the only player that plays his style of game? No, and he fetched a 1st last year.

 

It's certainly feasible to trade a player like Motte, then sign a free agent that plays a similar game.

[AV.]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'll take that as a compliment, considering you've been given so many chances to explain the logic that Motte can be replaced by "a lot of players", and oh, he should be flipped for a high pick.

 

Umm...

 

What?

 

No one is going to give a high pick for Motte, if he can be replaced by a lot of players. Wait... does that mean your statement was wrong then?
 

Nah, I'm not expecting you'll see the errors of your judgements, nor admit it.

 

So yes, a very odd poster because I'm not one of the posters that take things at face value and agree with you just because you said it.

I appreciate you dropping the side argument and getting back on topic.  Thanks for that.

 

While my original post sounds contradictory and "illogical", all of the things I said can be true.  Tyler Motte can (1) be worth a lot, and at the same time, (2) be replaceable.  Here's why:

 

Right now, we can all agree Tyler Motte holds a ton of value, whether to us as fans or to the Canucks themselves.  Rightfully so.  He hits, can kill penalties, provides energy, occasionally has a goal in him, so on and so forth.  At the same time, he's doing all of this at a cheap price while being a fairly nice age.  The sum of all this, and not the individual attributes themselves, makes him an attractive piece.  We know this because we can ask ourselves how many others - those who are unique like him in terms of age, price, etc. - are on the market and quickly come to the conclusion that very little, if any, are available.  At the same time, we can look at other factors, such as his stock and growing clout around the league.  Many people saw how well he played in the bubble.  While I'm sure it varies among executives, no doubt some will value that more than others, which theoretically affects Motte's value.  David Poile felt the need to move a 1st for Paul Gaustad (could have theoretically moved two 4ths for Pahlsson but that's an argument for another time); Tampa Bay moved two 1sts for Coleman and Goodrow; Doug Wilson was prepared to move a 1st (albeit conditional) for Jannik Hansen.  These trades tell us that certain bottom-six/bottom-six suited players can garner a high return.

 

Despite all this though, we have to look at what Tyler Motte is at his core:  he's a bottom six player.  All of those things above, while key traits to have as a player, aren't really valuable as standalone entities.  Many players can kill penalties (or be taught to), many players can score 5-10 goals a season, many players can hit, provide energy, so on and so forth.  These types of players, while incredibly useful, aren't core guys.  You may not have seen the post but I previously said that we have had many "Mottes" on this team.  What Tyler Motte does for us now is no different to what players like Jarkko Ruutu, Alex Burrows, Jannik Hansen, Raffi Torres, Maxim Lapierre, Brad Richardson, Derek Dorsett, etc., brought to this team.  Arguably, only Burrows and Hansen needed "replacing" but they were far better than Motte.  We should also look at the circumstances in which Motte himself emerged on this team.  Did anybody really expect him to turn into the player he is today?  How many of us thought he was just another warm body/project player like Cramarossa/Etem/Molino/Granlund/that idiot kid in Russia?  Management may have seen it (they did target him in the Vanek deal) but I doubt anybody on the fan side of things predicted it.  For as quickly and suddenly he emerged as a useful forward for us, we'd be fools to think it was a lucky coincidence and not a common circumstance for how bottom six players typically enter the league.

 

I like Motte and I'm happy to keep him around but if a team comes offering a 2nd, thinking he could be their Coleman or Goodrow, you absolutely have to consider it/take it.  And no, there won't be Motte 2.0 lying around to replace this Motte but there will be many like him( in the form of young players with something to prove, established vets, etc.) that can offer some, if not all, of the same things.

[Dazzle]

42 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I appreciate you dropping the side argument and getting back on topic.  Thanks for that.

 

While my original post sounds contradictory and "illogical", all of the things I said can be true.  Tyler Motte can (1) be worth a lot, and at the same time, (2) be replaceable.  Here's why:

 

Right now, we can all agree Tyler Motte holds a ton of value, whether to us as fans or to the Canucks themselves.  Rightfully so.  He hits, can kill penalties, provides energy, occasionally has a goal in him, so on and so forth.  At the same time, he's doing all of this at a cheap price while being a fairly nice age.  The sum of all this, and not the individual attributes themselves, makes him an attractive piece.  We know this because we can ask ourselves how many others - those who are unique like him in terms of age, price, etc. - are on the market and quickly come to the conclusion that very little, if any, are available.  At the same time, we can look at other factors, such as his stock and growing clout around the league.  Many people saw how well he played in the bubble.  While I'm sure it varies among executives, no doubt some will value that more than others, which theoretically affects Motte's value.  David Poile felt the need to move a 1st for Paul Gaustad (could have theoretically moved two 4ths for Pahlsson but that's an argument for another time); Tampa Bay moved two 1sts for Coleman and Goodrow; Doug Wilson was prepared to move a 1st (albeit conditional) for Jannik Hansen.  These trades tell us that certain bottom-six/bottom-six suited players can garner a high return.

 

Despite all this though, we have to look at what Tyler Motte is at his core:  he's a bottom six player.  All of those things above, while key traits to have as a player, aren't really valuable as standalone entities.  Many players can kill penalties (or be taught to), many players can score 5-10 goals a season, many players can hit, provide energy, so on and so forth.  These types of players, while incredibly useful, aren't core guys.  You may not have seen the post but I previously said that we have had many "Mottes" on this team.  What Tyler Motte does for us now is no different to what players like Jarkko Ruutu, Alex Burrows, Jannik Hansen, Raffi Torres, Maxim Lapierre, Brad Richardson, Derek Dorsett, etc., brought to this team.  Arguably, only Burrows and Hansen needed "replacing" but they were far better than Motte.  We should also look at the circumstances in which Motte himself emerged on this team.  Did anybody really expect him to turn into the player he is today?  How many of us thought he was just another warm body/project player like Cramarossa/Etem/Molino/Granlund/that idiot kid in Russia?  Management may have seen it (they did target him in the Vanek deal) but I doubt anybody on the fan side of things predicted it.  For as quickly and suddenly he emerged as a useful forward for us, we'd be fools to think it was a lucky coincidence and not a common circumstance for how bottom six players typically enter the league.

 

I like Motte and I'm happy to keep him around but if a team comes offering a 2nd, thinking he could be their Coleman or Goodrow, you absolutely have to consider it/take it.  And no, there won't be Motte 2.0 lying around to replace this Motte but there will be many like him( in the form of young players with something to prove, established vets, etc.) that can offer some, if not all, of the same things.

I will then say that I appreciate you for elaborating your perspective, rather than just ramming through a particular opinion without some sort of justification. Thanks for that, no sarcasm intended. Much of my gripe with your posts is that you seemed to ignore contrarian evidence.

 

I don't know how you can think both conditions to be true. Using your point that one should laugh their way to the bank if Motte is given a 2nd round pick as a return, that illustrates that you personally do not view him to be worth that much. This is therefore considered common knowledge. Something that is probably agreed upon by most reasonable people. So why would GMs who appraise players all the time feel that Motte should then be worth a 2nd? This is so contradictory, you're right. It's like proposing Raymond, Ballard and a 1st in exchange for a desirable player, yet trashing the former two players as being useless, at the same time. That's not how it works in reality, and I suspect you realize this. You can't have it both ways. Either Motte is highly regarded or not. You can't also make the statement that a lot of players can do his job, or take his place. I mean it's a joke after all that Eriksson is a 6M pker.

 

The second thing about draft picks is that they are gambles. We've seen multiple examples of three (!) First round picks by Boston not really panning out as originally planned. Secondly, Hoglander was clearly a diamond in the rough. If you look at the players before and after him, no player is as impactful as him, minus the few high first round picks. Picks and players are gambles. Getting a 2nd doesn't mean we'll get a good player for sure. It just means we'll get a new player with higher potential. Dahlen, for example, was a return that the Canucks received for Burrows.

 

Dahlen looks like a bust for SJ. He's been toiling in Timra the entire time with similar stats. It's a second tier league he is playing. Meanwhile, we received Linus Karlsson, who is doing well. Yet we have no idea how good he'll end up being.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

8 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I will then say that I appreciate you for elaborating your perspective, rather than just ramming through a particular opinion without some sort of justification. Thanks for that, no sarcasm intended. Much of my gripe with your posts is that you seemed to ignore contrarian evidence.

 

I don't know how you can think both conditions to be true. Using your point that one should laugh their way to the bank if Motte is given a 2nd round pick as a return, that illustrates that you personally do not view him to be worth that much. This is therefore considered common knowledge. Something that is probably agreed upon by most reasonable people. So why would GMs who appraise players all the time feel that Motte should then be worth a 2nd? This is so contradictory, you're right. It's like proposing Raymond, Ballard and a 1st in exchange for a desirable player, yet trashing the former two players as being useless, at the same time. That's not how it works in reality, and I suspect you realize this. You can't have it both ways. Either Motte is highly regarded or not. You can't also make the statement that a lot of players can do his job, or take his place. I mean it's a joke after all that Eriksson is a 6M pker.

 

The second thing about draft picks is that they are gambles. We've seen multiple examples of three (!) First round picks by Boston not really panning out as originally planned. Secondly, Hoglander was clearly a diamond in the rough. If you look at the players before and after him, no player is as impactful as him, minus the few high first round picks. Picks and players are gambles. Getting a 2nd doesn't mean we'll get a good player for sure. It just means we'll get a new player with higher potential. Dahlen, for example, was a return that the Canucks received for Burrows.

 

Dahlen looks like a bust for SJ. He's been toiling in Timra the entire time with similar stats. It's a second tier league he is playing. Meanwhile, we received Linus Karlsson, who is doing well. Yet we have no idea how good he'll end up being.

At worst, I'm guilty of a bit of light-hearted hyperbole when I suggest that "we take it and run" re: Motte for a 2nd.  I would say that has more to do with my enthusiasm/interest in the potential opportunity to acquire a top 60 draft pick (where traditionally, players with the highest ceilings in tend to be taken) more than it has anything to do with how I view Motte as a player.  The same would go for a player like Pearson and the same has gone for players like Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc., in the past.  You can recognize a player's skill/worth and also recognize an opportunity to maximize their value.  In short, wanting to trade Motte for a 2nd really has nothing to do with Motte himself as much as it has to do with making a move to steer the organization in a positive direction by adding a high pick for a player that can, figuratively, for the reasons I listed before, be replaced.

 

Draft picks are gambles in a general sense, sure.  Yet, the right scouting departments and managerial groups tend to hit more than others when they know what they're doing or know what to look for.  Now, many on this board, yourself included, have applauded Jim Benning and his team for drafting, often listing that as one of his strengths.  Seems a bit contradictory - in my view anyway - that we wouldn't want to give our management team a high pick to potentially select an NHL player with a higher ceiling than that of Motte's.  When you factor in that management also sees the team in a bit of a rut that will take two years to get back to competing, it seems that we have a few seasons to find/develop a replacement.  With this in mind, why wouldn't we (or shouldn't we) want to add picks and stock our cupboard while building towards two seasons from now?

[Dazzle]

33 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

At worst, I'm guilty of a bit of light-hearted hyperbole when I suggest that "we take it and run" re: Motte for a 2nd.  I would say that has more to do with my enthusiasm/interest in the potential opportunity to acquire a top 60 draft pick (where traditionally, players with the highest ceilings in tend to be taken) more than it has anything to do with how I view Motte as a player.  The same would go for a player like Pearson and the same has gone for players like Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc., in the past.  You can recognize a player's skill/worth and also recognize an opportunity to maximize their value.  In short, wanting to trade Motte for a 2nd really has nothing to do with Motte himself as much as it has to do with making a move to steer the organization in a positive direction by adding a high pick for a player that can, figuratively, for the reasons I listed before, be replaced.

 

Draft picks are gambles in a general sense, sure.  Yet, the right scouting departments and managerial groups tend to hit more than others when they know what they're doing or know what to look for.  Now, many on this board, yourself included, have applauded Jim Benning and his team for drafting, often listing that as one of his strengths.  Seems a bit contradictory - in my view anyway - that we wouldn't want to give our management team a high pick to potentially select an NHL player with a higher ceiling than that of Motte's.  When you factor in that management also sees the team in a bit of a rut that will take two years to get back to competing, it seems that we have a few seasons to find/develop a replacement.  With this in mind, why wouldn't we (or shouldn't we) want to add picks and stock our cupboard while building towards two seasons from now?

Fair point to the first paragraph. I really don't have any issues with what you said there. In fact, I agree that if the Canucks can offload some players for a rebuild of some sort, that might be ideal, otherwise we will risk them walking for nothing one day when their values drop.

 

Because even if our drafting was better (I think it would be insane to say our drafting under GM JB is BETTER than TB), there is a chance that the new player doesn't work out. That's just the way things are. If every GM could have it their way, their picks would never miss. I'm sure Boston was licking their lips when they had three first round picks all at the same time - and yet all three of picks missed one of Barzal, Connor, and Boeser who were picked shortly after. Boston's drafting has not been historically bad either.

 

Even teams TB have made BAD picks too. The whole 2015 year for Chicago, I had to look up, was a complete miss. 2016 wasn't much better, except for DeBrincat in the second round. 2017 had one player - Jokiharu. They picked a young defenseman too that's still on their team. 2018 was better: Boqvist and Kurashev. So no team bats anywhere close to 50 percent in a draft. It's just not possible.

 

Colorado's drafting generally hits on their first round picks. Yes, Rantanen is good. Yes they have McKinnon and Landeskog. (1st and 2nd overall, respectively). They took some time to rebuild though because not all their picks pan out.

 

So even though we've picked some great players recently, GM Benning may or may not be around to see how good of a job (or not) he's done with drafting, especially with a pick like Podkolzin who's probably like another Motte   Drafting/developing is difficult to master/gauge. There's always constantly new material to learn, and if you use older models for drafting (i.e. big body, high PIMs), it might not necessary be advisable nowadays.

 

That's just my thought, mixed in with a little bit of reading.

[Gawdzukes]

TRADES THE PLAYERSZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[The Lock]

On 3/9/2021 at 7:37 PM, Alain Vigneault said:

We're 2 years away, according to the GM.  Why not try to capitalize on some of these players if that's the truth?  After all, many on this board claim the GM is an alleged draft expert, so with all these picks he could just draft the next Motte or Schmidt or Hamonic if he wanted to (if those fans are to be believed).

But the more players we ship out like Motte in those 2 years, the "more longer" than 2 years it's going to take because then we have to fix that part of the roster.

 

If we already have players like Motte in place when things are going well, the more likely we'll be a contender.

 

I think what you're suggesting would just set us back over time and for what? A second round pick that may or may not even make the NHL? That's just mismanagement at it's core.

Edited March 11, 2021 by The Lock