[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[Gurn]

6 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

How exactly will the team improve between now and two years if we don't make any moves to get assets like draft picks and prospects?

The young players on the team now, and next year get better as they age.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

You're overrating Motte and you're also assuming that we will somehow be good in two years.  How exactly will the team improve between now and two years if we don't make any moves to get assets like draft picks and prospects?

I didn't say we wouldn't make any move between now and then. That's you putting words in my mouth.

 

I just don't think Motte's the answer with that. Not when we have assets coming to the end of their contracts who are likely worth more such as Pearson and Hamonic.

 

Not only that, but let's say we do trade Motte. When we need to get another Motte back when we're a contender, do we trade another pick to do so? How do you know it's not a higher pick in order to get someone like him back? How do we know that player will be like Motte.

 

You may think I'm overrating Motte, but I honestly don't think we can get a 2nd round pick for Motte anyway. Maybe a 3rd at best. Is that overrating a player or is that me realising that his value to us is worth more than what we would get on the market for him. I'd actually argue that you're overvaluating Motte for what his trade value would be.

[AV.]

Just now, gurn said:

The young players on the team now, and next year get better as they age.

We hope*

 

Many players don't ever take those steps (see: Jake Virtanen)

[Gurn]

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

We hope*

 

Many players don't ever take those steps (see: Jake Virtanen)

Jake is better than when he started., so  experience for young guys helps.

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

We hope*

 

Many players don't ever take those steps (see: Jake Virtanen)

But does that mean we just trade away those players and not give them a chance? Doesn't is seem just a little silly to trade away assets before they hatch without fully knowing what they could become? Sure. Some will falter like Virtanen, but is that a reason to not have any faith in anyone when we also have players who have become more than we could have asked for?

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by The Lock

[WHL rocks]

There should be an unwritten rule on these boards...

 

If ppl want to "own" each other and argue over dumb $&!# which has nothing to do with the Thread Topic they should just PM each other and fight/argue to their heart's desire...

 

Leave the rest of us to just come here and discuss hockey... this is supposed to be enjoyment time for me. Don't wish to go thru 2 pages of ppl arguing over things nothing to do with topic or as a matter of fact not even Hockey.. just dumb $&!#...

 

 

[WHL rocks]

About Hamonic ...

 

He's got NMC and I dont see him waiving. Another poster, can't remember who, told me a while ago that Hamonic has agreement with JB that he won't be traded and won't be asked to waive his NMC. Family reasons..

 

In any case. Id try to extend Hamonic.. He won't cost so much and he's looked pretty good lately as he settles in after returning from injury.

[AV.]

11 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I didn't say we wouldn't make any move between now and then. That's you putting words in my mouth.

 

I just don't think Motte's the answer with that. Not when we have assets coming to the end of their contracts who are likely worth more such as Pearson and Hamonic.

 

Not only that, but let's say we do trade Motte. When we need to get another Motte back when we're a contender, do we trade another pick to do so? How do you know it's not a higher pick in order to get someone like him back? How do we know that player will be like Motte.

 

You may think I'm overrating Motte, but I honestly don't think we can get a 2nd round pick for Motte anyway. Maybe a 3rd at best. Is that overrating a player or is that me realising that his value to us is worth more than what we would get on the market for him. I'd actually argue that you're overvaluating Motte for what his trade value would be.

I know you didn't explicitly say that but my point still stands.  You have to move valuable pieces to expedite things along.

 

At the same time, nowhere have I ever said that Motte is worth a 2nd.  I simply said that its worth exploring trading Motte should a valuable asset, such as 2nd, be offered.  There are historical examples of teams moving high picks for bottom six players.  Should one of those deals fall into our lap, we may as well do it.

 

16 minutes ago, gurn said:

Jake is better than when he started., so  experience for young guys helps.

16 minutes ago, The Lock said:

But does that mean we just trade away those players and not give them a chance? Doesn't is seem just a little silly to trade away assets before they hatch without fully knowing what they could become? Sure. Some will falter like Virtanen, but is that a reason to not have any faith in anyone when we also have players who have become more than we could have asked for?

 

While all fans are guilty of this (myself included), we tend to think that prospects and young players have limitless potentials and they'll continue growing until the day they turn 26 or 27 or however years old.  That's simply not the case.  We talk about ceilings for a reason and that's because not only does every player have one, some reach there's sooner than others.  Ask yourself:  At 26, how much more growing can Tyler Motte reasonably do?  We might all have different answers but by that age, you generally know what you have in a player.  It's the same thing with somebody like Virtanen.  Do you reasonably think he's going to turn a leaf and become a consistent 25-30 goal guy?

 

This really has nothing to do with giving chances to young players as much as it has to do with understanding and making decisions based on the ceilings your players have.

[babalu]

53 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

My summary is Motte in particular & Schmidt are more valuable to us?

 

Than their likely value on the trade market. 

 

 

Our UFA's, save the guys with NMC's (Edler & Hamonic) should be fair game.  If we dont get a big return, at least its a return...

 

I would consider trading Schmitd if it was more of a hockey trade. Perhaps for a RHD or younger established NHL player with upside.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I know you didn't explicitly say that but my point still stands.  You have to move valuable pieces to expedite things along.

 

At the same time, nowhere have I ever said that Motte is worth a 2nd.  I simply said that its worth exploring trading Motte should a valuable asset, such as 2nd, be offered.  There are historical examples of teams moving high picks for bottom six players.  Should one of those deals fall into our lap, we may as well do it.

 

While all fans are guilty of this (myself included), we tend to think that prospects and young players have limitless potentials and they'll continue growing until the day they turn 26 or 27 or however years old.  That's simply not the case.  We talk about ceilings for a reason and that's because not only does every player have one, some reach there's sooner than others.  Ask yourself:  At 26, how much more growing can Tyler Motte reasonably do?  We might all have different answers but by that age, you generally know what you have in a player.  It's the same thing with somebody like Virtanen.  Do you reasonably think he's going to turn a leaf and become a consistent 25-30 goal guy?

 

This really has nothing to do with giving chances to young players as much as it has to do with understanding and making decisions based on the ceilings your players have.

I think you're ideas here are a little conflicting of each other. Here you're saying you have to move valuable pieces to expedite things along, which I partially agree with (but don't think Motte's the guy for that). The problem is when you are selling this, you have to be selling Motte as someone who can improve, which is a little contradictory here don't you think?

 

However, I want to point out, that I'm not on my stance because I think Motte has limitless potential. I think he's important to us even if he doesn't develop more. If we don't trade him, he'd be here already and will have developed with our core group. We'd know what we have whereas with your route, we wouldn't really know what we'd have later on.

 

I am of the mindset that it doesn't matter if you're talking your core group, your bottom 6, or whatever. Everyone is important and everyone matters. Therefore, it's important to be smart about who you trade and who you don't. I don't think trading Motte is smart. I just don't. It's why I think it would be mismanagement of assets. Why throw away what you know you already have, especially when you have other assets you can trade instead? It's fine if you think core group first and then everyone else, but I do not agree with that at the same time.

 

Even if Motte were part of a bigger deal, I would be fine with that if it were the right deal, but just throwing him away for a pick seems pointless to me.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

I think you're ideas here are a little conflicting of each other. Here you're saying you have to move valuable pieces to expedite things along, which I partially agree with (but don't think Motte's the guy for that). The problem is when you are selling this, you have to be selling Motte as someone who can improve, which is a little contradictory here don't you think?

 

However, I want to point out, that I'm not on my stance because I think Motte has limitless potential. I think he's important to us even if he doesn't develop more. If we don't trade him, he'd be here already and will have developed with our core group. We'd know what we have whereas with your route, we wouldn't really know what we'd have later on.

 

I am of the mindset that it doesn't matter if you're talking your core group, your bottom 6, or whatever. Everyone is important and everyone matters. Therefore, it's important to be smart about who you trade and who you don't. I don't think trading Motte is smart. I just don't. It's why I think it would be mismanagement of assets. Why throw away what you know you already have, especially when you have other assets you can trade instead? It's fine if you think core group first and then everyone else, but I do not agree with that at the same time.

 

Even if Motte were part of a bigger deal, I would be fine with that if it were the right deal, but just throwing him away for a pick seems pointless to me.

No, not really.  We have to remember that, based on this report, teams are inquiring on Motte and Vancouver is listening.  This means that (1) those teams have an established interest and know who he is, (2) they already have their own ideas on his potential/his role with their team.  Vancouver doesn't really have to pitch Motte to those teams.

 

I get your stance that the move can appear to be  lateral because good teams tend to have players like Motte, so why move him?.  This makes sense to me, I get it.  But that's the thing; we really aren't a good team. We have about 5-6 good players and a whole lot of question marks, dead cap, and holes in this roster.  We took several steps back this past off-season and unless we make changes, we'll be treading in bottom 5 territory.  Simply believing that players will get better (I know it was gurn that said this) is negligible.  At the same time, prioritizing keeping bottom six players when there are more important holes to fix really isn't great management either.

[The Lock]

21 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

No, not really.  We have to remember that, based on this report, teams are inquiring on Motte and Vancouver is listening.  This means that (1) those teams have an established interest and know who he is, (2) they already have their own ideas on his potential/his role with their team.  Vancouver doesn't really have to pitch Motte to those teams.

 

I get your stance that the move can appear to be  lateral because good teams tend to have players like Motte, so why move him?.  This makes sense to me, I get it.  But that's the thing; we really aren't a good team. We have about 5-6 good players and a whole lot of question marks, dead cap, and holes in this roster.  We took several steps back this past off-season and unless we make changes, we'll be treading in bottom 5 territory.  Simply believing that players will get better (I know it was gurn that said this) is negligible.  At the same time, prioritizing keeping bottom six players when there are more important holes to fix really isn't great management either.

I think perhaps the difference between your mindset and my mindset is you think we're not a good team whereas I think we're a developing team. You're in the here and now and I'm thinking the future. I also think we have less holes than you think so we'll have to agree to disagree on that part.

 

I want to make one thing clear. If there was any season to be poor, this is the season to do it. It's a shortened season. There's a pandemic happening. Even before this season started, I had no expectations just because it's a weird year in general and I think there's a lot of overreaction on this forum, which I expected, but I also think it's a vocal minority at the same time.

 

So because I think we're a developing team and the verge of being a good team, I think we need to keep our important assets whether that's top 6, bottom 6, the water boy, or whatever. We still have assets left over that are less essential, especially with players like Hogz and Podz potentially able to nab spots (and yes I know Podz is unproven at this point). I think Motte has more of a niche on this team that's less expendable. It's just the way I see it.

 

If you don't think we'll become a good team, what's the point in not having faith in that I guess would be question.

 

Here's another thing too: the next couple of years should be the most interesting for the bottom 6. Sutter, Pearson, Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson: all those contracts will be off the books in 1 or 2 years. While it's nice to have those contracts gone, that still leaves the question: who will have those positions? Pearson's probably the most easiest to fill just because of who we have coming up, but I also think Motte's role on this team will become more and more important just because of who's likely leaving.

Edited March 12, 2021 by The Lock

[Sedinyoureyesontheprize]

Whole lotta stupid in this thread

[thundernuts]

8 hours ago, Toyotasfan said:

You are not going to replace what Motte brings with a late 2nd round pick, so why trade him for a gamble like that? 

I don’t think they should trade him.  
 

I just don’t think there is any way possible that he could be traded for a 1st.

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

Trade Pearson.  He is not a top 6 player.

Trade Benn for a 6th

Trade Sutter for a 4th

Only trade Motte for a 1st.  Sorry a late 2nd is not enough.

Trade Schmidt only for a big return, he is a legitimate top 4.

Consider trading to a contender and then resigning Edler in the summer.

There are others I’d love to trade, but we would have to pay to get Rousell off our books.

[D-Money]

I love Tyler Motte. However, if teams are interested in him now, then there will likely be larger offers for him when he is UFA. We might end up losing him for nothing at the end of next year anyways, or having to overpay him. He's proving to be injury-prone, so I would worry about giving him a lot of term - but he might get it from somewhere else. This year is done, so anything we turn down to trade Motte might be the price we pay for only 1 more year of him.

 

I also really like Schmidt. After a slow start, he's really coming around. Not to mention, he waived to come here, turning around and flipping him so quickly might send a bad message to other players. The exception would be if he has approached management and said it's not working for him here he wants to go to a team that can win in the next few years. 

[The Lock]

4 hours ago, D-Money said:

I love Tyler Motte. However, if teams are interested in him now, then there will likely be larger offers for him when he is UFA. We might end up losing him for nothing at the end of next year anyways, or having to overpay him. He's proving to be injury-prone, so I would worry about giving him a lot of term - but he might get it from somewhere else. This year is done, so anything we turn down to trade Motte might be the price we pay for only 1 more year of him.

 

I also really like Schmidt. After a slow start, he's really coming around. Not to mention, he waived to come here, turning around and flipping him so quickly might send a bad message to other players. The exception would be if he has approached management and said it's not working for him here he wants to go to a team that can win in the next few years. 

See, this is why I think we keep Motte for now. Take advantage of having a good players on a good contract and, if it looks like we won't be able to afford him afterwards, trade him at that point.

 

I'm not against trading Motte. I am however against trading him when we can still have him for at least a while longer, unless if we're getting something that good coming back. I also tend to think 2nd round and later picks are typically overrated and just not worth trading Motte for unless if it looks like we won't be able to keep him at the end of his contract. Even then, trade him for a pick just before his contract expires would be my suggestion if that's what we want to do. Not now when he still has over a year left.

 

People want to talk about bad contracts and maximizing value, well trading Motte right now is the opposite of that. He IS maximizing value. lol

Edited March 12, 2021 by The Lock

[D-Money]

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

See, this is why I think we keep Motte for now. Take advantage of having a good players on a good contract and, if it looks like we won't be able to afford him afterwards, trade him at that point.

 

I'm not against trading Motte. I am however against trading him when we can still have him for at least a while longer, unless if we're getting something that good coming back. I also tend to think 2nd round and later picks are typically overrated and just not worth trading Motte for unless if it looks like we won't be able to keep him at the end of his contract. Even then, trade him for a pick just before his contract expires would be my suggestion if that's what we want to do. Not now when he still has over a year left.

 

People want to talk about bad contracts and maximizing value, well trading Motte right now is the opposite of that. He IS maximizing value. lol

I don’t move Motte for a 2nd either, especially a late one. But Tampa set the market last year for a quality bottom-6 player with over 1 year left on his contract, when they acquired Barclay Goodrow for a 1st rounder.

 

So yeah, I love Motte... but if someone offers a 1st you gotta take that deal. 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, D-Money said:

I don’t move Motte for a 2nd either, especially a late one. But Tampa set the market last year for a quality bottom-6 player with over 1 year left on his contract, when they acquired Barclay Goodrow for a 1st rounder.

 

So yeah, I love Motte... but if someone offers a 1st you gotta take that deal. 

A 1st I'd agree with and would understand. I have to agree there at least.

[70seven]

Both players are apart of the solution.  I can’t see anyone giving up more than their value to the team currently and moving forward. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by 70seven