Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Does me writing about the midway point have anything to do with anything? I'm not sure I see the connection.

It actually says a lot regarding what you think about Motte's value, and what you apparently think you know about hockey. Ridiculous. 

 

You said, "I'll be blunt, I'm not sure Motte's even worth as little as any old 2nd rounder."

 

So yes, in my opinion, if you're willing to sell off Motte 'as little as a 2nd rounder', I have no respect for that opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Drakrami said:

lol, you buy into that? 

 

They "say" we are 2 years away because they don't know wtf went wrong this season and "figured" it will take 2 years to correct and our young stars "should" be in their prime. 

 

So instead of a grand 2 year plan, it is more like a lot of hoping at Canucks management. 

Nah I think when you look at the overpaid contracts majority of them end within 2 years. Sutter/Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel/Baertschi/Lou/etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drakrami said:

lol, you buy into that? 

 

They "say" we are 2 years away because they don't know wtf went wrong this season and "figured" it will take 2 years to correct and our young stars "should" be in their prime. 

 

So instead of a grand 2 year plan, it is more like a lot of hoping at Canucks management. 

Jim Benning is an honest and prepared man.  He would never lie, much less leave his strategy to silly, frivolous things like "hope" and "prayers".

 

 

/ s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Of course they're calling for Motte.  But they can go have sex with themselves....

 

He's a steal - a player you win with - who drives the game as much as anyone on the roster.   He's also not done improving - and has that critical 'foundation' to his game that key secondary 'core' players like Hansen, Burrows, Higgins did....guys like that tend to be undervalued, particularly in the earlier stages of their career.

 

 

A 2nd round pick has approximately 17.5 to 25% of becoming an average NHL player (depending on where that pick falls in the round.

Lower those odds if you're wanting a better than average player - which I consider a talented, hard working, two way Tyler Motte to be - but that's my personal take - I don't devalue players who play primarily a defensive role.

 

For me - I would not deal Motte for those odds.  Perspectives on draft picks are interesting - people tend to assume that every draft pick - being a lottery ticket - will have outlier value.  When we think of a 2nd round pick - we tend to think of Demko, or Hoglander - as opposed to Alexandre Mallet to Taylor Ellington.  Part of the 'problem' is that the Benning era Canucks' drafting has produced more outliers than can be 'expected' - and so the value of draft picks tends to be inflated in the mindset of most fans. 

 

This team has a steady stream of prospects incoming - and imo - is likely to continue to - at least enough to produce a reasonable push of youth for what will likely be less roster spots up for grabs.

 

Imo that is the key to a 'rething' - not a tankdown where you bottleneck and have a few years of stockpiled picks - but the long game - where you look to produce a sustaining continuity of incoming youth. 

So I don't see the point in selling Tyler Motte - and certainly not for a longshot pick.

But it does revisit the market value that Benning et al got out of that Vanek rental - arguably a solid uptick on the mid round pick that people were furious the team did not get.   If someone seriously wanted Motte - be prepared to part with a far closer to NHL-ready, even more primary need - ie a RHD that has solid draft plus years to assess - and has greater upside to compensate for being less proven/higher risk.  A 2nd round pick doesn't cut it.

 

Good points. Getting another Motte will not be easy -- that 2nd rounder that we could get, may not even become an NHL player, let alone be as good as Motte.

 

But about percentages, the number you presented is a general percentage. If we condition on JB being the GM, that percentage rises.

 

2014: Demko

2015: No 2nd rounder.

2016: No 2nd rounder.

2017: Lind and Gadjovich.

2018: Woo.

2019: Hoglander.

 

6 players drafted in the 2nd round thus far, 2 players are on the NHL roster already, good for 33.3%. And both of these players are projected to be better than Motte (although they all bring different value to the team so it's hard to make direct comparisons).

 

Our of Lind, Gad, and Woo, Lind still has a decent shot at becoming an NHLer. He may possibly be as good a player as Motte. If so, JB will be hitting on 50% of his 2nd rounders.

 

Edit: as some posters have pointed out, we have done well on high 2nd. The 2nd rounder coming back on Motte trade would be a late 2nd so it'd be a no-go.

 

 

Edited by khay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

It actually says a lot regarding what you think about Motte's value, and what you apparently think you know about hockey. Ridiculous. 

 

You said, "I'll be blunt, I'm not sure Motte's even worth as little as any old 2nd rounder."

 

So yes, in my opinion, if you're willing to sell off Motte 'as little as a 2nd rounder', I have no respect for that opinion. 

You should probably calm down.  Coming at me is one thing, but now you're going after a mod.

 

We get it - you like Motte.  But he's just a player lol.  A replaceable one at that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

That is a valid point, however, what makes you think motte has reached his ceiling? He is only 25. He has done nothing but trend up. 

True, Motte has been getting better every season since arriving. And getting a 2nd rounder from a playoff team usually means late 2nd round... who may only become a player like Motte at best. 

 

I'd say late 1st rounder is where I draw the line on trading Motte. But I'm sure no one is giving us a 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

Because I write about hockey I think I'm an expert? I write because I enjoy writing and enjoy hockey. 

 

You don't have to respect my opinion, but I'll respect your choice not to respect my opinion. To each there own. One of the beauties of a public forum like this is that we can all share our opinions. However, there may be a better way to discuss our varying opinions than in such an aggressive manner.

You're right about that. I apologize. I am frustrated that some on this board would even consider trading Motte for a 2nd. Why? You already have a fantastic player who literally could move up and down the lineup, who's an energizer and kills penalties. I seriously don't see the reasoning behind trading him for an unknown commodity, wadr. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarkIndianRises said:

If the Canucks are far out of playoff contention at the deadline, the only guys I move are Pearson, Edler, Sutter, and one of Hamonic or Benn.

 

Motte and Schmidt stay.

i like Hamonic playing with Hughes, no way would i trade him, maybe trade Benn

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BarnBurner said:

You're right about that. I apologize. I am frustrated that some on this board would even consider trading Motte for a 2nd. Why? You already have a fantastic player who literally could move up and down the lineup, who's an energizer and kills penalties. I seriously don't see the reasoning behind trading him for an unknown commodity, wadr. 

I appreciate your apology.

 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure a 2nd is equal to him and you may be right. I guess I'm remembering that Demko was an early 2nd and Boeser was a late 1st. As good as Motte is, he's still a bottom-six forward. That said, I really really don't want to trade him and I think we'd need to be massively overpaid to justify it. Maybe that is a late 1st rounder, maybe even as crazy as a higher 1st round pick, I'm not sure.

  • Cheers 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, khay said:

Good points. Getting another Motte will not be easy -- that 2nd rounder that we could get, may not even become an NHL player, let alone be as good as Motte.

 

But about percentages, the number you presented is a general percentage. If we condition on JB being the GM, that percentage rises.

 

2014: Demko

2015: No 2nd rounder.

2016: No 2nd rounder.

2017: Lind and Gadjovich.

2018: Woo.

2019: Hoglander.

 

6 players drafted in the 2nd round thus far, 2 players are on the NHL roster already, good for 33.3%. And both of these players are projected to be better than Motte (although they all bring different value to the team so it's hard to make direct comparisons).

 

Our of Lind, Gad, and Woo, Lind still has a decent shot at becoming an NHLer. He may possibly be as good a player as Motte. If so, JB will be hitting on 50% of his 2nd rounders.

 

 

 

I agree that the team has hit at a high percentage on their 2nd round picks thus far - and with quality players already proving themselve in the NHL - I'd also argue/agree that players like LInd and Woo in particular cannot be judged - cannot be assumed not to be NHLers in due course - so that percentage could raise even more.

So I think it's fair to value a 2nd with this group higher than the league averages of 17.5-25% - but those are also small samples...whether that record is sustainable remains to be seen.  At the same time, those picks that have been made - involved primary targets of the franchise - whereas having a second pick in those rounds would not necessarily mean that the team has yet another outlier pick on their draft list.

The Canucks have all their picks moving forward with the exception of the one 3rd rounder they used to acquire Schmidt.

So I think that - as we've seen thus far - they've produced great results without 'stockpiling' - and imo that is the goal moving forward - to continue to produce a reasonable incoming stream of youth.  I think they can probably do so without selling young, important assets.

For me - I love draft picks as much as anyone - but at the same time has done enough fantasy drafting to realize that there's a limit to how many hits you can expect. 

I'm all for moving veterans - Pearson, Benn, perhaps Sutter - if the time comes that the team is truly out of chances (the next 8 games will probably be fairly conclusive in that sense, if they don't manage to win nearly all of them).  There are also a few other guys I'd sell regardless - ie Roussel....any bonus picks for them = great - but Motte for a pick is not a deal I'd entertain.  And likewise, I probably would not sell Gaudette either unless it involved a comparable young player at a position of greater need....

Edited by oldnews
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Ummm trading Motte would mean that we lose one of our only efficient contracts for next season.

 

How does that help us exactly?  To replace Mote with a similar player is going to cost us more than what we are paying Motte.

 

The only way I trade him is if a cap dump for next year goes along, like Roussel.... or if a team gives an early 2nd or better I guess, but again the odds of getting better than Motte with the 35th pick is fairly low so why do it?

 

 

It's clear that management/ownership has somewhat given up on dealing with these contracts that they have. Seems like they're just going to wait until 2022-2023. They're in a major crunch again this offseason and will need to fight to try and keep the talent level of this bubble team - forget improving it. If you don't think you're going to elevate into a top ten team next season, it should be explored. Motte is going to be a UFA after it and will be in line for a big pay grade. I've doubted Motte's upside as nothing more than an energy guy but the bubble and his form this season has been.... surprising. The guy scores at a fairly insane clip for a PK guy. I can understand why any contending team would want this guy. 

 

If you can do a barclay goodrow type deal where you get a 1st for Motte and a 3rd, you do that deal in a heartbeat. You're either going to get a high pick which will be more beneficial to supplementing the core in the years where they're competitive, or you can use that asset to flip a bad deal like Eriksson in the summer and then use the capspace to improve your team next season.

 

Trading Motte (if you get a stupid high return) is a win/win unless you think you can move out enough bad cap without the asset he could potentially generate by moving out a different piece.

 

Trading Schmidt OTOH, I don't agree with. The guy has been good this season and they have him for four years. You need some consistency on the team. I bet you they could flip him for a fairly substantial upgrade on what they paid but I think he's a long term contributor to winning and you'd be hard pressed to improve on that guy even with the assets you got in. You need a player like Schmidt on your defense.

Edited by Tom Sestito
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It either has to be a first round or a 2nd round pick from a basement team to justify moving Motte. What are we even doing then with a late 2nd, hoping that it will become Motte four years down the road? That us just dumb. 

 

Schmidt will also need to be an overpayment with a young stud bluechip D coming back along with a pick of some sort. Mostly because of the contract length remaining and us not having a replacement for him anytime soon.

 

If a team gives us a second or even a third for Hamonic then trade his ass if we are out by tdl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fanfor42 said:

What a world where reporting is just made up nonsense.  Elliotte says it sounds like there's interest in Tyler Motte. No quote.  Doesn't say by who. Nothing to back it up.

 

Then he says he thinks Canucks were asked about Nate Schmidt.  Here he doesn't even say that it happened, just that he thinks it happened.

 

Then finally he just says he wonders if there is interest in Hamonic. No quote.  No source just his own mind thinking out loud.

 

THIS IS SUCH CRAP.  Nothing here is substantiated in any way.  Don't waste your time on this nonsense.

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly.   Friedman gets flakier and flakier by the day.

 

He used to (appear to) be a 'source' guy - ie he had reasonable credibility when it came to 'hearing' things.    Which was largely the point/job of 'reporters' - to seek actual information that was sourced.

At this point he appears to have devolved considerably as a professional in that sense  - and unfortunately, I don't think he's as bright a thinker as he was an effective source guy.  I couldn't really care less what Elliotte thinks - what the NHL needs are reliable, professional source seekers.  Those seem to get scarcer and scarcer by the day - as undoubtedly teams increasingly hold their cards closer to their chest - and noise makers with e5s drown out the old school ways of reporting.

Most of what Elliotte says these days I tend to file under E5.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 things consider:

 

This year has been a weird one for prospects, so probably even more uncertainty than usual.

 

Expansion draft: are we going to be able to protect Motte? Probably not. Does Motte's contract end this season? If so, then that doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I agree that the team has hit at a high percentage on their 2nd round picks thus far - and with quality players already proving themselve in the NHL - I'd also argue/agree that players like LInd and Woo in particular cannot be judged - cannot be assumed not to be NHLers in due course - so that percentage could raise even more.

So I think it's fair to value a 2nd with this group higher than the league averages of 17.5-25% - but those are also small samples...whether that record is sustainable remains to be seen.  At the same time, those picks that have been made - involved primary targets of the franchise - whereas having a second pick in those rounds would not necessarily mean that the team has yet another outlier pick on their draft list.

The Canucks have all their picks moving forward with the exception of the one 3rd rounder they used to acquire Schmidt.

So I think that - as we've seen thus far - they've produced great results without 'stockpiling' - and imo that is the goal moving forward - to continue to produce a reasonable incoming stream of youth.  I think they can probably do so without selling young, important assets.

For me - I love draft picks as much as anyone - but at the same time has done enough fantasy drafting to realize that there's a limit to how many hits you can expect. 

I'm all for moving veterans - Pearson, Benn, perhaps Sutter - if the time comes that the team is truly out of chances (the next 8 games will probably be fairly conclusive in that sense, if they don't manage to win nearly all of them).  There are also a few other guys I'd sell regardless - ie Roussel....but Motte for a pick is not a deal I'd entertain.  And likewise, I probably would not sell Gaudette either unless it involved a comparable young player at a position of greater need....

Even if we are a little close to the race I would still trade some veterans personally. Maybe I have too much faith in the youth IDK. 
 

I’d trade Pearson/Hamonic unless we can re-sign them preferably. Benn can go since we have OJ sitting.  I know it would suck without Sutter for the rest of the year but if someone was willing to take him for a fair price I would do it. 
 

Mainly I feel some of the potential assets we could acquire could be used to move out cap helping us be a bit more competitive next season instead of having Eriksson/Roussel take up that cap. 
 

Also having cap would allow us to maybe take advantage of a situation in FA and do another Schmidt-like deal. 
 

I have a lot of faith in JB’s drafting in the first 2 rounds though so I am conflicted about giving up those picks that would probably be needed to move an Eriksson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Motte as much as the next guy. But he’s injury prone, and UFA at the end of next season. If offers are starting with a 2nd round pick, we should at least listen. Who knows, maybe we could even get a late 1st (like Sharks got for Goodrow last year).

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...