[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[24K PureCool]

6 minutes ago, c00kies said:

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.

We can protect 7 forwards so let's see.

Lotto, Horvat, ..... Guess that's it from the main roaster you want to protect. So 4. That leaves us 3. So I guess Lind would be protected from the Utica side. I guess I'll throw in Gaudette as well so yeah we have space to protect Motte.

 

[Screw]

No way I move Motte.  We need more Motte not less.

[86Viking]

Motte is a keeper, was hoping we would have signed him for a longer deal at a cap hit under 2m.

 

As for Schmidt, think he has done decent for us here. Hughes is taking almost all of the PP time so Schmidt's points are going to drop. If we are bring Edler back on a 1 or 2 year lower cap hit deal and with OJ seemingly ready for everyday minutes along with Rathbone knocking on the door it might make sense to clear 5.9m in Schmidt and get a 1st plus or  a solid prospect and still  a decent pick also coming back.

 

We have the depth on LHD to quickly move on from him, need to get a RHD for long term tho. 

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, Tom Sestito said:

 

It's clear that management/ownership has somewhat given up on dealing with these contracts that they have.

I think if you look at the market for moving cap, there have been so few contracts dumped - and so many teams looking to dump them - that it comes at too high a cost in general (ie one year of Marleau cost a 1st, and that was pre-covid - whereas this offseason, there were not many Mark Staals (who is both serviceable at 19 minutes a night, and expires this year) moving around - that it probably makes more sense to just ride out this offseason and next (where the team has 39 million of expiring cap - including the end of the Luongo recrap).

 

I personally value the retained assets at this point moreso than the short term cap flexibility.

I also think it's a good time - in terms of critical mass of young players pushing - to depend on improvement from within.

 

Next offseason - and/or the following - they can get back to buying the odd asset requiring cap space - but even then, I think they should remain conservative in the interest of retaining flexibility for times if/when a window is clearly opening.  When your young core starts entering their prime I think it becomes even more important to spend conservatively.

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

We can protect 7 forwards so let's see.

Lotto, Horvat, ..... Guess that's it from the main roaster you want to protect. So 4. That leaves us 3. So I guess Lind would be protected from the Utica side. I guess I'll throw in Gaudette as well so yeah we have space to protect Motte.

 

Ya, who do we really protect?  We “can” protect extra guys... but really don’t have to as they are replaceable if we lose them.

Horvat, Petterson, Boeser, Miller, Lind, Motte, XX
Schmidt on defence is the only one that needs to be protected... maybe Juolevi if we can’t upgrade in that spot.

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

Wish teams would  instead call about Sutter, Eriksson, Myers, Beagle , Holtby or Roussel .........  

Sutter at 50% retention *might* be doable at the deadline.

[flickyoursedin]

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 agree with this here. Retention on Edler or Sutter to maximize a return. Some of these guys have NTC’s but for a short stint on another team for a chance at the cup anything could happen.

[oldnews]

20 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

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. 

I agree.  I would have sold Pearson in the offseason - and Roussel - and Benn - if possible - in order to bank that cap for bonus overage and clear it out moving forward.  But that is easy to say.

 

The trade market has been bottlenecked hard - to say the least.  And it went further than I would have imagined - ie I expected at least a few teams to have to spend hard - ie Tampa - but they managed to squeak through - while fielding no known offersheets - and had to spend only a 2nd - to move Paquette and Coburn.  Personally I think that appears an 'overpayment' to move minor contracts - particularly for a player as serviceable as Paquette - but it would also appear to be an indicator of the cost of moving cap....So that wasn't and isn't an easy market to get a read on- and there have been so few moves that it makes 'price setting' even more difficult to get a take on.  At those prices I'd wait out the expiration of contracts.  I also would be pretty disappointed if I were a Sens fan, for example, that the most they managed was to regain the 2nd they spent on acquiring Stepan - almost as bizarre as the original deal the Coyotes made to acquire him....

I'm ok with them waiting / sitting out as big buyers this offseason - (with the exception of a young player like Cal Foote if Tampa winds up needing to move him - deals like that don't really require cap flexibility in any event).

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by oldnews

[Tom Sestito]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think if you look at the market for moving cap, there have been so few contracts dumped - and so many teams looking to dump them - that it comes at too high a cost in general (ie one year of Marleau cost a 1st, and that was pre-covid - whereas this offseason, there were not many Mark Staals (who is both serviceable at 19 minutes a night, and expires this year) moving around - that it probably makes more sense to just ride out this offseason and next (where the team has 39 million of expiring cap - including the end of the Luongo recrap).

 

I personally value the retained assets at this point moreso than the short term cap flexibility.

I also think it's a good time - in terms of critical mass of young players pushing - to depend on improvement from within.

 

Next offseason - and/or the following - they can get back to buying the odd asset requiring cap space - but even then, I think they should remain conservative in the interest of retaining flexibility for times if/when a window is clearly opening.  When your young core starts entering their prime I think it becomes even more important to spend conservatively.

I don't really have a preference to retaining assets versus using them to dump bad deals. I'd bet you EP/Horvat/Boeser/Hughes do care if they tread water again this summer instead of improve but that's a different debate.

 

Where I'd assume you and I will have a difference in thinking is the necessity of needing to add assets now. Unless they want to go into a pick deficit, they need to acquire assets this TDL and either use that draft capital to add prospects they think can help us in 3-5 years or the assets required can be used to improve the team next year by attaching them to bad deals. Like, I think not moving out guys who wont be here to help this team win in 22-23 is a massive failure for this organization.

 

Beagle provides use as a 4th liner. I don't really care much about the 4th line anyways. But, to get out of Eriksson, Roussel, and Holtby would be really huge for the team in the summer. Right now, even if they bridge all of EP/Demko/Hughes, they're only going to have enough money to afford to retain Edler and sign a 3rd line center with Pearson's expiring

 

If you can move some group of Motte, Pearson, Edler, Sutter, Benn, Hamonic and bring in assets that could go towards paying to dump Holtby, Eriksson and Roussel, they have a chance to make significant improvements to the team. Those improvements could be long term by adding the flexibility to go long term on multiple of our RFA's, or by going short term and using Holtby/Eriksson/Roussel towards multiple critical pieces that we need both now and over the next few years.

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

Pearson.........for............a 2nd

Sutter.............for............a 2nd

Benn..............for............a 3rd

 

Schmidt......... for.......... a prospect and a 1st rounder............................rationel, he is a top 4 Dman on any team, and he is 31 before we compete

Motte..............for ..........a second and a 3rd...........................................rationel. he has made a name for himself, and has value

 

To be honest, Pearson, Sutter and Benn need to go to clear up cap, Schmidt and Motte have to be over payments. They can all be replaced, but why change for the sake of change.

 

The low cap is a god send, and there will be lots of players available, as will there be some entry draft protections, which could help us.

[mll]

1 hour ago, Convincing John said:

To Columbus: Tyler Motte

To Van: Andrew Peeke

 

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. 

Columbus traded Motte away.  They are also not in a playoff spot.  Tortorella is also on an expiring contract.  

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Tom Sestito said:

I don't really have a preference to retaining assets versus using them to dump bad deals. I'd bet you EP/Horvat/Boeser/Hughes do care if they tread water again this summer instead of improve but that's a different debate.

 

Where I'd assume you and I will have a difference in thinking is the necessity of needing to add assets now. Unless they want to go into a pick deficit, they need to acquire assets this TDL and either use that draft capital to add prospects they think can help us in 3-5 years or the assets required can be used to improve the team next year by attaching them to bad deals. Like, I think not moving out guys who wont be here to help this team win in 22-23 is a massive failure for this organization.

 

Beagle provides use as a 4th liner. I don't really care much about the 4th line anyways. But, to get out of Eriksson, Roussel, and Holtby would be really huge for the team in the summer. Right now, even if they bridge all of EP/Demko/Hughes, they're only going to have enough money to afford to retain Edler and sign a 3rd line center with Pearson's expiring

 

If you can move some group of Motte, Pearson, Edler, Sutter, Benn, Hamonic and bring in assets that could go towards paying to dump Holtby, Eriksson and Roussel, they have a chance to make significant improvements to the team. Those improvements could be long term by adding the flexibility to go long term on multiple of our RFA's, or by going short term and using Holtby/Eriksson/Roussel towards multiple critical pieces that we need both now and over the next few years.

 

 

I don't think they will be 'treading' water.  The team has so much talented youth - that the principal uptick imo in the short run should come from within - the push to improve is already there, built in so to speak - and the timing of integrating those youth - while not buying veterans to fill roster spots - is one exception where the timing of a lot of these unusual circumstances doesn't necessarily 'hurt' the team.  I don't consider it a 'step back' when the core continues to be added to and they continue to develop towards their prime.   The short term results of the first month may be disappointing, but I think it's important to analyze the whole closely, as opposed to reading too much into those results.

 

Where you assume we have a difference in thinking - is not clear to me.  It's easy to say 'acquire assets' at the TDL....I'm not sure, however, how easy that will be even with the most sellable of veteran assets.  I take a pick for a handful of players if I can get them - I'd have sold some of them months ago if possible - but I don't lump an Edler in there (who has a NMC and signed a team friendly expansion circumvention deal to assist this team), nor do I lump Motte in with that group.

 

I doubt there is as much difference of opinion as you suspect - most people would agree with selling veteran assets, particulary expiring ones, for assets - where I disagree with many people is believing that's simply a matter of will or choice - whereas the market doesn't gaf if you want to sell assets - you need to find a dance partner for whom it makes sense both ways - and denying the peculiar conditions that have squeezed the trade market to a trickle - doesn't change the larger reality no matter how much people criticize the franchise for not dealing more veterans.

[-SN-]

I'm 110% sure Friedman is just trolling Canucks fans these days. 

[kloubek]

I guess it shouldn't be a big surprise that other teams are going after our talent. Doesn't mean we have to bite. 

I imagine a case MAY be made to move Schmidt - if perhaps his strong personality isn't meshing (no reason to believe it isn't) or if Benning believes that he won't be the strong contributor we believed AND the return would have to be fantastic. As others are saying, we keep Motte too. It is hard to find a player who fits a certain role so perfectly. He isn't flashy and won't put up big points, but we all know what he brings and I want to keep that in the lineup.

What Benning REALLY means by "be patient" is "wait for my mistake contracts to expire". And I do believe that the refresh with new blood in the bottom six and maybe another top 6 winger will put this team over the top.

[BPA]

I'd trade ...

 

Motte + 3rd for a 1st or Motte for an early 2nd.

 

Schmidt for a 1st and 2nd 2022.

 

Hamonic for a 2nd.

 

But only if we are out of the playoff race.

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, SNuck said:

I'm 110% sure Friedman is just trolling Canucks fans these days. 

All he sees is Canucks Twitter fanbase. Not really the most sensible bunch overall but there are some funny voices. 

[Screw]

Guys I would move if there was a market: Sutter, Benn, Edler, Virtanen, Roster, Beagle.

 

I resign: Hamonic and Pearson

 

Keep LE for the lollololololols

[mll]

14 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Pearson.........for............a 2nd

Sutter.............for............a 2nd

Benn..............for............a 3rd

 

Schmidt......... for.......... a prospect and a 1st rounder............................rationel, he is a top 4 Dman on any team, and he is 31 before we compete

Motte..............for ..........a second and a 3rd...........................................rationel. he has made a name for himself, and has value

 

To be honest, Pearson, Sutter and Benn need to go to clear up cap, Schmidt and Motte have to be over payments. They can all be replaced, but why change for the sake of change.

 

The low cap is a god send, and there will be lots of players available, as will there be some entry draft protections, which could help us.

Benning just said he would like to extend Pearson.  Doubt they are looking to trade him.

 

If they want to protect Myers they might want to extend Benn.  Hamonic/Edler are unlikely to want to sign to be exposed.

 

Green just said they see Gaudette as a winger.  Canucks will need a C3 for next season.  Maybe that’s Sutter.  He wears a letter and the team was surprised by losing leaders like Tanev, Markstrom last off-season.

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by mll

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, mll said:

Benning just said he would like to extend Pearson.  Doubt they are looking to trade him.

 

That is one instance where I'd read that in more ways that one - ie not simply straight shooter Benning.

 

First, if a buyer wants to rent Pearson, indicating an intention to re-sign him - is the poker approach to his market value.  Ie he's a 20 goal scorer, Stanley Cup Champion who plays a two way, playoff game, etc, etc.....ie the price won't be a giveaway for any pick they can get.

 

I also think it's important to guage the need and potential demand in the market.  When you look at the teams in the north, arguably there are a few that could use / might need winger scoring.  Toronto, for example, has Thornton, Kerfoot, Mikheyev, and Vesey at LW.... will they be healthy at the TD though - and would an upgrade make sense regardless.  If they sustain in injury - and the market they're buying from is limited, Benning could enjoy some real leverage.

Edmonton - beyond Draisaitl - has Ennis, Shore, Neal... That is weak.  The if there, though, is whether they remain a playoff team....I could see them needing to buy if they have any hope of advancing if they make the playoffs - they continue to get paltry/next to no secondary scoring from their wingers....

 

Second - you are sending an open ended message to Pearson's camp - as opposed to telegraphing an intent to move on.  If no market for Pearson emerges, you haven't burned bridges if you can bring him back at a reasonable, short term.

 

I can't honestly say that I have a read on which way the franchise leans with Pearson - but one of the exceptions with Benning where I don't necessarily take statements like that at face value.

They may sincerely feel he makes more sense as a re-sign at reasonable terms - to continue to play with Horvat - than the value of a longshot pick represents.

 

Personally, I'd move on from Pearson - take the pick, bank the cap, and take my chances with Podkolzin and the rest of the youth - while perhaps bringing in a cheap covid free agent placeholder to compete with the youth....

 

My guess though, would be that the franchise is probably hedging on that - as opposed to simply being committed to Pearson/ uninterested in renting him.

[Tom Sestito]

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I don't think they will be 'treading' water.  The team has so much talented youth - that the principal uptick imo in the short run should come from within - the push to improve is already there, built in so to speak - and the timing of integrating those youth - while not buying veterans to fill roster spots - is one exception where the timing of a lot of these unusual circumstances doesn't necessarily 'hurt' the team.  I don't consider it a 'step back' when the core continues to be added to and they continue to develop towards their prime.   The short term results of the first month may be disappointing, but I think it's important to analyze the whole closely, as opposed to reading too much into those results.

 

Where you assume we have a difference in thinking - is not clear to me.  It's easy to say 'acquire assets' at the TDL....I'm not sure, however, how easy that will be even with the most sellable of veteran assets.  I take a pick for a handful of players if I can get them - I'd have sold some of them months ago if possible - but I don't lump an Edler in there (who has a NMC and signed a team friendly expansion circumvention deal to assist this team), nor do I lump Motte in with that group.

 

I doubt there is as much difference of opinion as you suspect - most people would agree with selling veteran assets, particulary expiring ones, for assets - where I disagree with many people is believing that's simply a matter of will or choice - whereas the market doesn't gaf if you want to sell assets - you need to find a dance partner for whom it makes sense both ways - and denying the peculiar conditions that have squeezed the trade market to a trickle - doesn't change the larger reality no matter how much people criticize the franchise for not dealing more veterans.

I think it is a choice to a certain extent. I think any playoff team in the league would want Edler but he's obviously a picky guy (deservedly so, he's earned it and I want him back here in free agency). I think any team - provided they have the capspace - would take Hamonic and Benn as 6-8th defenders for a playoff run and those guys always get a pick (3rd to 5th). They're relatively hamstrung by the NTC's that all these guys have as well. Like, we all know Hamonic would only waive for three places and they'd probably have to hardball him by telling him they're bringing up Woo and will bench him the rest of the season. (Unrelated but I think they should call up Woo/Rathbone and run them as a pairing at the NHL level this season because I think they're both good and play well together). Pearson is the only guy with no protection - he has to be sent packing. Sutter would fetch a similar return to Hamonic and Benn if he was retained but again, NTC so who knows where he wants to go if anywhere. I think if they can get assets for three players at this TDL, it would be a success. Pearson is the automatic, one of the expiring D, and then find a way to grab a third asset (Edler or Sutter or other)

 

The team has talented youth but the expectations need to be fair. Everyone would agree Hoglander has been fantastic this year, but he's not a top six forward yet. I think a fair expectation for Podkolzin would be similar to what you've gotten from Hoglander this season. Do you expect Podkolzin to come in and be more productive on both ends of the rink than lets say Pearson? I don't - I expect something similar. Do you think Hughes is going to be able to handle matchups against an opponents top six next season? I don't. There's been talk of insulating these youth with veteran leadership and intangibles for years. What's most important is they need to be insulated by players that help them achieve improved results on the ice. If you make a Motte for a 1st and 3rd trade and flip the late 1st + Eriksson for a top four defensive D to pair with QH, I just think that these are unquestionably good moves. 

 

I'm not saying that it's a failure if they don't move all five pending UFA's and other guys like Motte, Virtanen or whatever. However, I think it's reasonable to expect them to be able to get a few assets.