[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[canuktravella]

 so if a team wants pearson and motte you trade them for a late first or early second  otherwise u lose gaudette or virtanen or a lind or macewen  u can only protect 7 forwards. soo any picks we gain from trades helps us also protect the rest of the players we can protect 

[Rabid Rooster]

3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Only players unmoveable are Demko ,  Pettersson, Horvat ,Boeser, Miller,  Hoglander   and Hughes.    You take offers on anyone else. 

Boeser will return a first round pick.

No hate, just business 

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, Rabid Rooster said:

Boeser will return a first round pick.

No hate, just business 

And why would we want a 1st for him?

 

Odds are that player never comes close to the impact Boeser has made.

 

Boeser is part of this core. I hope they re-sign him long term.

[Rabid Rooster]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

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.

Well, there goes all Bennington stealth 

[Rick Blight]

Funny, nobody has mentioned that Hamonic has a NMC and I doubt he would agree to a trade anywhere but Winnipeg so you likely try to re-sign him.

 

Trading Motte for a 2nd would at least shut up all those posters that insisted we should have received a 2nd for Vanek. 

[Rabid Rooster]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

And why would we want a 1st for him?

 

Odds are that player never comes close to the impact Boeser has made.

 

Boeser is part of this core. I hope they re-sign him long term.

He is still a one trick  pony. Trade him while he’s playing well 

[UKNuck96]

3 hours 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.

 

Motte for a 2nd and Logan Stanley? 
 

although I completely agree we shouldn’t move him at all. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

25 minutes ago, Rabid Rooster said:

He is still a one trick  pony. Trade him while he’s playing well 

Go back to the HF Boards, with that BS

[canuck73_3]

27 minutes ago, Rabid Rooster said:

He is still a one trick  pony. Trade him while he’s playing well 

Brutal take. 

[UKNuck96]

30 minutes ago, Rabid Rooster said:

He is still a one trick  pony. Trade him while he’s playing well 

We are unlikely to find a player of his calibre with a pick unless it’s very high first and even then no guarantees they will pan out or make an instant impact.

 

if we move someone like him (which we shouldn’t) it would have to be primarily be for an established player that fits a direct need on our team 

Edited March 10, 2021 by UKNuck96

[4petesake]

22 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

Funny, nobody has mentioned that Hamonic has a NMC and I doubt he would agree to a trade anywhere but Winnipeg so you likely try to re-sign him.

 

Trading Motte for a 2nd would at least shut up all those posters that insisted we should have received a 2nd for Vanek. 

Hamonic signed here very late in January, and was rumoured to have a handshake agreement much earlier. He opted out of the playoff bubble last year for family reasons. I don’t think he wants to play anywhere else and shouldn’t be too hard to re-sign as long as JB treats him fairly. If he continues to play the way he has recently signing him is a no-brainer. They may even have something in place that they announce after the entry draft.

[deus.ex.makina]

Motte >> 2nd rnd pick. And you hope that pick translate to what ? Our top 6 is set for years to come.

Motte Is the anchor of our bottom 6 who help you to win series. 
 

keep Motte, Hamonic.

listen to Schmidt if they want to overpay (we dont really know what we have in him yet. I say keep him noneless but 5,9M for the next 4 years could bite us.) 

keep them in phone when they ask about Edler, Roussel, Pearson. Dont be too greedy. 

I persist to say that Sutter is still needed, with a better contract of course. 
Beagle does all the little things right. 
Motte, Sutter and Beagle are big parts of a winning formula when all the dumb contracts will be off the cap. 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Stating that the team would be smart to take any offer of a 2nd (or more) for Motte =/= "Motte is worth a 2nd".  Reading is hard, I know.

 

Hope this helps.

This begs the question - why would a team offer a 2nd rounder or higher if Motte can be replaced by a lot of players. Logic is hard, I know.

 

Hope this helps.

[AV.]

7 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

This begs the question - why would a team offer a 2nd rounder or higher if Motte can be replaced by a lot of players. Logic is hard, I know.

 

Hope this helps.

Because there are dumb GMs who don't do logical things.

 

(see:  Jim Benning)

[Master Mind]

3 hours 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.

 

 

You realize the article is 31 thoughts, right? Not 31 proven facts.

 

He isn't advertising it as these are all going to happen. Just his thoughts.

[Master Mind]

Strange that Benning was criticized for not selling off players for additional picks years ago.

 

Now there may be a chance to do so in Motte, Hamonic, etc, yet most of the replies are against it.

 

Feels like history repeating itself, and that Benning will be criticized in a couple years if he doesn't make these kind of deals.

 

Of course, there needs to be decent offers. San Jose got a 1st for Goodrow, so if we can get a similar return for Motte, Benning should take it.

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Because there are dumb GMs who don't do logical things.

 

(see:  Jim Benning)

or Peter Chiarelli, Mike Milbury, etc.

[Master Mind]

16 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

This begs the question - why would a team offer a 2nd rounder or higher if Motte can be replaced by a lot of players. Logic is hard, I know.

 

Hope this helps.

Teams overpay for players every year at the deadline.

 

Minnesota paid a 1st and 2nd for Martin Hanzal a few years ago, only for an early playoff exit.

 

I'd love to see the Canucks take advantage of some desperate teams.

[deus.ex.makina]

5 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

Strange that Benning was criticized for not selling off players for additional picks years ago.

 

Now there may be a chance to do so in Motte, Hamonic, etc, yet most of the replies are against it.

 

Feels like history repeating itself, and that Benning will be criticized in a couple years if he doesn't make these kind of deals.

 

Of course, there needs to be decent offers. San Jose got a 1st for Goodrow, so if we can get a similar return for Motte, Benning should take it.

Because « years ago » we where in a middle of the rebuild process. 
now today almost every pieces are in place, you don’t let assets go due to a poor mini season with an ultra compressed schedule. 

[Master Mind]

4 minutes ago, deus.ex.makina said:

Because « years ago » we where in a middle of the rebuild process. 
now today almost every pieces are in place, you don’t let assets go due to a poor mini season with an ultra compressed schedule. 

You wouldn't just be letting the asset go, you'd be trading him for an asset of greater value (ideally).

 

If almost every piece is in place, and the result is 6th in the division, making some changes isn't a terrible idea.