[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[UKNuck96]

18 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

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.

6th in a division we don’t usually play with, where there is only a single rebuilding team, rather than the usual rebuilding and one on the slide towards or starting a rebuild.

 

in the Pacific division would would likely be 3/4th and in contention for a playoff spot. You don’t blow up or sell off this team based on a single season alignment. 

[Master Mind]

6 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

6th in a division we don’t usually play with, where there is only a single rebuilding team, rather than the usual rebuilding and one on the slide towards or starting a rebuild.

 

in the Pacific division would would likely be 3/4th and in contention for a playoff spot. You don’t blow up or sell off this team based on a single season alignment. 

I wouldn't say trading Motte is blowing up the team.

 

Even if we were 3rd/4th in the regular Pacific, the team still isn't a contender. If there's an opportunity to trade non-core players to acquire assets, then sign some players for cheap this offseason (flat cap will mean more players on cheap deals), it should certainly be explored.

[deus.ex.makina]

4 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

6th in a division we don’t usually play with, where there is only a single rebuilding team, rather than the usual rebuilding and one on the slide towards or starting a rebuild.

 

in the Pacific division would would likely be 3/4th and in contention for a playoff spot. You don’t blow up or sell off this team based on a single season alignment. 

I don’t say it’s that related to the opponents rather than a awful tight and ultra compressed 1st 1/3 of this season, without camp and with the key departures/ arrivals we had. Mix that and you obtain a toxic formula. 
We showed we can beat Toronto twice when we play our game so I take that « season » as an anomaly. 
 

[Wilbur]

4 hours 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. 

The reason is because Motte becomes a UFA after next year.  What will he command in UFA if he keeps on trending up?  2.5 - 3 million?  There's no doubt that Motte fits on the team, but does he  at 3 million?  If that answer is no, now would be the time to maximize his value in a return on a trade.

 

Personally, I'd wait to see what he may be looking for in an extension this offseason.  By then, Hughes, Pettersson, and Demko contracts will be locked in and Benning should have a better idea on what he can spend on his 3 and 4th lines.  Sure you risk losing a little bit of value if the decision is to trade him, but you have the benefit of not letting go too soon.

[Angry Goose]

Oof

 

On one hand, love Motte.

 

On the other I get he is UFA in a year.

 

I guess it really depends on what other teams are offering for him.  If the Canucks can gain whatever assets that open up other moves in the off season I think it's definitely worth considering.  

[Gollumpus]

6 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/31-thoughts-eichel-injury-latest-bad-news-sabres-cursed-year/

 

Elliotte Friedman's 31 thoughts has some Canucks in the article.

 

 

I'd be interested to see what the market sees in value of Motte, Schmidt, and Hamonic.

 

First inclination is nah I wouldn't dare trade the 3 right now, but its not hurt to explore what teams would be willing to shell out for these guys.

 

Tampa Bay last year traded 1st round picks to acquire Barclay Goodrow and Blake Coleman who are considered bottom six players and with friendly deals. Not saying Motte gets that but what is a team willing to offer? Certainly worth exploring.

Perhaps I'm expressing comments which have already been voiced here, but I think Eliot is somewhat wrong:

 

I like Schmidt and unless the return was *extremely* high, then I don't see him being traded. There is also the modified NTC to be considered. And there's also the question of  "who plays defense here next season if Edler, Schmidt, Hammonic, Benn, (maybe Myers lost in the draft) et al are traded away or are not re-signed?" Yeah, of course, someone from the UFA pile of all-star d-men that will be just lying around next off season waiting to play here for cheap... with Hughes, maybe Juolevi, (possibly Myers) and some of the AHL guys. Demko will be lit up even more.

 

Hammonic has that pesky NMC to consider, and he likes being here on the west coast. Maybe he'll accept a trade, and maybe he won't.

 

Motte is worth more to the Canucks than the value he will likely return in trade. So, unless the the guys are sending a 1st/really good prospect type of return, then I'm not interested.

 

                                                                  regards,  G.

[Canuck Surfer]

6 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

The only one id keep is Hamonic.  The guy has been our most solid d since he got back.  

 

Hamonic also signed for near league minimum in return for an NMC.

 

I would honor that, and not ask him.  

 

He's  alsso an excellent hockey player, I agree to keep Trav.

[JustABandwagoner]

Thank you Thomas Vanek for MOTTER 

[CanucksCountry]

I am not really sure what the talking point is here teams call about almost every player in the league Christ i am sure at least one team in the past year has called us and asked what it would to get Petttersson off our hands.  

[Gawdzukes]

7 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

For the sake of context, Tyler Toffoli - a superior player to Tyler Motte - fetched a mid-round 2nd and a B+ prospect.

 

As much as we all love Tyler Motte, you'd be so foolish to turn down a 2nd.  I get that he means a lot to us but value is value.  If that 2nd turns out to be a Nils Hoglander - a player that the experts on this board have already proclaimed as a legitimate NHL talent, you're laughing all the way to the bank.

You clearly have a long way to go to understand all of the nuances of hockey. If the second doesn't turn out decent (long shot) you've just thrown away a cost controlled, gritty, playoff/pk performer who chips in offensively, just entering his prime. Exactly the type of player needed to support our emerging top line players. This type of player who already fits on the club isn't an easy asset to find like you think. You don't just plug in some $1.2 replacement level guy from UFA. The real world NHL doesn't work like that.

[Gawdzukes]

6 hours ago, -AJ- said:

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.

At the deadline I for sure think Motte is worth a first to the right team. Could you imagine him in Toronto, Boston, Tampa, Florida, Philly? A hell of an add for a contender. He's a little small physically but he's valuable at deadline prices. If he nets a first I think then I'd seriously consider it. Two first rounders would be sweet.

[Azzy]

Motte for a 2nd, replace with Kole Lind. Hamonic for a 3rd, replace with Jack Rathbone. Two valuable picks to help down the road and good experience for two potential key players of the future.

[rekker]

3 hours ago, DontMessMe said:

Thank you Thomas Vanek for MOTTER 

And thank you JB for facilitating the deal. I recall a lot of backlash towards JB for not acquiring a pick for Vanek at the time. JB deserves the slow clap for that deal.

[hammertime]

Motte is a heart and soul guy. Also the face of the canucks current mental health campaign. Under no circumstances would I trade him for anything less than a draft pick you could be confident about getting Fedor Svechkov. 

[BPA]

9 hours ago, Tom Sestito said:

I said the same as the above on HFB. 

 

However, this is a guy who has looked awful offensively basically the calendar year of 2020 and this season as well. 

 

I always thought he was more of a 3rd liner on a good team but it's really proven apparent. He scores goals in three ways.

1. He stands in front of the net and gets a tip or a rebound. 

2. Rush goals with a powerful shot top shelf.

3. EN goals. 

 

That's basically it. There's no creativity to his game. He is what he is - a passenger. But, I think he's a good passenger. I think Green has described him as low maintenance and you never see him dog his effort defensively or get caught watching. You need a guy like that. 

 

You need a guy like that when you're competing for a cup - not to actually keep and risk a contract on based on his last 12-15 months of play which have been.. a bit worrying offensively. He's the one no-brainer guy to trade at the TDL this season. I don't think there's even a debate to it. Re-sign him in the summer if he wants to come back.

 

 

Reason #1 is why you keep him.  We need more players willing to get greasy goals in front of the net.

 

That said, it would be best to trade him for a pick, then resign him in the off season.  Best possible outcome.  

[Devron]

I say this. Teams can call on Motter. Just shows how freaking awesome he his. I’d take him on any team in the league no matter how stacked it was 

[Devron]

3 hours ago, Azzy said:

Motte for a 2nd, replace with Kole Lind. Hamonic for a 3rd, replace with Jack Rathbone. Two valuable picks to help down the road and good experience for two potential key players of the future.

That’s a lot of lefties and no righties. You gonna play Rathbone with Hughes. I don’t think so 

[EternalCanuckFan]

Motte's pretty much an ideal bottom 6 player.  He hasn't played much C but I believe he is capable of playing all forward positions.  He's relentless on the forecheck and can build momentum for the team with that.  He's also skilled enough that teams have to respect his offensive skill.  He's also signed to a very reasonable deal next year.

 

I'm not opposed to the Canucks trading Motte but the cost benefit assessment is hard to make into a positive one.  Trading Motte doesn't really free up any cap space since his roster spot would have to be filled by someone else which, even at league minimum, would only mean cap savings of about $500K.  Unless the Canucks are receiving a blue chip prospect in return who can start out in the bottom 6 or a high pick, I don't see the value in trading him.  If the team feels like Motte will either be in line for an unaffordable raise, or that he is likely to decline next year or the next, then sure, recouping an asset is fine.  If they trade Motte however, then they need to have some other plan to revamp the bottom 6 as he's the best bottom 6 player they currently have.

 

It sounds like management is being asked but is not shopping Motte so that's encouraging.  If they're entertaining the notion of trading Motte however, then I assume management is encouraged by the development of players in Utica like Lind, Lockwood, Jasek and Gadjovich.  They may also be considering expansion draft protection issues (Lind is not exempt.  I assume Jasek and Gadjovich aren't either).

[JM_]

12 hours 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?

we're already having trouble filling out our roster, why would we move Nate and Motte for picks that might help us, at best, 3 season from now?

 

[JM_]

5 hours ago, CanucksCountry said:

I am not really sure what the talking point is here teams call about almost every player in the league Christ i am sure at least one team in the past year has called us and asked what it would to get Petttersson off our hands.  

Benning has apparently contacted every GM about moves too, its what they are supposed to do. Friedman knows any mention of this kind of thing generates clicks out here. 

 

I can't see Jim moving Schmidt, I mean why would he? the chances of a 3rd round pick, or even a late 1st for that matter, becoming someone as good as Nate are small. And who do we go to and get in free agency to replace him?