[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[Devron]

Trading any of these guys just sets us back even if as some people are saying 2 years away. Doesn’t help us imo unless we get something significant back which I doubt 

[Provost]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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?

 

Yep... we are not a good team right now, but we aren’t a tear down team like Buffalo.

We should be adding pieces and trying out different role players to see who fits... while jettisoning the ones that don’t.

Taking away useful players would be an odd step unless it is a hockey trade and we fill a need.  
 

Like if for some reason Buffalo wanted to shake thinks up and move Ristolainen out for Schmidt and Virtanen... I do that deal because a natural RHD in the top 4 would go really well with our team and depth... since we are relatively strong on the left side (Hughes, Edler, Juolevi, Rathbone).  
 

There are probably a dozen similar kind of moves that we could invent that would make moving either of those guys make sense... but in season, it is likely contenders calling and they will be looking to add roster players, not swap good players.

[kanucks25]

I know Schmidt isn't "young" but it's going to be tough to replace him down the line, especially if Benning is still the GM given his track record when it comes to D-man acquisitions.

 

The only way I trade him is if we're getting a stud D prospect back.

 

 

Motte I don't see moving as the Canucks likely value him higher than what other teams are willing to pay.

Edited March 10, 2021 by kanucks25

[Sbriggs]

13 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.

Umm No & No way. Motte & Schmidt are part of our future, unless its a serious overpayment

Edited March 10, 2021 by Sbriggs

[flickyoursedin]

Motte is young and cheap. He can be a part of this teams future. Not every 2nd round pick is Nils Hoglander. There’s lots of 2nd rounders that don’t even make it. I wouldn’t trade Motte for a mid to late 2nd rounder. If a team offered a 1rst that’s a different story. Trade the older guys like Sutter with rentention and Pearson but I’d hang onto Motte.

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yep... we are not a good team right now, but we aren’t a tear down team like Buffalo.

We should be adding pieces and trying out different role players to see who fits... while jettisoning the ones that don’t.

Taking away useful players would be an odd step unless it is a hockey trade and we fill a need.  
 

Like if for some reason Buffalo wanted to shake thinks up and move Ristolainen out for Schmidt and Virtanen... I do that deal because a natural RHD in the top 4 would go really well with our team and depth... since we are relatively strong on the left side (Hughes, Edler, Juolevi, Rathbone).  
 

There are probably a dozen similar kind of moves that we could invent that would make moving either of those guys make sense... but in season, it is likely contenders calling and they will be looking to add roster players, not swap good players.

Im sure Jim is open to hockey trades like that. 

 

Somehow we need to shed the team of Rousell's salary and hope Seattle takes a nice chunk more in Holtby. If the season is toast, then sure move Pearson, move Jake, AG maybe so we can get some picks to maybe entice Seattle or Detroit to take some of our salary. 

 

But to move Nate for magic beans when we're just staring to get something that looks like a top 4 makes no sense to me. 

[Tom Sestito]

12 hours 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.

 

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.

 

 

Woo and Gadjovich have a way better shot than Lind at being long time NHL’ers. 

 

Lind is another Baertschi/Boucher

 

Gadjovich can’t skate but he does other bottom six stuff well enough that he might carve out a grinder role. 

 

Woo is actually pretty good

[Lancaster]

13 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?

It depends on what the return is.

If the Canucks somehow is able to snag a 2nd rounder.... then that pick becomes a useful asset.  Not just in terms of using the pick, but potentially packaging it to unload some bad contract. 

 

If you zoom out, this is just a longer-termed rental -> trade for picks play.  In 17/18, the Canucks signed Thomas Vanek as a UFA, traded him for Jussi Jokinen and Tyler Motte.... now they can potentially trade Motte for a 2nd.  Pretty much the Canucks getting a 2nd rounder for free.  

[Provost]

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

It depends on what the return is.

If the Canucks somehow is able to snag a 2nd rounder.... then that pick becomes a useful asset.  Not just in terms of using the pick, but potentially packaging it to unload some bad contract. 

 

If you zoom out, this is just a longer-termed rental -> trade for picks play.  In 17/18, the Canucks signed Thomas Vanek as a UFA, traded him for Jussi Jokinen and Tyler Motte.... now they can potentially trade Motte for a 2nd.  Pretty much the Canucks getting a 2nd rounder for free.  

Entirely possible.  I also think 2nd-4th rounders are going to be the currency during expansion to get players from teams who can’t protect them and want “something” back instead of losing them for free.

 

Potentially getting more of those would be good.

 

I suppose I just no longer trust Benning to make the series of moves that you suggest to create better value out of that pick than Motte represents to us.  I also worry about the optics and impact of taking one of the hardest workers out of the lineup and how that impacts the rest of the players.

[Patel Bure]

I can’t stress as to just how bad a move trading Motte for a 2nd would be.   Motte is a core player as far as I’m concerned.   He’s the exact type of guy you want on your bottom 6.

 

ps - BTW - the “Canucks fans” on HF damn near rioted when we traded Thomas Vanek for Tyler Motte.

Edited March 10, 2021 by DarkIndianRises

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

It depends on what the return is.

If the Canucks somehow is able to snag a 2nd rounder.... then that pick becomes a useful asset.  Not just in terms of using the pick, but potentially packaging it to unload some bad contract. 

 

If you zoom out, this is just a longer-termed rental -> trade for picks play.  In 17/18, the Canucks signed Thomas Vanek as a UFA, traded him for Jussi Jokinen and Tyler Motte.... now they can potentially trade Motte for a 2nd.  Pretty much the Canucks getting a 2nd rounder for free.  

but thats the thing, its not free we have to replace that player. Motte is really good value for us, I don't see a 2nd making sense for where the team thinks its at. Who do we replace Motte with next season? I don't see anyone internal as good as him, so its free agency or a trade which is probably going to cost us that 2nd. Sometimes the best thing to do is stand pat. With Motte I think thats the case as we can't get enough for him to guarantee a replacement for him, at his salary level. 

[Nucker 67]

More Canucks compliments, that's nice.

 

Seems some teams really want what we have, especially CGY and ANA. Those two teams salivate at the Canucks feet, waiting for a morsel. "Please sir Benning, may I have some more?"

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

More Canucks compliments, that's nice.

 

Seems some teams really want what we have, especially CGY and ANA. Those two teams salivate at the Canucks feet, waiting for a morsel. "Please sir Benning, may I have some more?"

this is what Calgary should get from us

 

[AV.]

5 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

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.

I'm a huge Motte fan but to suggest that players with, at best, 3rd line ceilings are hard to replace is probably one of the most foolish things I've ever read (and I have had to read a bunch of mindless dribble from Razzle and boldbrews).  If a team offers a 2nd for Motte, the Canucks would be selling high and would be complete idiots not to take it, especially so since the fans of this board believe the GM is some sort of genius with draft picks.

 

Hope this helps.

[Azzy]

1 hour ago, Devron44 said:

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

I'd go Edler-Myers, Hughes-Schmidt, Rathbone-Benn, hands be damned. 

[Devron]

Just now, Azzy said:

I'd go Edler-Myers, Hughes-Schmidt, Rathbone-Benn, hands be damned. 

Oh that’s doable for sure. Not so much if Schmidt was traded. That was my point. And what we’d get for Hamonic we are better off keeping him 

[Azzy]

5 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Oh that’s doable for sure. Not so much if Schmidt was traded. That was my point. And what we’d get for Hamonic we are better off keeping him 

I'm more interested in acquiring a pick or two and getting some of the Utica kids some NHL experience - Rathbone could really benefit from playing the Canadian teams a few times early on in his career and there's no better time than now. I'd make the deal asap tbh, use Juolevi as the stopgap until Rathbone clears quarantine then set the kid loose.

[Lancaster]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

Entirely possible.  I also think 2nd-4th rounders are going to be the currency during expansion to get players from teams who can’t protect them and want “something” back instead of losing them for free.

 

Potentially getting more of those would be good.

 

I suppose I just no longer trust Benning to make the series of moves that you suggest to create better value out of that pick than Motte represents to us.  I also worry about the optics and impact of taking one of the hardest workers out of the lineup and how that impacts the rest of the players.

 

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but thats the thing, its not free we have to replace that player. Motte is really good value for us, I don't see a 2nd making sense for where the team thinks its at. Who do we replace Motte with next season? I don't see anyone internal as good as him, so its free agency or a trade which is probably going to cost us that 2nd. Sometimes the best thing to do is stand pat. With Motte I think thats the case as we can't get enough for him to guarantee a replacement for him, at his salary level. 

It would definitely be a "step-back" in terms of the bottom-6, since he's an actual effective player with maybe more upside too.  

But a 2nd rounder is a pretty return for assets that were essentially free.

 

Whether it's a good move or bad move will be hard to really tell.  Is the extra cap space better?  Will the loss of Motte affect the locker room?  Will the extra roster space push internal competition?  Will the replacement players be as effective?  Hard to predict the butterfly effect.  

[chon derry]

14 hours ago, Chickenspear said:

Motte: 1st or GFY

Schmidt: 1st + '22 3rd or GFY

Hamonic:1st, and you're taking Loui as well (or GFY)

 

 

[BCNate]

No way I'd trade Motte.  He could be the leader of our bottom 6 for a long time.  I like Hawlyruk, MacEwan and Gaudette there as well.  Lind and Gadjovich will get looks over the next few years as well.  If we want to get younger, more skilled and cheaper in our depth roles, you don't trade a guy like Motte.

 

Schmidt is a non starter.  He is an absolute stud on a fair deal.  He has seen a huge shiuft in roles vs what he played n Vegas last year, and has managed it well.  I think he has gotten better each game.  You don't get get better by trading a guy like Schmidt.

 

I'd re sign Hamonic for the right price.  He has been good since he returned from injury and got some practice time.  He is a good partner for Hughes.  If we could get the right payment for him, I'd trade him at the deadline, and potentially bring him back as a UFA.

 

I'd trade Pearson and Sutter for sure.  I really hope we don't bring either back at any price.  I really don't like their games.

 

I think the trade market will be slow this year, I'm not expecting that Benning will be able to get much done, but we will see.   Knock of another 4 wins in our next 5 and we will be getting back into the playoff mix.  If not, probably start working on next year now.