[Speculation] Teams Calling on Schmidt and Motte

[Gurn]

10 hours ago, Rabid Rooster said:

Boeser will return a first round pick.

No hate, just business 

Bad business, imo.

A recent former first rounder in 2015, scoring a goal every 2.56 games is worth a lot more than just a first.

[Devron]

18 minutes ago, Azzy said:

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.

I think it’s very important for Rathbones development to play in the AHL this year. Maybe get him a couple games if we are out of it at the end of the year. If there’s anyone that should be moved it’s Benn and he’s played fairly well this year. I’d take any pick for him and resign harmonic for the purpose of the expansion draft and keep him if not selected. You’d basically have Rathbone and Joulevi in your top 7 next year. 
 

I have a hard time seeing Benning make moves right now. The next 2 weeks could change that 

[JM_]

19 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

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.  

so then I guess it comes down to whether or not Jim wants to take any risks, I'd think not in this case, unless another GM offers way too much and Jim can't say no. 

[rekker]

This may well boil down to expansion draft protection. If Motte is left unprotected he's as good as gone. At this point I'd sooner keep Motte, protect him and expose Jake. Not sure Seattle takes Jake at his current salary  

[Gawdzukes]

2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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.

Sure does NHL21. Motte is an easy replacement. By your logic I would expect no less than 20 trades from the Canadian teams at the deadline (I mean if half the league is replaceable we really should see twice that). We'll see whose smarter, you or the other 7 GM's. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Gawdzukes

[oldnews]

11 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Ahh, another user who's desperate for my validation.

yeah, that's it.

[oldnews]

10 hours ago, Rabid Rooster said:

Well, there goes all Bennington stealth 

Well, my apologies for exposing the stealth - but I'm fairly certain not a word of it would fly under the radar of any NHL franchise.

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Sure does NHL21. Motte is an easy replacement. By your logic I would expect no less than 20 trades from the Canadian teams at the deadline (I mean if half the league is replaceable we really should see twice that). We'll se whose smarter, you or the other 7 GM's. 

4 out of 7 teams make the playoffs from each division.  Not sure why you seem to believe that all 7 of the Canadian teams would be trading their depth players ahead of the playoffs, when 4 of them make it.

 

Hope this helps.

[PhillipBlunt]

14 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

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

Outside of Myers, I agree. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

Motte is a corner-stone player for our bottom-6, I wouldn't trade him for anything MORE than a 2nd round pick. We need consistent energy in our lineup desperately and Motte brings that, JB knows it too - he's not trading Motte unless some team wants to throw stupid stuff at us. A 2nd round pick gets us a player like Hoglander or Demko if you're lucky, most of the time they don't contribute for a while either. IMO Motte is worth a high 2nd/low 1st but why take the risk of drafting when we've got a perfectly good PKer/12-15 minute gritty forward who can score goals (and big playoff goals)? Going for a pick/prospect is just a gamble we shouldn't take by trading Motte.

 

Schmidt would be interesting but he's playing better in the last few games. I'd rather keep him because our stability on the blueline is going to be tested - we only have 2 guys under contract so far (Schmidt and Myers) for next season. Yes, Juolevi and Hughes will sign, but who knows what JB wants to do with Edler and Schmidt would be a lovely mentor for the youth coming through. 

 

Hamonic as well - I'd rather re-sign him to a 2 year deal around 2M (similar to a Benn deal). The guy is playing hard defensive minutes with a leaky defenceman in Hughes and making him look better than he has all season long, that's a bit of the Tanev-effect. Hamonic is still young too.

 

I'd rather not just show-case Hamonic, Schmidt and Motte to be traded at the deadline because they're not the problem with this team in the short or long-term, if anything they're some of our best players and can help this team in the future. What we'd need to get out of trading them would be far more than any team would be willing to pay. 

[oldnews]

10 hours 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.

Hey MM -  how have you been?  

I have a lot of respect for your takes, but I have to disagree somewhat with this one.

 

Years ago - selling off Canucks veterans wasn't necessarily an easy task - many of them were devalued, hard, after the Tortorella misadventure - and to make matters worse, many of them came with core contracts that included limiting clauses....

Additionally, the team didn't really have any internal youth/push.... so it was a crapty catch-22.   Which was part of the reason Benning et al bothered to acquire guys like Motte (an ideal circumstance of renting a placeholder = exactly what everyone allegedly wanted).  Players like him, who were still emerging, but who had successful draft plus years to assess - made complete sense to the franchise (and still do imo).  I don't consider him in the same category as the players that shoulda/woulda/coulda been part of rething deals of the past.

 

At this point - they do have imo very good youth depth - and a fair number of young players that are, at the very least, serviceable (as we are seeing this season with literally 16 players age 25 and under who have been in the lineup).  Motte is one of them.  So I don't see a decision not to sell Motte (if the demand is not simply irrefusable) as a case of history repeating itself.  And further, in spite of the amount of youth depth, Motte brings an exceptional skillset imo - which makes him the best young bottom six forward the franchise has (with a history of upside, and some evidence of that even in the hardest of minutes).  The team isn't really at the downturn, rething stage - imo it's on the upward trajectory side of it's transition.

 

And Hamonic - is a case of exceptional circumstances.  He can't be rented unless he wants to be - probably in large part why a 20+ minute top 4 agreed to take $1.25 million.... I have no problem with Bennng giving him that limiting clause - it's probably entirely related to his reluctance to enter the bubble last year and unwillingness to give any team control over where he goes.  Edler, too, holds control of his movement, and rightly so imo - the last deal he signed was exceptionally team friendly.

 

Goodrow is 28 years old - and was producing at a 32 pts / 82 game clip when he was dealt / with solid grit and defensive numbers....Tampa certainly paid a high price for him - but a Tampa draft pick is also a borderline 2nd - with about 25% odds of being an NHL asset - so how great that return was depends on what SJ makes of that pick - the mean value of which is about a 1 in 4 chance of breaking even..

One interesting thing / sidenote about Goodrow though - he's a very 'late bloomer' so the youth culture mentality that anyone over 23 or 24 is a bust/done, a 'plug' or a career AHLer - is bucked by the odd player like him. 

 

Where I would agree with you - is with reference to Benn, Pearson, Roussel...possibly Sutter.

But I don't agree with assuming that there will be 'desperate' teams at the deadline - I think this year's market is pretty unpredictable - and if any predictions are to be made, it might be safer to fall on the side less movement as opposed to a high demand, high price, desperation market (too many mitigating factors to see it as business as usual).

Edited March 10, 2021 by oldnews

[4petesake]

7 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Outside of Myers, I agree. 

Waking up after a bender to find out that you drunk-dialled JB and acquired LE.

[nowhereman]

15 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

We're 2 years away, according to the GM.  Why not try to capitalize on some of these players if that's the truth?  After all, many on this board claim the GM is an alleged draft expert, so with all these picks he could just draft the next Motte or Schmidt or Hamonic if he wanted to (if those fans are to be believed).

If we're two years away from potentially contending, in Benning's mind, what sense is there in trading away NHL talent for draft picks that will (at the very least) take another 2-3 years to even crack the roster? You're just kicking the can even further down the road, at that point.

Edited March 10, 2021 by nowhereman

[BarnBurner]

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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.

I have to completely disagree. Why would you trade a known NHL player for a random chance? 

Edited March 10, 2021 by BarnBurner

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, Devron44 said:

I think it’s very important for Rathbones development to play in the AHL this year. Maybe get him a couple games if we are out of it at the end of the year. If there’s anyone that should be moved it’s Benn and he’s played fairly well this year. I’d take any pick for him and resign harmonic for the purpose of the expansion draft and keep him if not selected. You’d basically have Rathbone and Joulevi in your top 7 next year. 
 

I have a hard time seeing Benning make moves right now. The next 2 weeks could change that 

That's a real good  idea. I doubt Seattle takes him anyway. Even though it's close I think he wants to be in Canada.

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, nowhereman said:

If we're two years away from potentially contending, in Benning's mind, what sense is there in trading away NHL talent for draft picks that will (at the very least) take another 2-3 years to even crack the roster? You're just kicking the can even further down the road, at that point.

 

1 minute ago, BarnBurner said:

I have to completely disagree. Why would you trade a known commodity for a random chance? 

It's quite simple.

 

I could name many "Mottes" that we've had over the years.  In fact, in the last 10-15 years alone, we have had Dorsett, Hansen, Burrows (before AV  put him with the Twins), Torres, Richardson, Lapierre, Ruutu, etc.  You win with key bottom six players, but these players are not some sort of rarity.  Many players can kill penalties, provide energy, chip in with scoring.  And while Motte is a known commodity now, many 2nd round picks also tend to develop into "known commodities".  Motte himself was a 4th round pick, further suggesting that you could find a player like him in the middle portions of the draft.

 

I think many people seem to think that I'm actively looking to move Motte.  This isn't the case.  I'm simply saying that if a team comes around and offers something like a 2nd, you would be foolish not to take it from the Canucks standpoint.  Especially so since many on this board believe Benning to be some sort of draft genius.  You would think those same fans of Benning would want him to have picks for this reason.

[Master Mind]

Fair points @oldnews. I'm sure you know the respect is mutual.

 

I was more-so commenting on a bit of a double standard, even if it's a bit of over-generalizing on my part.

 

I like Motte's game. He's shown to be an effective player with flashes of skill. However, with Seattle looming, and the possibility of desperate teams willing to overpay at the deadline, I think he should be considered. Same goes for Hamonic, if he wants to move. I don't think it'd be wise to consider them untouchable. In Motte's case, you don't just trade him for whatever you can get, but it might be worthwhile if a team is willing to pay a high enough price.

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Master Mind

[BarnBurner]

24 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

 

It's quite simple.

 

I could name many "Mottes" that we've had over the years.  In fact, in the last 10-15 years alone, we have had Dorsett, Hansen, Burrows (before AV  put him with the Twins), Torres, Richardson, Lapierre, Ruutu, etc.  You win with key bottom six players, but these players are not some sort of rarity.  Many players can kill penalties, provide energy, chip in with scoring.  And while Motte is a known commodity now, many 2nd round picks also tend to develop into "known commodities".  Motte himself was a 4th round pick, further suggesting that you could find a player like him in the middle portions of the draft.

 

I think many people seem to think that I'm actively looking to move Motte.  This isn't the case.  I'm simply saying that if a team comes around and offers something like a 2nd, you would be foolish not to take it from the Canucks standpoint.  Especially so since many on this board believe Benning to be some sort of draft genius.  You would think those same fans of Benning would want him to have picks for this reason.

So what you're saying is... with the 2nd, you could easily replace Motte or find someone even better? It's a crapshoot. You already have an excellent NHL player, yet, let's trade for a draft pick? See if we can get something more special... 

[AV.]

Just now, BarnBurner said:

So what you're saying is... with the 2nd, you could easily replace Motte or find someone even better? It's a crapshoot. You already have an excellent NHL player, yet, let's trade for a draft pick? See if we can get something more special... 

By acquiring the 2nd, you give yourself a fairly decent chance to get an equal (or better) player.  Of course, it can be a "crapshoot" but we know from decades and decades of trades that teams place a great deal of value in 2nd round picks when they are selling.

 

In any event, if you want to live in a world where Tyler Motte should be untouchable, by all means.  The truth is that he's far from untouchable, irrespective of his age, his cost, or his apparent worth to the team.

 

Hope this helps.

[BarnBurner]

You're stretching. That's all I have to say to you.