Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The Real reason for picking up Madison Bowey, not what you think. And a Clarification

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Only thing is there is no point in protecting myers because there's no way Seattle would pick him with that contract anyways. :rolleyes:

Edited by Baer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Forsling

Madden

Gaudette

McCann

A year ago. I felt good having a succession plan to the centre depth once Sutter and Beagle were gone with Madden and Gaudette. Especially after seeing McCann grow into that 3c role in Pittsburgh. 

 

Now a year later they're both gone. 

 

We're extending Sutter aren't we?

Edited by DSVII
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Josepho said:

There is an 100% chance Seattle doesn't take Myers if he's unprotected. We should have exposed him instead of trading for Bowey.

 

We had a really good opportunity to add a defenceman from another team, but Benning is too arrogant/stupid to realize no one is going to want Myers' terrible deal and is going to protect him because of his own ego.

The beautiful thing is we can still add a dman from another team and still expose Myers anyway. This way though, we have the insurance if nothing becomes available at the right price and not worry of being potentially down a RD (which we have been trying to fill for years) on top. We don't have to scramble during UFA to find another RD, but still have the flexibility to add should something become available. Myers may be protected because he plays in a position that is in one of our weakest of our prospect pool (which is also a position that in generally around the league considered to be the most difficult to fill) and it's actually strategic to ensure we have NHL bodies there. We are positioning ourselves to not need to give anything of great value to Seattle who we will be facing on a regular basis. If Seattle does take Myers, I wouldn't want him taking liberties on our top young players and Myers has been one the few who actually has been defending them as well.

 

If you fail to see this, then your comment about Benning's ego seems more like a reflection.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, drummerboy said:

I’m protecting Lind before Virtanen personally.  
But the Bowey thing makes sense. 

Agree 100%.  I assume Virtanen gets taken and we save 2.5 in cap next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Three words, Seattle Expansion draft.

 

According to Capfriendly, Rules for Defenseman 

 

  • under contract in 2021-22, AND
  • played in 27 or more NHL games last season, OR
  • played in 54 or more NHL games in the last two seasons

 

Madison Bowey, point 1 check, point 2 no check, point 3 check. He doesn't even have to play a game for the Canucks to qualify 

 

Prior to this trade, either Schmidt or Myers would have had to be unprotected. This way JB can protect them both now and 1 other my guess Juolevi.

 

One Clarification. 

 

I think there is a misconception around the expansion draft. So here is just a quick clarification on something I have notice,

 

Just because players fall under the Criteria for, Minimum Exposure Requirements, doesn't mean Seattle has to pick one of those guys the key word is Minimum.

 

For example the Canucks, protect 

 

1 Goalie 

Demko

3 dman

Schmidt Myers Juolevi

7forwards,

Horvat, EP, Miller, Pearson, Virtanen, Boeser, and Motte

 

Unprotected, Minimum Exposure Requirements at this point

 

1 Goalie

Holtby 

1 Dman 

Bowey

There is 4 forwards 2 are required

Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel and Highmore 

 

Seattle doesn't have to pick any of them. They could go with Chatfield, Or Kole Lind both will be RFA, or Vesey and he is a UFA there are rules about how many of these Seattle can pick but they can pick him if they want. Or they Can pick MacEwen who is under contract but might not meet the Minimum Exposure Requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly I’d rather trying to acquire another dman via trade and leaving myers available.  He is an average dman at best and when u take his contract into account he is atrocious. But I doubt Seattle would even take him anyway so you can protect 4 dmen. 

 

and definitely lind over virtanen he is done in Vancouver. 

Edited by Bure1010
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Baer. said:

Only thing is there is no point in protecting myers because there's no way Seattle would pick him with that contract anyways. :rolleyes:

Okay, so the Canucks protect Juolevi and Schmidt and ...? 

 

                                            regards,  G.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Didn't read the whole thread, but did anyone really think we picked up Bowey for any other reason other than for expansion purposes?

 

Utica will have a hole to fill when Rathbone makes the jump next season too

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bure1010 said:

Honestly I’d rather trying to acquire another dman via trade and leaving myers available.  He is an average dman at best and when u take his contract into account he is atrocious.

Assuming Seattle did take Myers, what asset(s) would you be willing to use as trade bait for a replacement? Motte? Lind? A high pick? RD aren't inexpensive in trade, nad usually seem to be more so if the other GM recognizes your team's need.

 

And signing free agent RD (probably) won't be inexpensive, however, the Canucks can probably get someone who is of average ability. Any thoughts on who the team should target?

 

                                       regards,  G.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Who are you going to replace Myers with is the question. The team is already going to be thin on defense next season

 

UFA targets:

 

Savard

Demers

Larsson

Montour

 

All should sign for less than Myers' current cap hit with varying terms. Savard will probably get a 4ish year deal while Montour could potentially be had on a 1-2 year deal. 

 

Trade targets:

 

Miller

Mayfield

 

Both could end up as victims of the Expansion draft. If they would rather get an asset for them, then they could be moved (particularly Miller). 

 

Those lists include right handed defensemen exclusively. If we bring back Hamonic or another similar caliber of player for Hughes and then play Schmidt at RD, we can also add a LHD instead. Trade targets include Nutivaara (who we were rumoured to be interested in), Graves, Dunn and Zadorov. UFA targets could include Hjalmarsson, Martinez, Oleksiak, Oesterle, etc. 

 

There are plenty of options, you just have to go find them. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Davathor said:

 

Utica will have a hole to fill when Rathbone makes the jump next season too

I can't say that for this last year and some I've been following the guys on the farm. I'd have assumed that Rathbone would still be in the AHL next season, for further seasoning.

 

Will Rathbone be ready to play an entire NHL season (of however many games)? Assuming he was kept up with the big team for next season, this would leave the Canucks with a starting left side of Hughes, Juolevi and Rathbone (with Schmidt, ? and ? on the RD side). Seems rather inexperienced, some might say vulnerable. If the Canucks signed on a free agent LD (for example Edler, at a lesser than current deal, to play bottom-6 minutes) how much does that guy play while Rathbone sits in the pressbox? Might be better to leave Rathbone in Utica so he can still game experience.

 

                                                 regards,  G.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

UFA targets:

 

Savard

Demers

Larsson

Montour

 

All should sign for less than Myers' current cap hit with varying terms. Savard will probably get a 4ish year deal while Montour could potentially be had on a 1-2 year deal. 

 

Trade targets:

 

Miller

Mayfield

 

Both could end up as victims of the Expansion draft. If they would rather get an asset for them, then they could be moved (particularly Miller). 

 

Those lists include right handed defensemen exclusively. If we bring back Hamonic or another similar caliber of player for Hughes and then play Schmidt at RD, we can also add a LHD instead. Trade targets include Nutivaara (who we were rumoured to be interested in), Graves, Dunn and Zadorov. UFA targets could include Hjalmarsson, Martinez, Oleksiak, Oesterle, etc. 

 

There are plenty of options, you just have to go find them. 

Unless Hammonic signs for a lesser amount than he is worth (again), I'm assuming that the team will need at least two new RD for next season.

 

UFA targets: While the team might be able to get them for less than what the Canucks are paying Myers, paying for even one of these guys will amount to a savings of maybe $1 million (+/- but probably -), nothing to sniff at, but not anything huge. What is their incentive to sign "here" when they would likely be closer to being on a competitive team somewhere else? Term would (probably) be a problem in some of those cases (eg. Savard at 4 yrs? that would rankle some) and others on the list will want more than what they are worth (which will rankle those not already rankled by term talk), so I'm thinking none of them come cheaper than $5 million per.

 

Trade targets: I would think that Buffalo and the Islanders still need these guys, so I'd assume that the price tag(s) will be high(ish). What sort of assets should the Canucks move out in order to acquire at least one of Miller and Mayfield? High pick(s), and/or a good level of prospect (eg. Lind)?

 

Meh, I've run out of steam. It's baseball season. Thanks for your time.  :)

 

                                                       regards,  G.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

Exactly.  Virtanen should not be an automatic protect, he's proven nothing this season besides his inconsistency.

Nevermind the steady progression over his career this far.  Once against n, let this season die as any kind of standard for performance

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Forsling

Madden

Gaudette

McCann

 we drafted forsling and madden we did nt develop them  plus   gaudettes played here 3 yrs plus a ton of training camps and skills development we moved on from him.  As for mccann he had attitude problems and gm was sick of dealing with bs

Edited by canuktravella
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 we drafted forsling and madden we did nt develop them  plus   gaudettes played here 3 yrs plus a ton of training camps and skills development we moved on from him.  As for mccann he had attitude problems and gm was sick of dealing with bs

 also madden is so tiny i doubt he ever plays a game in bigs 

Edited by canuktravella
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

for mccann he had attitude problems and gm was sick of dealing with bs

Then why did Benning draft him?

 

5 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 also madden is so tiny i doubt he ever plays a game in bigs 

Then why did Benning draft him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Three words, Seattle Expansion draft.

 

According to Capfriendly, Rules for Defenseman 

 

  • under contract in 2021-22, AND
  • played in 27 or more NHL games last season, OR
  • played in 54 or more NHL games in the last two seasons

 

Madison Bowey, point 1 check, point 2 no check, point 3 check. He doesn't even have to play a game for the Canucks to qualify 

 

Prior to this trade, either Schmidt or Myers would have had to be unprotected. This way JB can protect them both now and 1 other my guess Juolevi.

 

One Clarification. 

 

I think there is a misconception around the expansion draft. So here is just a quick clarification on something I have notice,

 

Just because players fall under the Criteria for, Minimum Exposure Requirements, doesn't mean Seattle has to pick one of those guys the key word is Minimum.

 

For example the Canucks, protect 

 

1 Goalie 

Demko

3 dman

Schmidt Myers Juolevi

7forwards,

Horvat, EP, Miller, Pearson, Virtanen, Boeser, and Motte

 

Unprotected, Minimum Exposure Requirements at this point

 

1 Goalie

Holtby 

1 Dman 

Bowey

There is 4 forwards 2 are required

Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel and Highmore 

 

Seattle doesn't have to pick any of them. They could go with Chatfield, Or Kole Lind both will be RFA, or Vesey and he is a UFA there are rules about how many of these Seattle can pick but they can pick him if they want. Or they Can pick MacEwen who is under contract but might not meet the Minimum Exposure Requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's actually exactly what I thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 also madden is so tiny i doubt he ever plays a game in bigs 

image.thumb.png.60f0746058aec52a08cdae1d97212ebc.png

 

It's really interesting you didn't seem to think so before Benning traded him.

Edited by Josepho
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 also madden is so tiny i doubt he ever plays a game in bigs 

I was kind of neutral about Madden, but I always felt he really needed some extra weight/body mass to really be successful at the NHL level. 

 

 

                                              regards,  G.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...