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

[Proposal] Columbus -Vancouver (proposal)


Recommended Posts

Columbus's 2021-1st (5th OA) + Tampa's 2021-1st (28th OA?)

 

for

 

Vancouver's 2021-1st (9th OA) + Nate Schmidt + 2024-1st

 

 

Yes, a 2024-1st! Keep in mind that this is a flat top 10 after the first 3 picks (Power, Benier, Eklund) and picks 3 years out are used in RFA free agent signing, "IF" that ever happened.

Re......4- 1st round picks for signing a 10 Million plus player

 

I just think that this really allows us the luxury to get our man. It is risky, but we are in a much better position to pick Clarke, and get a faller, that could skate with this group in 2 to 3 years.

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Columbus's 2021-1st (5th OA) + Tampa's 2021-1st (28th OA?)

 

for

 

Vancouver's 2021-1st (9th OA) + Nate Schmidt + 2024-1st

 

 

Yes, a 2024-1st! Keep in mind that this is a flat top 10 after the first 3 picks (Power, Benier, Eklund) and picks 3 years out are used in RFA free agent signing, "IF" that ever happened.

Re......4- 1st round picks for signing a 10 Million plus player

 

I just think that this really allows us the luxury to get our man. It is risky, but we are in a much better position to pick Clarke, and get a faller, that could skate with this group in 2 to 3 years.

 

huh. Yes I would do that, but I don't think I've ever seen a pick traded that far out before. Is there a comparable or is this new ground?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vancouver got Schmidt only for a 3rd round pick because no other team was willing to take him at his full cap hit.  The cap is still flat and is expected to stay flat through 2024/25.  

 

There are only about 30 Ds that have an aav as high as his.  How many teams see him worth his contract in a flat cap environment.   He also doesn't seem to be able to carry his pairing and seems to need a McNabb equivalent.

 

Feels like Vancouver would need to retain or add to move him.  Teams also know that he was only traded for a 3rd round pick and it doens't feel like he has increased his trade value this past season.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schmidt, if utilized correctly, is tremendous value for his cap hit.

 

Guys like Schmidt and Miller will be very important to us in 22-23 when the Canucks make their massive push, since they will provide us with veteran presence (along with being great value for their cap hit.....if utilized correctly).   
 

That is why both guys were brought in.   
 

Schmidt was a Norris trophy candidate not too long ago, and under the right system, can get there again.


Trading Schmidt and/or Miller is a horrendously bad idea in my opinion.

 

Now Janis - to one of your previous threads, with regards to Dougie Hamilton, I would absolutely be interested in thinking of ways to move Tyler Myers (entice Seattle to take him?) if we had some insider information of sorts that pointed to Dougie Hamilton wanting to sign with us if we gave him a deal similar to Alex Pietrangelo.

 

 

 

Edited by Patel Bure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

huh. Yes I would do that, but I don't think I've ever seen a pick traded that far out before. Is there a comparable or is this new ground?

 

Only ever seen it in the NBA, they trade picks years away and it can back fire as a lot can change in a few years. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mll said:

Vancouver got Schmidt only for a 3rd round pick because no other team was willing to take him at his full cap hit.  The cap is still flat and is expected to stay flat through 2024/25.  

 

There are only about 30 Ds that have an aav as high as his.  How many teams see him worth his contract in a flat cap environment.   He also doesn't seem to be able to carry his pairing and seems to need a McNabb equivalent.

 

 

Can we really say this though? we're basing this on a very weird year with him on a new team, new systems and a bad schedule, with no pre-season. Seems to soon to be able to make this assessment. 

 

18 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Feels like Vancouver would need to retain or add to move him.  Teams also know that he was only traded for a 3rd round pick and it doens't feel like he has increased his trade value this past season.

 

 

If the rumours of interest in Nate were true at the TDL I doubt GMs were calling to about retention deals with Jim, that would be an obvious non-starter I'd think given where we are at cap-wise. 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Schmidt, if utilized correctly, is tremendous value for his cap hit.

 

Guys like Schmidt and Miller will be very important to us in 22-23 when the Canucks make their massive push, since they will provide us with veteran presence (along with being great value for their cap hit.....if utilized correctly).   
 

That is why both guys were brought in.   
 

Schmidt was a Norris trophy candidate not too long ago, and under the right system, can get there again.


Trading Schmidt and/or Miller is a horrendously bad idea in my opinion.

 

Now Janis - to one of your previous threads, with regards to Dougie Hamilton, I would absolutely be interested in thinking of ways to move Tyler Myers (entice Seattle to take him?) if we had some insider information of sorts that pointed to Dougie Hamilton wanting to sign with us if we gave him a deal similar to Alex Pietrangelo.

 

 

 

If the Myers thing isn’t a possibility, then I’d be interested in kicking the tires once again on OEL and what the asking price would be.

 

I know the Canucks and Coyotes were quite close last summer and so I wonder what the hold up was?   
 

Let’s just say that Eriksson, 1st, Virtanen, and Rathbone gets it done (and again, I’m just spitballing here......no idea I’d this would be fair or if we should even do that).

 

My question would then be....

 

1) Would a defensive pairing of OEL and Schmidt be a strong enough top pairing, AND be strong enough defensively?

2) With OEL and Schmidt as the top pairing, would this free up Hughes on a 2nd pairing while limiting his defensive deficiencies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be nice to open up that 6 mill if we are able to get rid of schmidt. Colorado literally doesnt have a dman manking more than 5 mill atm(yes i know makar will). We can find a very good RHD for cheaper to replace him and have money for a 3C while getting 2 1sts and a good shot at getting clarke. 2024 I believe we will be hitting our stride 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard pass.

 

Why do you want to move to 5 vs just picking at 9? Who are you targeting at that pick? This draft it seems the 4-10 range are clumped together or at least I've heard as much.

 

Trading a random future pick like that could also bite us

 

Reading Schmidt away while his value is low is not ideal and I think he'll have a bounce back season..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, goblix said:

Hard pass.

 

Why do you want to move to 5 vs just picking at 9? Who are you targeting at that pick? This draft it seems the 4-10 range are clumped together or at least I've heard as much.

 

Trading a random future pick like that could also bite us

 

Reading Schmidt away while his value is low is not ideal and I think he'll have a bounce back season..

Because we want to target clarke at 5 if hes available and its a better chance than hoping hes there at 9. 
 

we need to bet that we will be a good team in 2024 so its a low 1st which is worth the risk imo

 

we had the highest scoring defense in the league this year, we dont need schmidts offense we need a big bruiser dman that we can get in a trade or UFA if we clear schmidts 6 mill deal. Quinn, myers, rathbone bring more than enough offense. Time to get dirty and find a big dude dman or a younger D guy to add to the backend.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Can we really say this though? we're basing this on a very weird year with him on a new team, new systems and a bad schedule, with no pre-season. Seems to soon to be able to make this assessment. 

 

If the rumours of interest in Nate were true at the TDL I doubt GMs were calling to about retention deals with Jim, that would be an obvious non-starter I'd think given where we are at cap-wise. 

 

 

Fair enough. Media believes they want to move him though.  Benning has never been shy to correct if he feels it's not working.  I guess we'll see if they can trade him and under what conditions.  

 

Would suspect it was cap for cap - there was really little cap space available at the TDL and it's rather unusual for a team to add such a long term contract at the TDL without having the full season/playoff assessment of their team.  If they were willing to take the full cap then why not do it when Vegas was looking for a trade partner.  

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Fair enough. Media believes they want to move him though.  Benning has never been shy to correct if he feels it's not working.  I guess we'll see if they can trade him and under what conditions.  

 

Would suspect it was cap for cap - there was really little cap space available at the TDL and it's rather unusual for a team to add such a long term contract at the TDL without having the full season/playoff assessment of their team.  If they were willing to take the full cap then why not do it when Vegas was looking for a trade partner.  

 

part of it may have been Nate's NT list limiting things a bit. Vegas had to move pretty quickly so Jim not playing hardball at all made us a pretty easy choice that didn't require a lot of back and forth to make happen. 

 

I do think we'll need to add to move Nate quickly tho - maybe adding a Lind or Lockwood if something has to happen fast. 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

part of it may have been Nate's NT list limiting things a bit. Vegas had to move pretty quickly so Jim not playing hardball at all made us a pretty easy choice that didn't require a lot of back and forth to make happen. 

 

I do think we'll need to add to move Nate quickly tho - maybe adding a Lind or Lockwood if something has to happen fast. 

All i know is we cant come back with the exact d core that we had last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

Columbus's 2021-1st (5th OA) + Tampa's 2021-1st (28th OA?)

 

for

 

Vancouver's 2021-1st (9th OA) + Nate Schmidt + 2024-1st

 

 

Yes, a 2024-1st! Keep in mind that this is a flat top 10 after the first 3 picks (Power, Benier, Eklund) and picks 3 years out are used in RFA free agent signing, "IF" that ever happened.

Re......4- 1st round picks for signing a 10 Million plus player

 

I just think that this really allows us the luxury to get our man. It is risky, but we are in a much better position to pick Clarke, and get a faller, that could skate with this group in 2 to 3 years.

 

Big no to trade...Flipping 1st rounders Van get  5th 2021 - --28th pick 2021

Columbus get 9th -2021 --- 2024 -1st rounder no has to be sooner 2022 ... so say 18th OA

I honestly think we will get a very good pick at #9 , Mctavish 6'1, 205, C - would look good, Johnson, 6'1, C, Lucius , 6'1, C..We have seen player drop in draft Hughes #7-- should of been top 5

Podkolzin 10th ? should of been top 5... I like what we will get at #9..

Or make trade for young prospect under 23 with #9???? So many ways to go..

Trade..

I would rather trade Scmidt  & Lind for Parayko 28, 6'6 plays 21 mins,  this is the player we need...

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcam said:

Big no to trade...Flipping 1st rounders Van get  5th 2021 - --28th pick 2021

Columbus get 9th -2021 --- 2024 -1st rounder no has to be sooner 2022 ... so say 18th OA

I honestly think we will get a very good pick at #9 , Mctavish 6'1, 205, C - would look good, Johnson, 6'1, C, Lucius , 6'1, C..We have seen player drop in draft Hughes #7-- should of been top 5

Podkolzin 10th ? should of been top 5... I like what we will get at #9..

Or make trade for young prospect under 23 with #9???? So many ways to go..

Trade..

I would rather trade Scmidt  & Lind for Parayko 28, 6'6 plays 21 mins,  this is the player we need...

 

 

Lmao you really think st louis would do that trade cmon. He’s literally their number 1 dman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

part of it may have been Nate's NT list limiting things a bit. Vegas had to move pretty quickly so Jim not playing hardball at all made us a pretty easy choice that didn't require a lot of back and forth to make happen. 

 

I do think we'll need to add to move Nate quickly tho - maybe adding a Lind or Lockwood if something has to happen fast. 

I think he had to waive for Vancouver.   The limited NTC could make it also a bit harder to move him.  He turns 30 next month and might list only competitive teams rather than risk a rebuild.

 

I also don't see CBJ moving the pick.  Jones is on his way out.  Their goalies are both UFA in a year.  They don't have top-6 Cs - Domi just had shoulder surgery and will miss at least a month into the new season not that they were using him at C.  The odds are against them to be able to right their team with just a few moves.  I would think they'll want to draft and add to their prospect pool.

 

Edited by mll
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...