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

(Proposal) "Agressive" offseason #5 we can do it?


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Benning desperately needs to shed salary.

 

Just read on a Red Wings fan board (Detroit Jock City), a deal was suggested to take on Schmidt's contract (almost $6)

 

to DET - Schmidt and Hoglander (the sweetener)

to VAN - 4th and a 6th (2022)

 

Something like this would be really tough to take. I know Benning needs to be aggressive, but there must be another way.

Are you really concerned about what some anonymous poster on some other team's forum, is suggesting? Quite a reliable source. :picard:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

Are you really concerned about what some anonymous poster on some other team's forum, is suggesting? Quite a reliable source. :picard:

 

Not them personally, the idea that something like that could happen. Benning needs to upgrade the forwards and the top D pairing. He needs money, desperately. Maybe it won't be Hoglander, but it could be Rathbone, Juolevi, or DiPietro. It's going to cost the Canucks to get rid of Schmidt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it’s not going to happen, I’m still going to go with my Miller+Schmidt+9OA for Tkachuk+Andersson+11OA proposal.  We also sign David Savard in my fantasy Hindu world.

 

Tkachuk-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Podkolzin

Pearson-Dickinson-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-MacEwen

 

Highmore

 

Hughes-Andersson

Rathbone-Savard

Juolevi-Myers

 

Bowey

 

Demko

Holtby

 

We move Eriksson + Roussel (9 million) using our 11OA as a sweetener.

Edited by Patel Bure
  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Not them personally, the idea that something like that could happen. Benning needs to upgrade the forwards and the top D pairing. He needs money, desperately. Maybe it won't be Hoglander, but it could be Rathbone, Juolevi, or DiPietro. It's going to cost the Canucks to get rid of Schmidt.

It will not cost to trade Schmidt.

 

We do not have to entice people to take him. He is an asset (albeit a bit diminished from the previous year).

We also are under no obligation to trade him. Our defense needs more help than the forward group - with or without Schmidt in the fold. So if we don't get an offer we like then keep him - pure and simple. A trade can always be revisited down the road if needed.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Not them personally, the idea that something like that could happen. Benning needs to upgrade the forwards and the top D pairing. He needs money, desperately. Maybe it won't be Hoglander, but it could be Rathbone, Juolevi, or DiPietro. It's going to cost the Canucks to get rid of Schmidt.

I don't see a desperate need to find money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking outloud:

 

Miller, Schmidt, 9OA for Laine and Peek.

 

Laine-Horvat-Hoglander

Podkolzin-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Dickinson-Virtanen

Roussel-Beagle-Motte

 

Hughes-Hamonic

Rathbone-Peeke

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

 

Personally, I wouldn’t do this.

 

 

 

Edited by Patel Bure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think outloud:  

1) Schmidt + 9OA + Hoglander for Seth Jones

2) Vatanen gets the Hamonic deal from last year

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Podkolzin

Roussel-Dickinson-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-MacEwen

 

Hughes-Jones

Rathbone-Vatanen

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 1:29 AM, Petey_BOI said:

I would rather target a true top pairing defenceman next year, we definitely cant afford that top pairing now and larrson/savard is only a slight upgrade on hamonic.

 

I could be wrong but I believe wennberg is the type of depth that would be good for this team. he could step into the top 6 very comfortably

Schwartz would be even better but might not be cheap ... C/W nice to keep loading up on guys like him, Miller, Dickinson and Motte 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

The idea that Schmidt has negative value and is going to cost a good prospect to get rid of is asinine.

I know right?   Of course he's got value and teams for sure would be interested in him.   12 teams just lost a roster D or very good D prospect.   All of them need to consider free agency or a trade to fill that hole if they don't have good enough depth.    Same as all those teams losing a roster D to free agency.    Holland's deal for Keith was odd.. losing Larsson and Barrie they need Scmhidt for sure, too bad they are in our division.    I'm sure JB could get more back then what he paid for Schmidt under these circumstances.   He was a great player for Vegas and teams haven't forgotten that.     I'd say under the right circumstances where trades can actually be explored (not like when AP was signed and they had one day to trade Schmidt lol), a first rounder  even. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Think outloud:  

1) Schmidt + 9OA + Hoglander for Seth Jones

2) Vatanen gets the Hamonic deal from last year

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Podkolzin

Roussel-Dickinson-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-MacEwen

 

Hughes-Jones

Rathbone-Vatanen

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

 

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Think outloud:  

1) Schmidt + 9OA + Hoglander for Seth Jones

2) Vatanen gets the Hamonic deal from last year

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Podkolzin

Roussel-Dickinson-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-MacEwen

 

Hughes-Jones

Rathbone-Vatanen

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

Jones is a good target.   Not sure he wants to move to Canada though.  Right now CHI is supposedly making a play for him, part of their unbelievable trade of Duncan Keith (for all of you who get criticized for making trade suggestions - what happens is sometimes stranger then fantasy).  I'd do that trade and it would hurt.   

 

If we had cap i'd rather pay for Suter.  He'd be a great Edler replacement for two years.    And just let things play out until more cap is available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also FYI just for information.  Suter, Martinez, Jones are all wanted men.   Apparently Canada is not a preferred destination right now, taxes, sometimes brutal social media, and pandemic restrictions are concerns.   Taxes for sure makes sense.    Savard is the only one considering and listening to teams from Canada interested in these guys unfortunately.    Larsson at 4 in Seattle , is 4.6 in Vancouver and MTL.  

 

Personally i see this as a big problem with the cap system, and that to be fair some teams should get a reduced cap limit, or others a bigger one to reflect that and even the playing field.   It's dangerous for Canadian hockey.   It's also why we lost WNP and Quebec in the first place. 

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I know right?   Of course he's got value and teams for sure would be interested in him.   12 teams just lost a roster D or very good D prospect.   All of them need to consider free agency or a trade to fill that hole if they don't have good enough depth.    Same as all those teams losing a roster D to free agency.    Holland's deal for Keith was odd.. losing Larsson and Barrie they need Scmhidt for sure, too bad they are in our division.    I'm sure JB could get more back then what he paid for Schmidt under these circumstances.   He was a great player for Vegas and teams haven't forgotten that.     I'd say under the right circumstances where trades can actually be explored (not like when AP was signed and they had one day to trade Schmidt lol), a first rounder  even. 

Seattle going defense heavy and swiping two of the most sought after free agent Ds surely must have had an effect on the market.

 

Also, giving up a Rathbone or Hoglander to shed salary would be super redundant anyways, considering that they're on entry level deals and will probably be playing in our top 6/top 4.

 

Giving up cost controlled assets to shed salary is the very definition of redundant.

Edited by 48MPHSlapShot
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Seattle going defense heavy and swiping two of the most sought after free agent Ds surely must have had an effect on the market.

 

Also, giving up a Rathbone or Hoglander to shed salary would be super redundant anyways, considering that they're on entry level deals and will probably be playing in our top 6/top 4.

 

Giving up cost controlled assets to shed salary is the very definition of redundant.

Not sure redundant is the right word but get your meaning (i'd just go with dumb or stupid lol).    After giving up Markstrom, Tanev and TT for nothing last off season (won't get into that - the bubble was for sure ample return on investment finally for us fans anyways) JB has to stick to the plans set in motion.   We could have wasted all our futures then and didn't ... don't know why we'd do that now (other then buying out JV) and prolong the pain by limiting our future.    Our window could open the season after this one for sure.    We might even do well this year which for sure would get our players excited for when we can actually ice a full cap team again.    12 million last season is a lot sitting on the bench.   Goes down to 9 this year...EPs entering his break out season range.   QHs too really...lots could happen 

 

Edit:  Seattle took 12 d's lol.    Most first time UFA ds leave a hole too.  Can see why teams are kicking tires on Schmidt and even Holtby. 

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking outloud - nothing to see here.

 

To Calgary:  Boeser + Schmidt 

To Vancouver:  Tkachuk + Andersson

 

Miller-Pettersson-Podkolzin 

Tkachuk-Horvat-Garland

Pearson-Dickinson-Hoglander

Motte-Highmore-MacEwen

 

OEL-Andersson

Hughes-Savard

Juolevi-Myers

 

Demko

Holtby

 

Canucks get much bigger and heavier as a group.

Edited by Patel Bure
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...