[Trade] Canucks trade Jay Beagle, Loui Eriksson, Antoine Roussel, 2021 1st-round pick, 2022 2nd-round pick, 2023 7th-round pick to Coyotes for Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Conor Garland

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

With the cap growing Miller's 8m is going to look better and better. Halfway through his deal when its suggested his decline approaches steep cliff material his trade protection eases up substantially as well. The Canucks have a smart contract in place with Miller. Attractive to other clubs I'm sure.

 

I don't see him getting traded in the next few years anyways.

It's a perfectly fine contract for what it is ( a veteran "retiement" deal best suited to a team looking to "win now"). Below market value even.

 

But teams like taking on large cap hits for only the declining "cliff" years? Since when? It becomes moveable "in theory", sure....

Edited March 9, 2023 by aGENT

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, HKSR said:

The 2 counter points to that is there is clear evidence that one study doesn't dictate everything.  There are numerous players including ones I listed above that 'peaked' offensively well after age 24 or 25.  And second of all, I do agree with @Alflives in that players reach mental maturity in their late 20s and early 30s.  The commitment to other parts of the game improves, and that's why you see the Stanley Cup winning teams generally with matured superstars.

Counter points to what exactly? Studies just show what an "average" player does. Average players peak younger regardless of what you're cherry picked, anecdotal players might have done. And I said myself that player "peaks" fall roughly between 24-28, so I'm not sure what you're "countering".

 

Regardless, 28 is definitely not the "start" of their peak as you originally asserted.

Edited March 9, 2023 by aGENT

[HKSR]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Counter points to what exactly? Studies A SINGLE STUDY just shows what an "average" player does. Average players peak younger regardless of what you're cherry picked, anecdotal players might have done. And I said myself that player "peaks" fall roughly between 24-28, so I'm not sure what you're "countering".

 

Regardless, 28 is definitely not the "start" of their peak as you originally asserted.

FTFY

 

If it truly is a bell curve, 24 to 32, with 27 or 28 being the peak, that leaves 3 or 4 years on each side of that curve.  I would take a player from 27 to 32 being their peak years over 24 to 27.  Peak being a COMPLETE player.  At 24 years old, most of these kids are still learning how to win.

[D-Money]

1 hour ago, HKSR said:

Tell that to Connor McDavid, Artemi Panarin, Nathan Mackinnon, Bo Horvat, Leon Draisatl, JT Miller, etc. etc.

 

One study doesn't dictate everything.

Huh? Connor McDavid is 26. Draisaitl is 27. They are right in that zone.

 

There are always outliers. (There are also outliers the other way - players that peak even earlier, but then flame out even younger.) But betting on outliers is kind of foolish, isn't it?

 

It's safe to say that most players will be not as good in their early thirties as they were in their mid-to-late-twenties. Those are the years where your key players are likely their most effective. Hence, why management is forgoing the total rebuild, and trying to do something with Pettersson and Hughes ALREADY in their prime, before that window starts closing.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by D-Money

[AnthonyG]

4 hours ago, HKSR said:

Tell that to Connor McDavid, Artemi Panarin, Nathan Mackinnon, Bo Horvat, Leon Draisatl, JT Miller, etc. etc.

 

One study doesn't dictate everything.

Joe Pavelski can be added to that list.

[dougieL]

17 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Buyout is an even dumber idea then the original trade. 

 

Makes zero sense. 

A buyout is dumb if the team's plan is more long term, keeping him is dumb if the team's plan is to go all-in short term, but neither option is nearly as dumb as giving up assets to acquire the guy that's putting the team in this predicament in the first place 

Edited March 10, 2023 by dougieL

[Mike Vanderhoek]

21 hours ago, aGENT said:

It's a perfectly fine contract for what it is ( a veteran "retiement" deal best suited to a team looking to "win now"). Below market value even.

 

But teams like taking on large cap hits for only the declining "cliff" years? Since when? It becomes moveable "in theory", sure....

I would argue at the halfway point that he even reaches that steep cliff in decline is debatable, my point was at the midway point of his deal he is opened up to be available as a trade option to half the league. If the Canucks feel its in their best interests to do so.

 

I guess the reasons you think Miller should get moved while he is still showing as productive and a solid top player is why he won't get moved. Vancouver won't find a better replacement for him at the NHL level because they are not going to move him for futures only, it has to be NHL piece(s) packaged perhaps with futures coming back in a deal. Since they won't find a better player to fit into this group now, they will retain him and move off others re: Boeser, Myers, Poolman, Pearson, maybe even OEL if they can bite that bullet ( but doubtful ).

[canucklehead44]

How did Arizona convince Benning to give them a top 10 pick plus a high 2nd rounder for a guy that would likely cost us 3 or 4 first round picks to trade only two years later? Benning was such an awful GM. We knew this would happen at the time too. 

[myre]

1 hour ago, canucklehead44 said:

How did Arizona convince Benning to give them a top 10 pick plus a high 2nd rounder for a guy that would likely cost us 3 or 4 first round picks to trade only two years later? Benning was such an awful GM. We knew this would happen at the time too. 

And just consider how many people defended this trade and said how good it was.

[iinatcc]

3 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

How did Arizona convince Benning to give them a top 10 pick plus a high 2nd rounder for a guy that would likely cost us 3 or 4 first round picks to trade only two years later? Benning was such an awful GM. We knew this would happen at the time too. 

Well not this guy

 

 

[Drakrami]

On 3/12/2023 at 1:02 AM, canucklehead44 said:

How did Arizona convince Benning to give them a top 10 pick plus a high 2nd rounder for a guy that would likely cost us 3 or 4 first round picks to trade only two years later? Benning was such an awful GM. We knew this would happen at the time too. 

Just like how Detroit convinces us to trade them a 1st and 2nd in the generational draft of 2023. We are always desperate for a quick bandaid (retool). No vision, no patience.
Previous high draft under age25? Take our draft picks!!

Edited March 15, 2023 by Drakrami

[spook007]

2 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

Just like how Detroit convinces us to trade them a 1st and 2nd in the generational draft of 2023. We are always desperate for a quick bandaid (retool). No vision, no patience.
Previous high draft under age25? Take our draft picks!!

Would you be ok with Petey and QH asking for trades or refuse to sign here again?

If we don't win the lottery, what are hoping to draft? A rhd... ?

 

Should have kept the pick instead of the OEL trade and despite it being a good trade perhaps also instead of the Miller trade.

But at some stage we've got to move forward. If Hronek suck or we suck the next 2 seasons, they can start to consider whether to blow it up.

[Drakrami]

41 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Would you be ok with Petey and QH asking for trades or refuse to sign here again?

If we don't win the lottery, what are hoping to draft? A rhd... ?

 

Should have kept the pick instead of the OEL trade and despite it being a good trade perhaps also instead of the Miller trade.

But at some stage we've got to move forward. If Hronek suck or we suck the next 2 seasons, they can start to consider whether to blow it up.

So instead of having a vision and solid blueprint for success the Canucks base their direction on 1 or 2’s player desire to stay or not? That’s legendary management right there. 
 

#12-20 draft in 2023? Doesnt have to be RHD, we take the best player available and could be the next Barzal, Dobson, Suzuki, Thomas.
 

I love how the fanbase just dives in headfirst and use nonsense to explain away/justify management’s moves. 
 

by the way, in the OEL trade the same reasoning was applied. Garland is better than the 9th pick, we wouldn’t be able to draft a better player than Garland with 9th. Oh the irony. 

[zimmy]

9 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

So instead of having a vision and solid blueprint for success the Canucks base their direction on 1 or 2’s player desire to stay or not? That’s legendary management right there. 
 

#12-20 draft in 2023? Doesnt have to be RHD, we take the best player available and could be the next Barzal, Dobson, Suzuki, Thomas.
 

I love how the fanbase just dives in headfirst and use nonsense to explain away/justify management’s moves. 
 

by the way, in the OEL trade the same reasoning was applied. Garland is better than the 9th pick, we wouldn’t be able to draft a better player than Garland with 9th. Oh the irony. 

All four of Barzal, Dobson, Suzuki, Thomas would strain to have the potential and possible future impact of those “1 or 2” players.

You build around our “1 or 2”.

[spook007]

36 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

So instead of having a vision and solid blueprint for success the Canucks base their direction on 1 or 2’s player desire to stay or not? That’s legendary management right there. 
 

#12-20 draft in 2023? Doesnt have to be RHD, we take the best player available and could be the next Barzal, Dobson, Suzuki, Thomas.
 

I love how the fanbase just dives in headfirst and use nonsense to explain away/justify management’s moves. 
 

by the way, in the OEL trade the same reasoning was applied. Garland is better than the 9th pick, we wouldn’t be able to draft a better player than Garland with 9th. Oh the irony. 

Who says they don't have a vision for succes fot the team. 
It may not be, what you like it to be, or maybe even I like it to be, but I'm sure they have a vision for succes. 
 

With the emphasis on could be... there's no guarentees for any of this. 
 

The OEL trade was totally different to this one. 
if Hronek doesn't work out, his contract will not be renewed or at a cheap rate. OEL was signed for 8 years or so... 

 

I agree, the OEL deal sucked, not because of Garland v the 9th OA pick, but because of the length and $ on the OEL contract. 
 

There is nobody in the world, who knows if the 9th OA would be better than Garland long term. Possibly but its just as likely it won't. 
 

You want to tear it all down, and don't care if the star players are interested in hanging around, in order to draft another Petey, Kuz and QH....

 

Well management doesn't and while it may turn out to be another false dawn, it may also turn out to be the opposite. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by spook007

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Drakrami said:

So instead of having a vision and solid blueprint for success the Canucks base their direction on 1 or 2’s player desire to stay or not? That’s legendary management right there. 
 

#12-20 draft in 2023? Doesnt have to be RHD, we take the best player available and could be the next Barzal, Dobson, Suzuki, Thomas.
 

I love how the fanbase just dives in headfirst and use nonsense to explain away/justify management’s moves. 
 

by the way, in the OEL trade the same reasoning was applied. Garland is better than the 9th pick, we wouldn’t be able to draft a better player than Garland with 9th. Oh the irony. 

OEL was on the decline and ending his prime. Hronek turned 25 a couple months ago and is just now entering his prime. The four guys you mentioned are good players, but our guy in the same core roles are better. 

[Drakrami]

8 hours ago, spook007 said:

Who says they don't have a vision for succes fot the team. 
It may not be, what you like it to be, or maybe even I like it to be, but I'm sure they have a vision for succes. 
 

With the emphasis on could be... there's no guarentees for any of this. 
 

The OEL trade was totally different to this one. 
if Hronek doesn't work out, his contract will not be renewed or at a cheap rate. OEL was signed for 8 years or so... 

 

I agree, the OEL deal sucked, not because of Garland v the 9th OA pick, but because of the length and $ on the OEL contract. 
 

There is nobody in the world, who knows if the 9th OA would be better than Garland long term. Possibly but its just as likely it won't. 
 

You want to tear it all down, and don't care if the star players are interested in hanging around, in order to draft another Petey, Kuz and QH....

 

Well management doesn't and while it may turn out to be another false dawn, it may also turn out to be the opposite. 

If you think Hronek was a great trade, wait 2-3 years for it to potentially blow up in your face. To me, it’s unnecessary risk we took once again because we had no patience and reached for another quick bandaid that doesn’t fix our mediocrity. Once again another retool and the price this time is pretty steep. 
 

Once again about Pettersson and Hughes.. you know, Colorado went through a rebuild too with MacKinnon right there being 22-24 years old and they were selling. They understood they weren’t there and rebuild with MacKinnon. Canucks? Retooling since 2012 and bs reasoning to justify management’s actions like we need to care if Pettersson or Hughes is staying. 

[spook007]

13 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

If you think Hronek was a great trade, wait 2-3 years for it to potentially blow up in your face. To me, it’s unnecessary risk we took once again because we had no patience and reached for another quick bandaid that doesn’t fix our mediocrity. Once again another retool and the price this time is pretty steep. 
 

Once again about Pettersson and Hughes.. you know, Colorado went through a rebuild too with MacKinnon right there being 22-24 years old and they were selling. They understood they weren’t there and rebuild with MacKinnon. Canucks? Retooling since 2012 and bs reasoning to justify management’s actions like we need to care if Pettersson or Hughes is staying. 

Well there is no guarantee that we will draft superstars?

You can't sit Petey, Kuz and QH or Demko for that matter in order to tank?

 

So we are selling of years of Petey + QH etc to hopefully draft players like Petey + QH...

 

I wanted them too tank this season too as it went along, but this was never going to happen with Demo getting back into form. 

And if we can't figure numbers out in 2-3 years because the players are too good to sign for small amounts, then great we will have magic trade chips to fill in the spots needed...

 

The time to tank was two years ago instead of the OEL trade. While Petey and QH still were really young...

 

But I also remember a fan base screaming and moaning the two years prior to that about we shouldn't have Roussel, LE and Beagle on the team. Imagine if Benning had just kept them 1 more year..... A Benning was a desperate man at that stage... 

 

We would have had the 9th + likely a lower pick the year after....

 

But we can't go in circles and waste the great talents we have, hoping to find better...

 

BTW key word was potentially blow up in your face... just like potentially drafting garbage...

Edited March 16, 2023 by spook007

[Timråfan]

42 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

If you think Hronek was a great trade, wait 2-3 years for it to potentially blow up in your face. To me, it’s unnecessary risk we took once again because we had no patience and reached for another quick bandaid that doesn’t fix our mediocrity. Once again another retool and the price this time is pretty steep. 
 

Once again about Pettersson and Hughes.. you know, Colorado went through a rebuild too with MacKinnon right there being 22-24 years old and they were selling. They understood they weren’t there and rebuild with MacKinnon. Canucks? Retooling since 2012 and bs reasoning to justify management’s actions like we need to care if Pettersson or Hughes is staying. 

Risk? 
To get a well developed RHD that sits in top 25 D, what is the real cost for such a player?

How many draft picks will be picked before a gem like that are picked? 
100? 1000? Never?

If Hronek can be a RHD Hughes he’s worth both our 1st picks and a 2nd.

With him we have a window of 7-10 years opening in front if us.

If we waited til we get a draft pick that the window have shrinked with maybe five years. And we still don’t have the great RHd we have now.

Then we have to tear it up and rebuild and ”hope” we get an exceptional talent or two.

If we don’t get that or those players we just continue to be a northern version of the Coyotes that trade every good player away for years…

[dougieL]

On 3/12/2023 at 4:02 AM, canucklehead44 said:

How did Arizona convince Benning to give them a top 10 pick plus a high 2nd rounder for a guy that would likely cost us 3 or 4 first round picks to trade only two years later? Benning was such an awful GM. We knew this would happen at the time too. 

The Sedin's also played a part in convincing Benning. In fact, in an SN5650 interview, Benning said the Sedin's played a big part in convincing him to add the second round pick that Arizona asked for, and that they did so because of how high they were on OEL. 

 

You can hear Daniel talk about OEL here - saying how he does everything to help the team win, and how he "took full responsibility" for his poor play in Arizona, whatever the hell that means. It would actually be funny to listen to if it weren't so depressing and infuriating.