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

[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


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Totally solid point. These people are hell bent on hating Benning it seems. There’s no grey area at all with them. 

Hated becomes hater

 

Edited by Me_
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Not to mention the critiques about him throwing away picks, while ignoring the fact that several of his big drafted pieces are on or soon to be on the team. Apparently he shouldn't trade any picks at all.


The Miller trade would've been shot down by fans if they could have it their way. And now those people are quiet about it.

I won't be quiet, to keep the discussion going if you like?::D

 

I will provide "fair' questions and opinions

Is there many Stanley Cup teams that were never making the playoffs  while at the bottom of the standings for years, that traded so many 1st and high 2nd round picks and won a cup shortly after?

Will Miller be here when we are in the finals?

Where are the young Talented skilled picks being groomed for 4 yrs from now to insert ?

We are not winning the cup next year and almost all the current talented players will need to be signed within 3 years

When you have a 33 yr old Dman making 7 mil (actually $8 total), what will our better players want?

I dont want to sign long term contracts at 27 for 8-10 yrs just to afford them for short term gain and have another LE situation for years

Remember recently when Lucic, LE, Neal, Johansen, Skinner, Bobrovsky, Ladd, Seabrook, Doughty, Douchene, Karlsson Vlasic,Trouba Parise and Suter (and hopefully not OEL) were elite then disappeared with retirement contracts

I prefer to draft scoring talent instead of buying it, and  insert cheaper complimentary pieces to build your team and sell some for high value as they age  to get good returns and picks,to keep your cupboard full for the next wave to groom

Edited by ba;;isticsports
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dirtman said:

Sorry, no other GMs or their mistakes exist here. Just 6x6 jokes and Fire Benning banners.

another way to look at it 1.26  more than what we were paying Edler.  ends at the age Edler is now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Also the inconsistency in the critiques is 

interesting.

 

Benning;

- hasn't gotten creative to move $$$+improve the team

- isn't proactive exploiting favourable opportunities

- is horrible at free agency

- also shouldn't trade picks or assets b/c we aren't a 'win now' team

 

So he then gets creative moving money, exploits expansion, and improves the team. 

 

But now it's bad, because there's less flexability next year to;

- target players in free agency (where he's been horrible)

- or trade for players (which he shouldn't do b/c... see above).

 

 

Mhm, interesting thought.  Kind of flawed, however.

 

If we're comparing expansions drafts (VGK vs SEA), we were a rebuilding team in 2017 and in 2021, we are (or, rather, we've made moves that would suggest) a playoff/borderline team (who have come up pretty short).  Different contexts and different stages for where our team was at.

 

In any event, nobody has really said anything negative about Dickinson.  Likewise, adding Garland is a good move, even if it did effectively cost our 1st.  Moving out the dead cap, when all of them expire next year, for OEL who costs less in the short-term and more over the long-term, is not "creative", or not in the way you think it is.  It's simply just refinancing our cap problems.  Of course, the hope is OEL plays to the level his contract suggests and improves our D, but if we believe in data, we probably won't see that level.  There is plenty of warranted criticism for adding OEL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AV. said:

Mhm, interesting thought.  Kind of flawed, however.

 

If we're comparing expansions drafts (VGK vs SEA), we were a rebuilding team in 2017 and in 2021, we are (or, rather, we've made moves that would suggest) a playoff/borderline team (who have come up pretty short).  Different contexts and different stages for where our team was at.

 

In any event, nobody has really said anything negative about Dickinson.  Likewise, adding Garland is a good move, even if it did effectively cost our 1st.  Moving out the dead cap, when all of them expire next year, for OEL who costs less in the short-term and more over the long-term, is not "creative", or not in the way you think it is.  It's simply just refinancing our cap problems.  Of course, the hope is OEL plays to the level his contract suggests and improves our D, but if we believe in data, we probably won't see that level.  There is plenty of warranted criticism for adding OEL.

HARD PASS on this thinking pattern.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AV. said:

Mhm, interesting thought.  Kind of flawed, however.

 

If we're comparing expansions drafts (VGK vs SEA), we were a rebuilding team in 2017 and in 2021, we are (or, rather, we've made moves that would suggest) a playoff/borderline team (who have come up pretty short).  Different contexts and different stages for where our team was at.

 

In any event, nobody has really said anything negative about Dickinson.  Likewise, adding Garland is a good move, even if it did effectively cost our 1st.  Moving out the dead cap, when all of them expire next year, for OEL who costs less in the short-term and more over the long-term, is not "creative", or not in the way you think it is.  It's simply just refinancing our cap problems.  Of course, the hope is OEL plays to the level his contract suggests and improves our D, but if we believe in data, we probably won't see that level.  There is plenty of warranted criticism for adding OEL.

You say it's not a creative move, yet how many years did it take to finally get rid of these contracts? How many people kept claiming it would be easy to trade Eriksson alone?

 

And if that's not enough, how many trade proposals managed to trade away muiltiple bad contracts in 1 trade? Most trade proposals made by fans, if not all, only traded away one at a time. This trade got rid of 3 in one fell swoop.

 

Make no mistake, this trade can be deemed as polarizing and I see where it could be flawed, but this might be one of the most creative trades I've seen in a while.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iron Fist said:

If 7.26 is our anchor contract until end of 2026 season. not that big of a deal Bobrovsky/Skinner/ Price are much worse

All of those are anchors and will severely limit the teams with the contracts towards the end of their deals. Doesn't mean we should've taken on the contract.

Edited by Josepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Josepho said:

All of those are anchors and will severely limit the teams with the contracts towards the end of their deals. Doesn't mean we should've taken on the contract.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have either. This is one of those situations where we'll just have to wait and see.

 

People seem to want to talk like this is another Eriksson contract; however, I'd argue that OEL, even not playing up to contract, is still an upgrade on defense, unlike Eriksson barely doing anything at forward position. While that may not sound like a promising statement, I'd argue that people against this deal are immediately thinking worst case scenario rather than giving it a chance ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I want to point out that I was someone who was actively against trying to get OEL here, so don't think even now I'm fully on board with this whole thing. lol

 

But I believe in giving chances and this trade is very unique to say the least. This was definately not what I expected to happen in an OEL trade.

 

And hey, if OEL lives up to his contract and improves again, then we have another top 2 dman and a better all-around team for it.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to bow out of the forums for now while the dust settles more. lol

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Lock said:

Also, I want to point out that I was someone who was actively against trying to get OEL here, so don't think even now I'm fully on board with this whole thing. lol

 

But I believe in giving chances and this trade is very unique to say the least. This was definately not what I expected to happen in an OEL trade.

 

And hey, if OEL lives up to his contract and improves again, then we have another top 2 dman and a better all-around team for it.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to bow out of the forums for now while the dust settles more. lol

Dont leave for long nate schmidt will be gone in a few minutes 

  • Haha 4
  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Of course its a creative move. If they didn't make that move how were they going to move out all those contracts while adding a young(ish) T6 forward & a legitimate top 4 defenseman? It wouldn't have happened, they didn't have the assets.

 

They took a risk, but it was capitalizing on an opportunity to really benefit in all the problem areas. If OEL's a top 3 defenseman, which I definitely think he can be (if not a bit more), this is a slam dunk win. 

 

They maximized the asset, which speaking of criticisms, how many times has that been one? Another check.

The bolded italicized may have been true even as recent as 2018, but has not been the case for a few seasons now.  At 30 years old and with some injury concerns to boot, it's a MASSIVE gamble that we shouldn't hold our breath on.  Perhaps, we can commend the idea of this effort put forth by management to kill two birds with one stone by getting a top 6 forward and "top 4" defenceman + offloading dead cap, but, if we're being honest with ourselves, it's still fairly bad execution given the player in question.  In a vacuum, a 7M defenceman can't be a question mark and certainly not a liability.  Not in a cap world, not a chance in hell in a flat cap world.  For example, we wouldn't look at Duncan Keith or Drew Doughty as top tier defencemen in 2021, we shouldn't do the same here with OEL.  

 

OEL's our player, and of course we'll support him, but we're moving into very naïve and uneducated territory if we believe a renaissance for him is likely, let alone inevitable like many seem to think.  This isn't a negative take, this is simply just based on what the hockey world has seen from him over a fairly large sample size in recent seasons.

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

You say it's not a creative move, yet how many years did it take to finally get rid of these contracts? How many people kept claiming it would be easy to trade Eriksson alone?

 

And if that's not enough, how many trade proposals managed to trade away muiltiple bad contracts in 1 trade? Most trade proposals made by fans, if not all, only traded away one at a time. This trade got rid of 3 in one fell swoop.

 

Make no mistake, this trade can be deemed as polarizing and I see where it could be flawed, but this might be one of the most creative trades I've seen in a while.

Thing is, Arizona was just as desperate to get rid of OEL.  They've been trying to move him for some time and it was clear the situation between both sides was untenable, not to mention they realized his contract was horrendous for his player  To make matters even more interesting, it was basically Vancouver or bust.  Theoretically, we could have negotiated things a lot differently, knowing their backs were just as much against the wall.

 

Sure, the make up of this trade might be "creative", but as I said, we've just simply refinanced our cap problems, given that OEL really isn't the same player he once was.  IMO, that's not the "creative" we should be aiming for. 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Totally solid point. These people are hell bent on hating Benning it seems. There’s no grey area at all with them. 

yes it's true, I could rip that quote to pieces bit by bit and show why every bit of it is b.s. because each issue had mitigating circumstances but none were taken into account there at all and definitely grey at the best of times, good observation sir! just saying...

Link to comment
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...