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

6 hours ago, AC30 said:

He’s kinda getting old

 

maybe if he was in his early 20’s 

so we can groom him into a 3 line bump and grind penalty killer shut down defensive specialist 

Ya, no doubt. That contract would really hurt us in a couple years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I think of the OEL acquisition is that we got a five years younger version of Edler. We were paying a 35 year old Edler 6 mil last year, and this year we're paying a 30 year old OEL 7.25. OEL picks up the hard minutes that Edler was playing and does so with better skating and better overall defending. I never particularly expected a lot of points with him playing behind Hughes, though more than 6 would be nice...

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ‹(•¿•)› said:

The way I think of the OEL acquisition is that we got a five years younger version of Edler. We were paying a 35 year old Edler 6 mil last year, and this year we're paying a 30 year old OEL 7.25. OEL picks up the hard minutes that Edler was playing and does so with better skating and better overall defending. I never particularly expected a lot of points with him playing behind Hughes, though more than 6 would be nice...

Was hoping for some of that goal scoring ... but that usually comes with first unit power play time as well.   Still 7-8 seemed pretty reasonable with some second unit time.    He's probably the best defending D we've had in a long time with all due respect to Tanev.   So far at least.    OEL-Myers is a nice shut down pairing in itself.    And like others have pointed out - if BB and EP we're going the entire D would have more apples. 

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

20 hours ago, AC30 said:

Well - Just need a Garth snow or mike milbury to oblige 

 

look at that transaction with Arizona 

garland OEL for our 4rth line and LE

 

anything is possibly 

 

nuff said 

That was Benning.

 

Yeah…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 2:01 AM, AC30 said:

Garland needs to be traded for a bigger version of himself 

 

he will be neutralized in the playoffs against a big defence 

I think you can have a very good team with Garland on it, i just am not sure you can when the top 6 includes Hoglander, EP and Boesser as well as Rathbone, Hunt and Hughes on D.  Also smallish players in Motte and Highmore.  You can utilize small players I just think this is too many of them

Really I think you need to pick 2 of the forwards in the top 6 and one of the D (easy to guess which one).

Frankly I would probably keep Garland and EP in that group.  Would hate to see Boesser and Hoglander go but just think it is too many small/soft players.  

Garland and Hoglander are so similar, Garland is just farther along and is a great pest that draws a tonne of penalties.

The continued emergence of Podkolzin helps a lot as he will bring size and tenacity into the top 6 and we desperately need a big PF in our top 6 to complement EP's game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I think you can have a very good team with Garland on it, i just am not sure you can when the top 6 includes Hoglander, EP and Boesser as well as Rathbone, Hunt and Hughes on D.  Also smallish players in Motte and Highmore.  You can utilize small players I just think this is too many of them

Really I think you need to pick 2 of the forwards in the top 6 and one of the D (easy to guess which one).

Frankly I would probably keep Garland and EP in that group.  Would hate to see Boesser and Hoglander go but just think it is too many small/soft players.  

Garland and Hoglander are so similar, Garland is just farther along and is a great pest that draws a tonne of penalties.

The continued emergence of Podkolzin helps a lot as he will bring size and tenacity into the top 6 and we desperately need a big PF in our top 6 to complement EP's game.

Hoglander may be 'small' but he's far from soft. I saw him body freaking Wilson off two pucks, against the boards, in WAS the other day.

 

I have zero problem having him in our top 9. 

 

Hunt isn't remotely a long term player here. Not sure why he's even a consideration.

 

And Rathbone... Love the guy, and I could certainly be wrong, but I don't see where he fits on our left side over the next 5'ish years. Maybe he moves to the right? Or maybe, as I suspect, he's moved to shore up deficiencies elsewhere.

  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Hoglander may be 'small' but he's far from soft. I saw him body freaking Wilson off two pucks, against the boards, in WAS the other day.

 

I have zero problem having him in our top 9. 

 

Hunt isn't remotely a long term player here. Not sure why he's even a consideration.

 

And Rathbone... Love the guy, and I could certainly be wrong, but I don't see where he fits on our left side over the next 5'ish years. Maybe he moves to the right? Or maybe, as I suspect, he's moved to shore up deficiencies elsewhere.

I think I had small/soft in the wrong order.  He doesn't play small but is.

Would also add that Bo and JT aren't exactly huge guys but are quite physical and built like tanks.

There is a point though where you do need size and I think that across the board this team needs size that can skate.  

We looked like a midget team against Carolina.  The big guys will give the smaller ones we keep room to move, Aho gets a lot of room on that team, EP gets none.

I am not one who pushes size, size, size but really do think we need to start adding some size that can skate.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I think I had small/soft in the wrong order.  He doesn't play small but is.

Would also add that Bo and JT aren't exactly huge guys but are quite physical and built like tanks.

There is a point though where you do need size and I think that across the board this team needs size that can skate.  

We looked like a midget team against Carolina.  The big guys will give the smaller ones we keep room to move, Aho gets a lot of room on that team, EP gets none.

I am not one who pushes size, size, size but really do think we need to start adding some size that can skate.

 

Another reason I'm for Miller to NYR for Chytil, Schneider +,+...

 

Chytil is far from a bruiser, but he's a big boy with wheels for days.

 

Podkolzin continuing to develop should help as well. And Klimovich is looking good in the A. Hopefully he can come in over the next couple years and contribute as well.

 

But there's no way I'm giving away Hoglander, Garland or Pettersson right now. Plenty of room for all three IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Another reason I'm for Miller to NYR for Chytil, Schneider +,+...

 

Chytil is far from a bruiser, but he's a big boy with wheels for days.

 

Podkolzin continuing to develop should help as well. And Klimovich is looking good in the A. Hopefully he can come in over the next couple years and contribute as well.

 

But there's no way I'm giving away Hoglander, Garland or Pettersson right now. Plenty of room for all three IMO.

I would probably take the NYR deal because I don't think we are close to having the pieces to being an actual SC contender, not just a playoff contender hoping the goalie gets hot for a run.

I wouldn't give away any of them, I would sell them if the price is right. 

Klimovich is a long way away from being in NHL.  He has been growing but still probably a couple seasons away.  Some nice skills there though but not exactly tearing up the AHL.

Could be worse, Habs have highest payroll in NHL and sit at 32nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Another reason I'm for Miller to NYR for Chytil, Schneider +,+...

 

Chytil is far from a bruiser, but he's a big boy with wheels for days.

 

Podkolzin continuing to develop should help as well. And Klimovich is looking good in the A. Hopefully he can come in over the next couple years and contribute as well.

 

But there's no way I'm giving away Hoglander, Garland or Pettersson right now. Plenty of room for all three IMO.

Sometimes I think some trades are thought of just for the sake of making a trade.


How is trading Miller “because we’re not quite there yet” gets us there? How do we get “there” by trading our best players? We don’t.

 

With this strategy, we invite perpetual rebuilds. 
 

Trading Miller over Höglander or Garland is a very bad idea. Trading Miller sets the Canucks back a few years. He is front and center the main show in town. He’s the type of player that you win Cups with. 
 

Höglander and Garland have relentless motors. But they are by no means complete players like Miller is.
 

To me, there are four untouchables on this team: Horvat, Miller, Hughes and Demko.

 

Everyone else could be had for the right price.  But those four are the core of this team.

 

Pettersson, Boeser are sure keepers. But unless and until they play the way they are expected to play on a constant basis. 

 

Edited by Me_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

I would probably take the NYR deal because I don't think we are close to having the pieces to being an actual SC contender, not just a playoff contender hoping the goalie gets hot for a run.

Exactly.

 

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

I wouldn't give away any of them, I would sell them if the price is right. 

I'd sell anyone if the price is right. MacKinnon and Makar for Hughes and Pettersson. Sign me up.

 

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

Klimovich is a long way away from being in NHL.  He has been growing but still probably a couple seasons away.  Some nice skills there though but not exactly tearing up the AHL.

 

Did I suggest otherwise? As you said, we're a couple years away from resembling a 'contender'. We're not going to fix, getting bigger forwards, overnight.

 

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

Could be worse, Habs have highest payroll in NHL and sit at 32nd.

Indeed. I think a lot of fans get tunnel vision and consider the Canucks to be the 'worst' in a lot of categories. There's work to be done for sure, but it could be far, FAR WORSE.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Me_ said:

Sometimes I think some trades are thought of just for the sake of making a trade.


How is trading Miller “because we’re not quite there yet” gets us there? How do we get “there” by trading our best players? We don’t.

 

With this strategy, we invite perpetual rebuilds. 
 

Trading Miller over Höglander or Garland is a very bad idea. Trading Miller sets the Canucks back a few years. He is front and center the main show in town. He’s the type of player that you win Cups with. 
 

Höglander and Garland have relentless motors. But they are by no means complete players like Miller is.
 

To me, there are four untouchables on this team: Horvat, Miller, Hughes and Demko.

 

Everyone else could be had for the right price.  But those four are the core of this team.

 

Pettersson, Boeser are sure keepers. But unless and until they play the way they are expected to play on a constant basis. 

 

Miller is a great player but he’s far from a complete player. He makes quite a few careless turnovers and bad passes a game. 
 

He’s a fan favourite and that’s great, but let’s not pretend he’s some untradeable player. If he can get us two big pieces for the future it absolutely needs to be considered.

 

If fans were honest with themselves with where this team is at, they would see that Miller doesn’t fit into the cup window. I guarantee if we hang onto him until his value is gone fans will be crying that we should have traded him when we had the chance.

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

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

Miller is a great player but he’s far from a complete player. He makes quite a few careless turnovers and bad passes a game. 
 

He’s a fan favourite and that’s great, but let’s not pretend he’s some untradeable player. If he can get us two big pieces for the future it absolutely needs to be considered.

 

If fans were honest with themselves with where this team is at, they would see that Miller doesn’t fit into the cup window. I guarantee if we hang onto him until his value is gone fans will be crying that we should have traded him when we had the chance.

I think it is almost the opposite, he is so valuable for a team heading to the playoffs.

Point a game can play any forward position and any line effectively.

If tweaking a playoff lineup this is such a valuable player that the cost should be through the roof and for a team that really looks to be going into another rebuild (though this time with some pieces to build around) the return should be a haul that is hard to ignore.

I do worry a bit on him what will happen as his speed fades a bit as he ages.  We have all seen the dumb drop passes and reverses at the blue line that leave us in vulnerable positions but the positives of his game far outweigh the mistakes he makes trying to be creative in the wrong areas of the ice.  When he hits mid 30s I do wonder if that script flips.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Me_ said:

Sometimes I think some trades are thought of just for the sake of making a trade.

Sometimes I think some posters can't see the writing on the wall.

 

49 minutes ago, Me_ said:

How is trading Miller “because we’re not quite there yet” gets us there? How do we get “there” by trading our best players? We don’t.

By selling high and multiplying assets, which turn in to valuable players/pieces to use during our actual contention window.

 

49 minutes ago, Me_ said:

With this strategy, we invite perpetual rebuilds. 

Nope. Moving Miller does not = rebuild.

 

49 minutes ago, Me_ said:

 

Trading Miller over Höglander or Garland is a very bad idea. Trading Miller sets the Canucks back a few years. He is front and center the main show in town. He’s the type of player that you win Cups with. 

The core's age dictates our window. We're not there yet. He's the type of player you win cups with NOW, under a bargain deal and in his prime. Our core's prime is +/- 2-7 years from now. Not NOW.

 

A slowing down, mid 30's Miller with an $8m+ anchor contract is not what the team needs in that window.

 

We'll need players like Miller in that window, it's just very unlikely that it will actually be Miller specifically.

 

49 minutes ago, Me_ said:

 

 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

The core's age dictates our window. We're not there yet. He's the type of player you win cups with NOW, under a bargain deal and in his prime. Our core's prime is +/- 2-7 years from now. Not NOW.

 

A slowing down, mid 30's Miller with an $8m+ anchor contract is not what the team needs in that window.

 

We'll need players like Miller in that window, it's just very unlikely that it will actually be Miller specifically.

I agree. 

 

I love Miller, yes he is likely the best forward on the team at the moment and brings a good winning attitude to the locker room. But we are (clearly) not a playoff contender at the moment, much more of a fringe playoff team at best. 

 

So unless Miller is willing to take a discount and a shorter term contract (say 6mil-6.5mil at 3-4 years, how can you say no to that) I just don't see how we're a good fit for him. Also on his end, he should go get that big beautiful contract he deserves. That could easily be 7-8 million for 6-7 years. So with that in mind I'm on the side of trade the guy now or before the deadline for a top tier young dman and hopefully a little more. 

I think we should be aiming to be more of a contender in 3ish years which will put him at 33 or so and unfortunately outside the right age range for this group. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting discussion in Sportsnet with Drance.

 

He called this trade a trade the Canucks lost which they won. They got better value than Arizona in this Trade in terms of talent but the Canucks still lost because it ruined their cap flexibility and future planning and the Canucks are still not in a playoff position. 

 

Which I tend to agree and I think this is what most people missed in this deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iinatcc said:

Interesting discussion in Sportsnet with Drance.

 

He called this trade a trade the Canucks lost which they won. They got better value than Arizona in this Trade in terms of talent but the Canucks still lost because it ruined their cap flexibility and future planning and the Canucks are still not in a playoff position. 

 

Which I tend to agree and I think this is what most people missed in this deal.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Just like the much poo-pooed at the time Miller trade, you always add value to your franchise when the opportunity arises.

 

Miller is worth more now than what we paid and we should take advantage of that given circumstances.

 

We could also trade Garland for more than what we paid and OEL is just fine even if his cap hit is $500k more than preferred/ideal. All while clearing inefficient to dead cap.

 

This team certainly has issues, but Garland and OEL aren't one of them.

  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
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...