Nuxfanabroad Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 It's like buying a Toyota, confident of the re-sale value that shouldn't diminish(at least, that's what we often said back in the 80's & 90's!) That is the team acquiring QH. They may use him for a yr or few, but then down the road if they'd like to move him, they know the Devs will probably re-stock whatever shelves they once emptied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patel Bure Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 13 hours ago, aGENT said: Hughes to NJ for Severson, Holtz and 2 1sts OEL, Severson Rathbone, Poolman Juolevi, Myers Here is my thing with these Quinn Hughes proposals. While I’m not opposed to moving Quinn for the right deal, what I am opposed to is “throwing Rathbone” to the Wolves and putting him on that 2nd pairing right away. Rathbone is a supremely talented dman, b we need to let the guy develop naturally. Let him develop his game in sheltered minutes and comfortable roles this year, and then progressively give him tougher assignments when he proves himself. You do neither the player nor the team justice when you throw your own player in a “sink or swim” environment. Nevermind the 2nd pairing possibly being a tough role for Rathbone right now, but what would happen if OEL went down? Would you feel comfortable throwing the inexperienced Rathbone on the top pairing? Trade Hughes IF you’ve exhausted all options, but make sure you’re bringing back an LD in the process (ie Ryan Graves, Chychrun, etc.) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 Just a further note on Petey and Huggy I like them and I think they are important pieces going forward, but if forced to move one of them, i would move Hughes and re-sign Pettersson long term. It is not that Hughes is not gifted, but we would get a great return and we are strong at LHD. Certainly, what ever Benning does, which I suspect will be to re-sign them, must be done within our cap forecast. I do not think there are many teams that can afford Petey's ask..........he does have warts, and his potential for injury is there. I think most teams are looking at that these days. But we have him, and that is good! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 I'm certainly not against moving one of these RFA players, though I'm not sure which one. Ultimately I think one of them is going to have to go at some point anyway if they want to keep Horvat and Boeser. I'm a much bigger fan of Petey than I am og QH, but I almost think the team can absorb the loss of Petey more than they can Hughes. Whether people want to admit it or not, Bo is the #1 cman on the team and it's not really even close and by moving Petey you're making that commitment to Bo, the ultimate team guy. He's taken less money, played with inferior wingers, played harder, more defensive mins and he's never complained and he's still produced. By moving Petey you're showing Bo the respect he deserves. Additionally, by moving Petey, you're giving that c spot to Miller, officially, which is what he wants. As much as his attitude irks me at times, he's a much better cman than Petey and will come in at a cheaper price. With Horvat, Miller, Dickinson and Sutter down the middle you get a c corp that is experienced and effective at both ends. I also think Petey brings in a better return than Hughes, aside from an outlier offer from the Devils. If TH opts out, they need to find a rhd to replace him and Petey could bring back a true top pairing rhd, or a 4/5 and high pick/prospect. Obviously any deal has to have some salary coming back. A Petey move would likely add and solidify the dcorp, whereas a Hughes move is either lateral or takes away from the d and throws JR/OJ to the wolves. Moving Petey keeps QH in the fold and allows JR/OJ to continue to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got the Babych Posted September 30, 2021 Author Share Posted September 30, 2021 28 minutes ago, Patel Bure said: Here is my thing with these Quinn Hughes proposals. While I’m not opposed to moving Quinn for the right deal, what I am opposed to is “throwing Rathbone” to the Wolves and putting him on that 2nd pairing right away. Rathbone is a supremely talented dman, b we need to let the guy develop naturally. Let him develop his game in sheltered minutes and comfortable roles this year, and then progressively give him tougher assignments when he proves himself. You do neither the player nor the team justice when you throw your own player in a “sink or swim” environment. Nevermind the 2nd pairing possibly being a tough role for Rathbone right now, but what would happen if OEL went down? Would you feel comfortable throwing the inexperienced Rathbone on the top pairing? Trade Hughes IF you’ve exhausted all options, but make sure you’re bringing back an LD in the process (ie Ryan Graves, Chychrun, etc.) Agreed on Rathbone. But, I still don't think you turn down this deal. Gives options to acquire another D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 32 minutes ago, Patel Bure said: Here is my thing with these Quinn Hughes proposals. While I’m not opposed to moving Quinn for the right deal, what I am opposed to is “throwing Rathbone” to the Wolves and putting him on that 2nd pairing right away. Rathbone is a supremely talented dman, b we need to let the guy develop naturally. Let him develop his game in sheltered minutes and comfortable roles this year, and then progressively give him tougher assignments when he proves himself. You do neither the player nor the team justice when you throw your own player in a “sink or swim” environment. Nevermind the 2nd pairing possibly being a tough role for Rathbone right now, but what would happen if OEL went down? Would you feel comfortable throwing the inexperienced Rathbone on the top pairing? Trade Hughes IF you’ve exhausted all options, but make sure you’re bringing back an LD in the process (ie Ryan Graves, Chychrun, etc.) First, I don't think we're trading Hughes regardless. It's just a fun/silly exercise. Second, we don't really have a 'second pairing'. CDC gets far too hung up on those labels. More like 1st pair, offensive pair and defensive/two way pair. With those D pairs, I'd envision Rathbone/Poolman getting a lot of offensive zone starts/usage and PP time. The Juolevi/Myers pair would likely see as many (or more) minutes, and harder ones, including PK time. Ie: Rathbone would still be "sheltered". As for injuries, what do other teams do when their top pair D go down? Generally I'd imagine it's next man up and do your best (while likely struggling a bit). If we did move Hughes, I'd far rather it be fore a right D (Severson for example). We're not only organizationally deeper there but it's also far easier to sign/trade for left D. Hell, I wouldn't hate trying to get Edler back here in that case! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Luck Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Me_ said: It just… makes sense… Eichel needs surgery. He should sit out a year and come back fresh. Could the fan base be every bit so patient? We've been with Pettersson who hasn’t played in 7 months and may be holding out, we’ve been patient with Tanev who for some amount of time, couldn’t sustain a hit from a q-tip without getting injured, we’ve been patient with Sutter as well who has missed major time, and Salo… An Eichel / McDavid rivalry could be grand. An Eichel, Horvat 1-2 punch down the middle is stronger than a Pettersson, Horvat one. Miller can cover as center for a year. With the work Benning did this summer, the Canucks can definitely make the playoffs even without a piece like Pettersson, maybe even Hughes. Dahlin is a great piece to add while we’d wait for Eichel to recover. I am not against this idea. BUF Pettersson Hughes VAN Eichel Dahlin Is this fair? If Eichel does have to sit out most of the year then Buffalo includes something more imo. Edit: but I would do this. Hughes seems too entitled and is influencing Petey. The fact hughes knows the tkapukes is a bad thing. Edited September 30, 2021 by Canuck Luck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 Is the Answer: Mason, Ballard and a 3rd? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got the Babych Posted September 30, 2021 Author Share Posted September 30, 2021 1 hour ago, TheCammer said: Is the Answer: Mason, Ballard and a 3rd? Close. I heard there's a deal in the works for Brown, Jovanovski, and Weekes. Not confirmed yet. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got the Babych Posted October 1, 2021 Author Share Posted October 1, 2021 I know a lot of Insiders are saying that this thread, and the trade proposals within, was the impetus for getting the boys to finally agree to a contract. I'm not really comfortable with accepting the credit for speeding things up, but excited / relieved to have the team back together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 /thread? Glad the extensions are done and we can take some wind out the the sails of this current trade discussion. That said, I really hope the Canucks get going early on Petey’s next extension, and set a goal of completing the deal during the 2023-24 season. Even setting a fairly “hard” negotiation deadline at the TDL, and approaching the talks as “we get this extension done during the season or all options are on the table, including trades.” Not at all saying that I’d want Petey traded. It’s a last resort. But if the numbers aren’t workable in three years, then we need to have a Plan B to maximize return on that asset. Getting to work early on the next extension allows the team to also have maximum time available if negotiations turn south and they have to look to at a trade to recover as much value asset as possible. I also think that they could get a longterm deal could easily get done during the season, if everyone knows that the team plans to make a good faith effort (including very fair market value offers) to complete Petey’s next deal during the season, rather than wait for the off-season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: Even setting a fairly “hard” negotiation deadline at the TDL, and approaching the talks as “we get this extension done during the season or all options are on the table, including trades.” Why? He will still be RFA at the end of this contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, goalie13 said: Why? He will still be RFA at the end of this contract. A few reasons. First, Pettersson’s value in three years might grow beyond what Vancouver can afford. We’ll have to see where the cap goes, and also what new contracts for Boeser, Horvat, Miller, etc might look like. But it’s possible the Canucks won’t have the cap room to keep this core together beyond three years. It it comes to that, they’ll need to consider selling off one of their high profile/high salary players, and they’re much better off having done advanced planning for this, and giving themselves as much time and as many options as possible (which includes selling Pettersson). Additionally, posturing themselves in a way that suggests they’d actually be willing to trade Petey, if his demands are too high, should help the club’s negotiating position. Especially if the team is doing well and the young core really wants to stay together and compete. I also think it’s not generally beneficial to wait long enough for the market to set new comps. I do think that Benning did well, given the environment, but he may have been able to do even better if he’d gotten out ahead of things, and the Canucks had been one of the teams setting the market, rather than having to react to it. There’s also the threat of offer sheets, so once you get into the off-season, the team needs not only to plan for enough cap space to complete an extension, but also display enough space and flexibility to fend off any hostile teams that may look to take advantage. Waiting makes life harder, and off-season planning more of a challenge. It’s much easier to tinker with the roster, and consider making final additions, if Petey’s extension is already on the books, rather than still pending, and having to account for this unknown while the team makes other roster moves. I also think Pettersson may welcome the chance to complete his next extension much earlier the next time around (assuming a fair offer is presented to him), rather than repeat this year’s experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 4 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: A few reasons. I just think taking a hard line like that could have unintended consequences in future negotiations. And I think this summer has proven it's not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU SERIOUS Posted October 2, 2021 Share Posted October 2, 2021 On 9/30/2021 at 10:30 AM, Nuxfanabroad said: It's like buying a Toyota, confident of the re-sale value that shouldn't diminish(at least, that's what we often said back in the 80's & 90's!) That is the team acquiring QH. They may use him for a yr or few, but then down the road if they'd like to move him, they know the Devs will probably re-stock whatever shelves they once emptied. Toyota's have so many very serious recalls in recent years that I bet that is all their mechanics had tiime to deal with in their garages. Not to mention Several multi million dollar settlements with Governments for fines dealing with hidden defects that were eventually expossed. I wouldn't touch a Toyota or Chrysler / Dodge junk even if you gave it to me, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now