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

[GDT] December 19, 2021 GAME POSTPONED (Was Arizona @ Vancouver) - PLEASE KEEP IT TO HOCKEY RELATED TALK

Rate this topic


Goal:thecup

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

The win/win on a trade like that is something like Nieuwendyk for a developing Iginla, Mogilny for a developing Peca.  Or two lesser pieces that actually kind of add up to the big piece like Bernie Nicholls for Tomas Sandstrom and Tony Granato.

 

Too often it is two good players for each other and one goes off a cliff immediately after the trade.  Joe Thornton for Marco Sturm.  Doug Gilmour for Gary Leeman.

 

Or else a top player for stuff that just doesn't add up to his value...  Bure (VAN) for package, Kesler (VAN) for package, Patrick Roy (MTL) for package, Steve Larmer (CHI) for package, Paul Coffey (EDM) for package (which included quality in Craig Simpson but still wasn't equivalent to a 100 point defenseman).

Considering Kesler was only interested in 1-2 teams, it didn't give the Canucks much choice. 

It will be interesting to see what happens with Eichel for the deal with Buffalo. Tuch and the 1st may pan out, but I doubt Buffalo got much value. But he was injured and did have back surgery. He may not be the same. He may fully recover, and be even better with a stronger supporting cast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Considering Kesler was only interested in 1-2 teams, it didn't give the Canucks much choice. 

It will be interesting to see what happens with Eichel for the deal with Buffalo. Tuch and the 1st may pan out, but I doubt Buffalo got much value. But he was injured and did have back surgery. He may not be the same. He may fully recover, and be even better with a stronger supporting cast. 

 

At the same time, it was within Benning's power to wait out Kesler if he was willing to put up with annoying calls from his agent every other day.  Benning chose to move quickly under those constraints.  Kesler may have loosened his restrictions.

 

Players and management have been in those kinds of situations before.  Larmer holding out, Lindros refusing to join the team, Roy quitting on the team mid-season.  Bure.  Benning didn't do that poorly under the circumstances - he got something - but then oddly enough himself undervalued the primary return in Bonino.

 

 

Edited by Kevin Biestra
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

At the same time, it was within Benning's power to wait out Kesler if he was willing to put up with annoying calls from his agent every other day.  Benning chose to move quickly under those constraints.  Kesler may have loosened his restrictions.

 

Players and management have been in those kinds of situations before.  Larmer holding out, Lindros refusing to join the team, Roy quitting on the team mid-season.  Bure.  Benning didn't do that poorly under the circumstances - he got something - but then oddly enough himself undervalued the primary return in Bonino.

 

 

 

Yeah, getting Bonino + 1st was already a decent enough return for Kesler, a player whose body was so badly damaged already because of his play style. I don't know why he had to trade Bonino so fast after he helped us make the playoffs in 2015. 

 

I think he overvalued Sutter, rather than undervaluing Bonino.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Devron44 said:

Yup and I will be the one to say told you so. Just like I laugh at people wanting to trade Boeser for Dumba. It’s all laughable and belongs in the proposal section

It's a difficult topic for sure.   Funny thing, we also signed our "best players" in the Sedins, two HHOF types one last time, and that's likely what the second half of Millers next deal will look like best case.   Not maybe, or possibly, best case.   He's not the fastest as is, and once that step is lost not sure how effective his game will be in the top six.   And if he keeps it up, 8-9x 8 is what he's going to get for sure.   Maybe more like Stone got.     He's not much different then AP as far as value goes when he came up, same age (30), plays first line C and or LW/vs top line D... not a terrible anchor to have.     That's a lot of cap space .... but not ridiculous either.     We should reasonably expect 4 years of top line play.    After that middle six for the remainder and probably a buyout near the end.  Approx half way through that deal QHs will be up.   It's a tough topic, but a valid one, and better to discuss then covid i suppose too.    Think it might come down to when Rutherford sees our window.   If he thinks it's open now and we have enough coming up to sustain it, then maybe sign him - or maybe trade him anyways to fill two needs.    Liked the examples used in this thread about former trades, who won those etc.    Tough call.  

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alflives said:

How would Moving Myers help us fill any holes?  He’s playing great and close to 30 min a game.  Boeser is our top winger.  IMHAO the odd man out might be my fellow alien.  

Myers is not a defensive D man. We have enough offense   Rathbone waiting for an opening. 

It will be interesting to see what they decide.  Is there even players available who would be better suited to what the team needs?

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, appleboy said:

Myers is not a defensive D man. We have enough offense   Rathbone waiting for an opening. 

It will be interesting to see what they decide.  Is there even players available who would be better suited to what the team needs?

Sorry, but I don't know what or who you are watching. Myers has been awesome this season, and trading him would leave an even larger hole on the Canuck d.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, John.Tallhouse said:

I’ve been hating on Myers for a hot minute. But he’s been pretty solid this season. Gotta chill on the penalties but I’ve liked his game lately. 

I know exactly what you mean.  It's like BB knows how Myers should be deployed and the light bulb turned on for Myers.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

You could say that for everyone on the team. 

Yeah.

 

But mainly taking about our high priced players underperforming.  Myers isn't afforded top PP minutes anymore.  And if his best game is to be Defensive Defenceman...$6M is a tough pill to swallow (in the sense of trying to keep the forward group together cap wise).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IBatch said:

It's a difficult topic for sure.   Funny thing, we also signed our "best players" in the Sedins, two HHOF types one last time, and that's likely what the second half of Millers next deal will look like best case.   Not maybe, or possibly, best case.   He's not the fastest as is, and once that step is lost not sure how effective his game will be in the top six.   And if he keeps it up, 8-9x 8 is what he's going to get for sure.   Maybe more like Stone got.     He's not much different then AP as far as value goes when he came up, same age (30), plays first line C and or LW/vs top line D... not a terrible anchor to have.     That's a lot of cap space .... but not ridiculous either.     We should reasonably expect 4 years of top line play.    After that middle six for the remainder and probably a buyout near the end.  Approx half way through that deal QHs will be up.   It's a tough topic, but a valid one, and better to discuss then covid i suppose too.    Think it might come down to when Rutherford sees our window.   If he thinks it's open now and we have enough coming up to sustain it, then maybe sign him - or maybe trade him anyways to fill two needs.    Liked the examples used in this thread about former trades, who won those etc.    Tough call.  

I like your analysis and realize that everyone has their own opinion on Miller - which is fine and fun, he's kinda a polarizing player - but in my eyes and I hope in JR:s it's not a tough call at all. Thank you for your contribution but within our window of contention you're not a good contract, not the right age and not the right type of player to not be at the right age and cap hit, so we'll deal you before your current contract expires. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Bure led the NHL in goals twice for Florida.  Then they got a first round pick for him...they didn't do much with the pick but that's kind of beside the point.

 

Jovanovski was good and stuck around for a while, but the Canucks got literally nothing for him in the end.  I'll take two Rocket Richard trophies and then a return for the player over a half dozen years of being maybe around the 15th best defenseman in the league and then walking for nothing.  Jovanovski still had a good run and was definitely a significant return for Bure (the Canucks could have done a lot worse in the deal), but I wouldn't call it winning the trade.

 

Mogilny achieved less as a Canuck than Bure did as a Panther, in a similar number of games, and look at how high Mogilny still rates in greatest Canuck of all time polls on here.

 

Unfortunately, Bure wanted out. He wasn't going to play for the Canucks and that's why the deal was made. It's wishful thinking that he could be convinced to stick around and have those two Rocket Richard trophies here in Vancouver because the truth is that was never going to happen.

 

The trade was fine. Jovo was a great pick up and he was a former #1 overall draft pick. And he was the Canucks franchise defensemen during the WCE era. It's a shame we didn't get something for him at the end of his contract but that happens. The Nathan Smith pick was pretty bad but the 2000 draft was a pretty weak year all things considered. Justin Williams would've been a better pick (he went 5 picks after Nathan Smith) and you can make an argument that Henrik Lundqvist was the best player of that draft year and he didn't go until the 7th round and he didn't make it to North America until 5 years later (where he, ironically, would back up Kevin Weekes who was a piece in the Bure trade). Gagner was a pure rental and at the end of his career. Weekes was supposed to be a better goalie than he turned out to be (he was supposed to be a great starter but turned into a good backup instead) and Mike Brown, a former 1st round pick, didn't really live up the hype of being a first round pick.  

 

Was their a better trade to be made for Bure? Perhaps... but Bure forced his way out and there wasn't much Brian Burke could do.

  • Thanks 1
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...