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

[Rumour] Tyler Motte drawing interest


Recommended Posts

Not sure Motte is a player we want to lose, imo, and I imagine Bruce doesn't want to see him leave either.

 

They should get together with Motte's camp and see what his ask is going to look like. If he wants a bit payday, then we trade what we can get. But if he'd be ok with, say, 1.5, I think that's something we need to strongly consider. He brings a whole lot more to the table than just single digit annual contributions on the scoresheet. 

 

To me, he's a no-brainer keeper - though man does he ever get injured a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I don't understand the willingness to trade the only good players we have. There's q reason teams are interested. He is one of the best bottom 6 players in the league. We finally get a good one who isn't a pylon and want to trade him?

 

Motte is young, you build your bottom 6 around him and sign him long term. He's been playing 3rd line minutes lately and deserves to be paid like a 3rd line winger who can kill penalties and score the odd goal, 10-15 in a full season is pretty likely. We're not going to get a massive return on him anyway and no prospect or 2nd-3rd round pick is worth what he brings to the table. It's no surprise Highmore looks so good, he's playing alongside Motte.

I think both Highmore and Lammikko are playing well since the coaching change.

 

Motte is a driver on his line but for the right return we should move him since he will likely ask 2-3 mil or he walks. I don't think we can afford 2.5 mil 3rd/4th liner even if it's one as great as Motte.

 

I agree with your assessment that over a full season he can be a 15 goal scorer, like Blake Coleman light. But he hasn't put up a full season since 2018-19.

 

Remember Dorsett? He was a great player to have as well but his career got short because of injuries. And at that time, we spending 2.5 mil on him on a rebuilding team was not a big deal. But now we are under cap crunch so we might have to move on from Motte and hope a guy like Lockwood can come up and replace him.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Motte, but he simply cannot stay healthy enough to keep and give a raise to. I may get a few Player Name wats for this, but I think he's slightly overrated and is easily replaceable with someone who can stay healthy. I'd rather have a pick for him and give Lockwood a shot eventually, and Bailey another shot this year. Now, if Motte is willing to sign again to his current deal then I'm all ears. 

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

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

Only if we get an overpayment. He's not old, so I'd be surprised if JR is keen on moving him.

Ya, it doesn’t make a ton of sense unless a team really loves him or he wants a huge raise (we should know his ask by now since he can be extended any time) .  He is 26, a good penalty killer, pots in some secondary offence, and will likely cost $2 million a year or less if you are comfortable giving him 2-3 years of term.


If we trade Motte, we need to sign another Motte as we already don’t have many good penalty killers. 

 

Teams aren’t going to give more than a 3rd or a really late 2nd pick for him and he is worth more to us than that.  If some team wants to give a blue chip almost NHL ready prospect sure, but I don’t think he commands that in the trade market.

 

One hopes that the allure of being a UFA for him is also tempered by knowing he is in a good spot right now and being successful.  For lower end NHL players some guaranteed money and term can be really attractive.

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rekker said:

I disagree. Dickenson is the kind of player we need more of. He isn't easy to play against. 

Surely we can get someone else who is hard to play against and is overall better than him for less the amount..

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

Exactly, most folks cant think 1 year ahead like GM's do. It's not that we want to trade Motte, it's if he is going to cost too much to keep, then why lose him for nothing.

 

I bet its the same folks who said "I dont want to trade Markstrom and Tanev, they are our best guys" Then they walk and the same people are like "Why did JB let them walk for nothing"

 

Unfortunately JT Miller has played himself into the same category, and some big decisions are going to be made. I think this is the first time in a long time where I really dont have an emotional attachment to anyone on this team. (Except maybe EP and Garland)

 

Bottom line is that management can't afford to get too attached to certain players. Every player is moveable for a price, if the right deal comes along. Working under the cap JR and co need to be capable of making tough decisions in order to juggle the cap and flesh out the roster the best they can. If that involves moving players the fanbase might not want to see go, so be it. 

 

And yup, in some cases it probably is. You can't stress the importance of asset management and then be unwilling to move out assets. We as fans get attached to players, but the bottom line is that the NHL is a business and every player knows that. Fans can afford to be sentimental, those hired and paid handsomely to perform hockey management roles can't let sentimentality get in the way. 

 

I agree on Miller, I think him and possibly Boeser might go. Maybe Pearson, maybe Motte. Hard to say. I'm attached to some of our guys, but not nearly as attached as I was to our 2010 era core. We were competitive then, it was easier to want to keep the gang together given how close it felt like we were. We've made the playoffs twice in eight years, we're a fringe playoff team right now, I'm not as invested in this group. And that doesn't make me any less a fan than those who are more attached. 

 

21 minutes ago, mll said:

Friedman concurs with Dhaliwal, who already said last week that it's unlikely he would waive.

That's kinda what I figure would happen, makes our cap squeeze all the tighter next season.

Edited by Coconuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

Teams aren’t going to give more than a 3rd or a really late 2nd pick for him and he is worth more to us than that.  If some team wants to give a blue chip almost NHL ready prospect sure, but I don’t think he commands that in the trade market.

What about a guy like Prokop from Nashville?  Not exactly a blue chip but fits a need for us going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I don't understand the willingness to trade the only good players we have. There's q reason teams are interested. He is one of the best bottom 6 players in the league. We finally get a good one who isn't a pylon and want to trade him?

 

Motte is young, you build your bottom 6 around him and sign him long term. He's been playing 3rd line minutes lately and deserves to be paid like a 3rd line winger who can kill penalties and score the odd goal, 10-15 in a full season is pretty likely. We're not going to get a massive return on him anyway and no prospect or 2nd-3rd round pick is worth what he brings to the table. It's no surprise Highmore looks so good, he's playing alongside Motte.

Agree on all... that's why there there's an interest...

Everyone has a price... and Motte might bring something good back. 

Think they will be reluctant to let him go, but he is UFA at the end of the season, and god knows, what he is looking for, but don't expect it to be less than what Dickinson gets...

 

I'm probably one of Mottes greatest fans... Used to be Hansen, then it was Dorsett... but understand the reasons...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

What about a guy like Prokop from Nashville?  Not exactly a blue chip but fits a need for us going forward.

Nashville are also in a transition to get younger.  Poile announced that they were in a rebuild last summer - calls it a competitive rebuild / transition where he still wants them to compete but recognises that they need to get younger and wants to re-stock their prospect pool.  He traded Arvidsson for 2x 2nd round picks as part of that transition.  

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mll said:

Nashville are also in a transition to get younger.  Poile announced that they were in a rebuild last summer - calls it a competitive rebuild / transition where he still wants them to compete but recognises that they need to get younger and wants to re-stock their prospect pool.  He traded Arvidsson for 2x 2nd round picks as part of that transition.  

Fair, that's just the kind of player I'd be targeting.  We need some prospects in the pipeline badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's one of those guys - not young (25+) playoff type player playing on a non-playoff team.

 

Motte is 26, gets injured often, but his value is probably as high as it will ever be. Try and get a 2nd or a good prospect for him

 

Edited by NUCKER67
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

We want the team to get younger.  We don't accomplish that by keeping every player we like.

 

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

Nobody's saying trade them all, but the reality is that all three players are either pending UFA or pending RFA and we have larger contract decisions looming. When working under the cap you've always got to be analyzing how the cap works out. Management can't afford the sentimentality of the fanbase. 

He's 26 years old and an absolute key player for us in the bottom 6 and PK.  What needs to happen is the Canucks need to identify the players that will help the team win.  Sure, Motte will get a raise, but that's when you take a look at guys like Dickinson and Poolman and realize THOSE are the players that should be traded.  Dickinson and/or Poolman won't get you a 2nd round pick, but if it means taking back a 5th round pick to unload them, then it's worthwhile because you just kept Tyler Motte.

 

I really don't understand the rationale around dumping the valuable players on our team simply because they are upcoming free agents.  You look at what these players bring to the table vs their relative cap hit to the overall budget.

 

I find too many fans simply want draft picks all the time because it's exciting to have more picks at the draft. 

  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Canucks Curse said:

I rather try to get Dickinson moved for 2nd or get our 3rd back, a little too much cap for what he brings - he is not fast, he is not a physical force, not great on Fosses, not great PKer

You are so right. Dickinson is Mr. Average. He is not really good at skating, shooting, passing, PKing, forchecking or defending. But he is not bad either. God i wish we can get rid of Dickinson and recoup the third.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...