[Rumour] Tyler Motte drawing interest

[Harold Drunken]

You need players like Motte on your team, I'm a big fan of his. Reliable, probably one of the hardest working players we have...but like others have said my option on moving him will 100% be based on the return of course. Don't move him just for the sake of moving him, Motte does miss some games too...

Edited January 17, 2022 by CJ44

[King Heffy]

6 minutes ago, HKSR said:

 

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. 

Because we need to get younger. I'd prefer a prospect who fits our needs, but you have to give to get.  If there isn't a good return, you keep Motte.

 

[HKSR]

49 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

This is the part that drives me nuts with Canucks fans.

 

Hey!  Let's trade Player X cuz he's a UFA and would cost too much.  Then let's acquire Player Y to replace Player X that just left... even though he's basically what we needed in the first place.  Great!  Now that we've given up assets to acquire Player Y to replace Player X, we can move on to the next project... moving Player A, and acquiring Player B to replace Player A...

 

See the following:

JT Miller -- move him, then find player(s) that can score as much as him, leads like him, plays hard and gritty like him, and also plays centre

Tyler Myers -- move him, then find a Top 4 RHD to replace him... oh, and preferably with size and a bit of a mean streak

Tyler Motte -- move him, then find a good bottom 6 player that can play the PK and chip in offence from the 4th line

Brock Boeser -- move him, then find a player to replace him that can score lots of goals... oh, a right hand shot would be beneficial...

 

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Because we need to get younger. I'd prefer a prospect who fits our needs, but you have to give to get.  If there isn't a good return, you keep Motte.

 

I'd be absolutely shocked if the return on Motte is worth more than his worth is to the Canucks. 

[stawns]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

he is due a raise tho, and does have some injury history. If we were offered e.g., a 3rd and a b prospect I'd be pretty happy with that. We also have Lockwood on an ELC next year. 

That's likely what teams would be willing togive up, however, to me, Motte's value to the team is higher than that.  I think if they make some big moves, Motte is a guy who will finally get a look at a top 6 audition after the deadline.

[-AJ-]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

he is due a raise tho, and does have some injury history. If we were offered e.g., a 3rd and a b prospect I'd be pretty happy with that. We also have Lockwood on an ELC next year. 

Personally, I'd put Motte's value at more than that, unless we think we won't be able to keep him.

[JayDangles]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

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. 

 

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

I'm kind of excited by the idea that JR is coming to the team without any attachments or history. It likely means any moves makes is done without emotion, bias, drafting position etc. Whatever moves he makes will hopefully only take into account one thing. Does this make the team better?

[JM_]

14 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Personally, I'd put Motte's value at more than that, unless we think we won't be able to keep him.

unless JR is able to shed salary elsewhere, I don't see how we keep him with a raise. 

[J-P]

 No question Motte is worth more to us then his trade return would be. But that's how free agency works, and also it's very short sighted to conclude we should keep him for that reason alone.

 

We need the cap space and to get younger and to stop losing assets for nothing, and we also need 4th liners making closer to league minimum vs the 2 mil+ Motte will likely get. Just look at Lammiko and Highmore the last few games.

 

Motte also has an injury history and a style of play that makes health a concern. He's fine at his current salary, but a substantial raise should not be on the table imo.

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, J-P said:

 No question Motte is worth more to us then his trade return would be. But that's how free agency works, and also it's very short sighted to conclude we should keep him for that reason alone.

 

We need the cap space and to get younger and to stop losing assets for nothing, and we also need 4th liners making closer to league minimum vs the 2 mil+ Motte will likely get. Just look at Lammiko and Highmore the last few games.

 

Motte also has an injury history and a style of play that makes health a concern. He's fine at his current salary, but a substantial raise should not be on the table imo.

He'll quickly become a whipping boy on here if he gets market value.  Look at how many people were complaining about Beagle and his lack of offence.

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, stawns said:

That's likely what teams would be willing togive up, however, to me, Motte's value to the team is higher than that.  I think if they make some big moves, Motte is a guy who will finally get a look at a top 6 audition after the deadline.

is Motte in the top 6 really something we want?

[Coconuts]

50 minutes ago, HKSR said:

 

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. 

He's 27 in March, whoever signs him to his next contract likely gets him through the remainder of his prime. Let's not pretend he's young, he's getting towards the peak of his prime. And I don't see a team getting him for under 2M, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get something along the lines of what Dickinson is getting as a UFA, there are always teams willing to overpay. 

 

Nobody's arguing he's not a good player. But the same reason's he's valuable to us are the same reasons teams are sniffing around. As for moving players out for Motte, maybe JR agrees with you, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he thinks we've got someone in the system who can do a similar job to Motte for less, others have mentioned Lockwood as a player who could potentially do so. JR wants to get younger, and cap matters. If JR's freeing up cap space we've got more pressing matters, defense, than a guy who MAY be a third liner. 

 

It's not "dumping", teams move on from players every year. Sometimes you've got to consider getting something for a pending UFA as opposed to losing him for nothing. If JR doesn't see him being a fit going forward, and that's anyone's guess, Motte may very well be on the table. 

 

It also depends on what teams offer, everyone on this team is moveable if the right deal comes along. Everyone. Does that mean you should be looking to move everyone? Of course not. But a GM who isn't taking calls and listening to offers isn't doing his job. Management has to consider the vision of the entire team, not just Tyler Motte. 

 

And I don't care, it's not about new and shiny, it's about asset management. That's how we got Motte in the first place, trading Vanek. 

 

14 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

I'm kind of excited by the idea that JR is coming to the team without any attachments or history. It likely means any moves makes is done without emotion, bias, drafting position etc. Whatever moves he makes will hopefully only take into account one thing. Does this make the team better?

Yup, having a guy who doesn't have all these bonds established overseeing things is refreshing. And if he's shown anything over his career it's that he's willing to be ruthless and make trades. I'm confident he'll make the moves necessary to move this team forward. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Coconuts

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, JM_ said:

is Motte in the top 6 really something we want?

I don't see why it's not worth an audition.  We have a top 6 based, almost exclusively, on skilled players.........why not construct your top 6 a little differently.  Motte is a puck retrieval guy who has pretty decent hands and skilled guys like playing with someone like that.  I've been saying for a couple of years they should try and create a more balanced line up

[stawns]

33 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Personally, I'd put Motte's value at more than that, unless we think we won't be able to keep him.

That's the determining factor, for sure

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't see why it's not worth an audition.  We have a top 6 based, almost exclusively, on skilled players.........why not construct your top 6 a little differently.  Motte is a puck retrieval guy who has pretty decent hands and skilled guys like playing with someone like that.  I've been saying for a couple of years they should try and create a more balanced line up

Wouldn't mind seeing him with Petey in a similar role to Burrows with the Sedins.

[-AJ-]

11 minutes ago, stawns said:

That's the determining factor, for sure

Indeed. If he's just going to leave as a UFA, then sell away for whatever we can get him. Our odds at the playoffs are already extremely minimal. However, if he's willing to stay for a good price, I'd rather hold on to him and sign him for a nice 3 or 4-year deal.

[86Viking]

4 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

I would keep Motte, great 4th line player who can be the guy on his line. Hits, PK's and plays all out every game. Unless a team wants to over pay with a pair of 2nd round picks or a 1st I want us to keep Motte. That said, it all comes down to price tag and term.

 

With his mental health initiative and him being such a hard worker I think this would be a HUGE LOSS of a player...kind of like losing Tanev, bad moral for the team to lose a good player who shouldn't be out of our price range to retain.

 

Just need a new GM soon and hopefully they see the same in Motte as most on here and we make him a contract offer before the TDL to gauge his interest in staying in Vancouver.

[stawns]

24 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Indeed. If he's just going to leave as a UFA, then sell away for whatever we can get him. Our odds at the playoffs are already extremely minimal. However, if he's willing to stay for a good price, I'd rather hold on to him and sign him for a nice 3 or 4-year deal.

agree 100%

[Jester13]

Tyler Motte games played: 

 

31

15

74

34

24

23

 

I get it, he tries hard every shift and is well-like by teammates and fans, but we have to be thinking about the long-term health of the team (pun intended). 

[N4ZZY]

4 hours ago, King Heffy said:

He'd be a really nice piece for a contender.  I love the guy but I'm not opposed to a good return. 

What if he’s traded this deadline and then signs with the Canucks in the off-season?