hammertime Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Bruce and Hoglander don't mix IMO he is hurting Hoglander's development. But Bruce has enough problems trying to re build Pete and Brock into top 6 ers that it's completely understandable. I have an incredibly hard time penciling Hog into our top 6 while Garland and softies like Pete and Brock are under contract soo in the end it's more of an issue with fit. I have a really hard time moving Hoglander because he is one of my favorite canucks but in the end It may be the best thing for both parties hopefully we don't end up on the wrong end of the Naslund trade. I am of the mind that project re"building Brock" has more to do with his trade value than it does long term aspirations. Lets face it Brock isn't Jeff Carter if we want a cup here and that is our goal we aren't doing it with slow 210 lb guys who have 14 hits on the season or whatever. Brocks a leaner not a lifter just doesn't have the huevos. To the trade. Bruce has expressed explicit interest in acquiring another offensive defenseman. IMO LA's core is looking to retool on the fly I am aware they used 8oa on Brandt last year however he may still be a ways out from playing pro's. He was left off team canada at the WJC and LA already has Sean Durzi and Helge Grans in the pipe at the position. Possibly they have soured on Brandt juuuuuust enough to consider this. I think Nils and Brock get them back to the dance and they are young enough to be a key part of their re tool. To LA Nils + Brock50% To Van Brandt Clarke 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post -DLC- Posted January 23, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2022 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playoff Beered Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 24 minutes ago, hammertime said: Bruce and Hoglander don't mix IMO he is hurting Hoglander's development. But Bruce has enough problems trying to re build Pete and Brock into top 6 ers that it's completely understandable. I have an incredibly hard time penciling Hog into our top 6 while Garland and softies like Pete and Brock are under contract soo in the end it's more of an issue with fit. I have a really hard time moving Hoglander because he is one of my favorite canucks but in the end It may be the best thing for both parties hopefully we don't end up on the wrong end of the Naslund trade. I am of the mind that project re"building Brock" has more to do with his trade value than it does long term aspirations. Lets face it Brock isn't Jeff Carter if we want a cup here and that is our goal we aren't doing it with slow 210 lb guys who have 14 hits on the season or whatever. Brocks a leaner not a lifter just doesn't have the huevos. To the trade. Bruce has expressed explicit interest in acquiring another offensive defenseman. IMO LA's core is looking to retool on the fly I am aware they used 8oa on Brandt last year however he may still be a ways out from playing pro's. He was left off team canada at the WJC and LA already has Sean Durzi and Helge Grans in the pipe at the position. Possibly they have soured on Brandt juuuuuust enough to consider this. I think Nils and Brock get them back to the dance and they are young enough to be a key part of their re tool. To LA Nils + Brock50% To Van Brandt Clarke Huh? We're going to trade two top-6 forwards and retain salary in exchange for a prospect who hasnt played a single NHL game? Great he was a 1st round pick that looks extremely talented but Luke Schenn was drafted #5 overall in 2008.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) "Bruce, there it is!" It as in the door, I mean. Take that proposal with you and gittt outta heeeere. Btw if we trade Brock before he's re-signed (slated to become an RFA) can we even retain anything?? Secondly why are we giving up so much for a puck-mover that we probably don't really need on the right side D? Edited January 23, 2022 by Phil_314 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Coconuts Posted January 23, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2022 Bruce did just fine with the young talent he had in Washington, don't see why he wouldn't be capable of the same here as a more experienced coach Hoglander's a second year player, of course he's got a lot of work to do I think the Hoglander thing is overblown 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted January 23, 2022 Author Share Posted January 23, 2022 16 minutes ago, eeeeergh said: Huh? We're going to trade two top-6 forwards and retain salary in exchange for a prospect who hasnt played a single NHL game? Great he was a 1st round pick that looks extremely talented but Luke Schenn was drafted #5 overall in 2008.... I want nothing to do with Brock at 7m soo ya. Brandt is a helluva good prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 I also don't see LA keen on moving out young talent, I don't see them as rebuilding on the fly at all, they've been in a legitimate rebuild the last few seasons. They've done well this season, but considering Brown is 37, Kopitar is almost 35, and Doughty is 32 it'd make a lot more sense to build gradually. They'll want Clarke stepping in as Doughty is winding down. They're a team on the rise, sure, but I don't imagine Rob Blake is naive enough to think they'll contend sooner than later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, hammertime said: I want nothing to do with Brock at 7m soo ya. Brandt is a helluva good prospect. You'd be treating Brock Boeser as if he was a cap dump. That makes absolutely 0 sense. Its debateable whether his performance deserves his qualifying offer, but at most it would be a 1-2 million dollar overpayment. Considering his age and that he's proven repeatedly that he could produce 30+ goals over a full 82 game season, he can get us a whole lot more than a single prospect. Especially if you're looking to throw in Hoglander too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted January 23, 2022 Author Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, eeeeergh said: You'd be treating Brock Boeser as if he was a cap dump. That makes absolutely 0 sense. Its debateable whether his performance deserves his qualifying offer, but at most it would be a 1-2 million dollar overpayment. Considering his age and that he's proven repeatedly that he could produce 30+ goals over a full 82 game season, he can get us a whole lot more than a single prospect. Especially if you're looking to throw in Hoglander too. I'm sorry when did he prove he could score 30? Its not a cap dump Brandt is a very good RHD prospect for which a high price would be required to acquire. Further more after you pay Brock 7+ whats his trade value? Edited January 23, 2022 by hammertime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 1 hour ago, hammertime said: I want nothing to do with Brock at 7m soo ya. Brandt is a helluva good prospect. Although this may be true, I do not want anything to do with trading him + Höglander for an unproven commodity. That’s incredibly one sided in LA’s favour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 36 minutes ago, hammertime said: I'm sorry when did he prove he could score 30? Its not a cap dump Brandt is a very good RHD prospect for which a high price would be required to acquire. Further more after you pay Brock 7+ whats his trade value? 2017, 2018, 2020 all on pace for 30+ over a full 82 game season. 63% of 1st round picks ever end up playing in the NHL at all. Thats great that Clarke is a good prospect, but again, so was Luke Schenn in 2008 when he was taken in the 1st round, #5 overall. How many of our own 1st round picks over the past 20 years didnt pan out either? You dont give up 2 top-6 forwards, including a prolific goal scorer for an unproven prospect. Los Angeles obviously felt his abilities werent NHL ready yet, or they would have him playing right now. Maybe in a couple years, if hes playing in Los Angeles' top 4, then it makes sense to give up a top 6 forward for him. Here's the list of forwards getting paid 7-7.5m. Boeser hardly seems out of place. As far as his trade value - he would get what any 30+ goal scoring 1st line winter should get thats being paid on a fair value contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted January 23, 2022 Author Share Posted January 23, 2022 7 minutes ago, eeeeergh said: 2017, 2018, 2020 all on pace for 30+ over a full 82 game season. 63% of 1st round picks ever end up playing in the NHL at all. Thats great that Clarke is a good prospect, but again, so was Luke Schenn in 2008 when he was taken in the 1st round, #5 overall. How many of our own 1st round picks over the past 20 years didnt pan out either? You dont give up 2 top-6 forwards, including a prolific goal scorer for an unproven prospect. Los Angeles obviously felt his abilities werent NHL ready yet, or they would have him playing right now. Maybe in a couple years, if hes playing in Los Angeles' top 4, then it makes sense to give up a top 6 forward for him. Here's the list of forwards getting paid 7-7.5m. Boeser hardly seems out of place. As far as his trade value - he would get what any 30+ goal scoring 1st line winter should get thats being paid on a fair value contract. I really disagree. IMO at 7+M he's a negative value player. On the market right now JR would be lucky to get a pick in the 25-35 range with retention. At the draft last year you would have had to pay astronomically more to acquire the pick to draft Bandt than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 2 hours ago, hammertime said: I'm sorry when did he prove he could score 30? Its not a cap dump Brandt is a very good RHD prospect for which a high price would be required to acquire. Further more after you pay Brock 7+ whats his trade value? Let's not get technical here. He scored 29 goals in 62 games, 26 goals in 69 games and 23 goals in 56 games. Any GM with a brain would evaluate him as a 30 goal scorer, whether or not he technically scored that 30th goal or not... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 1 hour ago, hammertime said: I really disagree. IMO at 7+M he's a negative value player. On the market right now JR would be lucky to get a pick in the 25-35 range with retention. At the draft last year you would have had to pay astronomically more to acquire the pick to draft Bandt than this. 7 million isnt a elite salary anymore, thats 11-12 million (Matthews, McDavid, etc.). 7 million is what you pay to a top 6 player thats going to get you 30 goals. JT Miller is going to get 8.5m+ as a UFA this year. Do you think Barzal, Keller, Matthew Tkachuk, Landeskog are negative value players? Because they're all comparable to Boeser in production and command 7m+. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted January 23, 2022 Author Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, eeeeergh said: 7 million isnt a elite salary anymore, thats 11-12 million (Matthews, McDavid, etc.). 7 million is what you pay to a top 6 player thats going to get you 30 goals. JT Miller is going to get 8.5m+ as a UFA this year. Do you think Barzal, Keller, Matthew Tkachuk, Landeskog are negative value players? Because they're all comparable to Boeser in production and command 7m+. do you really think Boeser with an 7+m price tag would be tradable straight across for any of those players..........? Maybe Keller the 30 goal scorer....... maybe. Edited January 23, 2022 by hammertime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Just now, hammertime said: do you really think Boeser with an 7+m price tag would be tradable straight across for any of those players..........? Maybe Keller....... maybe. Boesers production has been equal to or greater than all of them when you look at all their past several seasons, so yes. It feels like you're adding extra weight to this season for Boeser which has not been as good as his previous seasons, but every player on that list has had a season or more where they underperformed a bit or had a cold streak. Landeskog in 2016-2017 had a extreme off year. Barzal is having a major off year this year. Tkachuk had an off year last year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 A few things. Having available salary cap, and wanting to spend it is two different things. Given we're still in the midst of a pandemic. Given that some cities are playing at 50% capacity. There's a lot of uncertainly going on. I don't think too many teams are looking to take salary, even 50% off. Look at Kane. Nobody took the bait on 50% retained by the Sharks. I have a feeling the savvy GM's are wanting to see what pans out in Edmonton and even Toronto. If McDavid or LD wants out of Edmonton. No one is going to want to spend money on Canucks players then. They might even want to see what happens when Vancouver gets an actual GM. 1 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