Poll and Comments on Trade Deadline Strategy

[spook007]

50 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

You forgot the worst franchise centre this season Elias Pettersson. 

What do you expect to get for Petey?

[ShawnAntoski]

For this season: let things play out, don't chase a playoff spot, by sticking with the same roster and sell what can be traded - with big focus on the draft. 

 

The success of the season, will depend on what management will get with the assets traded 

[spook007]

8 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said:

We have Petterson, horvat, Garland, miller, boeser. Yet still having problems scoring? 

Personally think we need more grit on the top two lines to go along with the skill. 

I'm looking to trade boeser and garland.( Did you notice the play of that Jeanott kid the other night?)

I really like Pearson but I think he's trending down.

My trade plan would be as follows:

Have a discussion with the Miller camp and see if they are willing to discuss his extension. If they aren't or if the price is to high then he needs to be moved. 

Trade Pearson 

Trade Boeser

Trade garland.

 

Our focus should be  draft picks for these 3 players.  If we are going to replace these guys I would rather do it through free agents. 

I'm not sure how else we are going to get our prospect pool where it should be? 

For miller though I would like at least one quality roster player in addition to youth (picks, prospects) preferably I want truculance on this team. At least 2 forwards that can hit and play hockey. 

So my vision over the next two years is to build up the prospect pool and get meaner. 

The two biggest key things for this team right now are to get Pete back to his old self and handling the miller situation and get as much from that as we can. It's huge. 

I'm not sold on Martin or dipietro. 

Not sure what those two are worth, but I'd be looking to replace them both. 

Kyle Burroughs is a keeper. 

Liked your idea right up to the part, what comes back has to be picks... The concern being picks are harder to predict...

I'd prefer a mix... 

The top players should at least bring good or great prospects back (reason being they are a season or 3 further in their development, so we know, we'll get something useable back... if its all picks, we could end up with nothing... picks are defo no guarantees...nevertheless I like you proposal... 

I'll be surprised if Brock isn't moved and expect Miller to be gone as well...

 

[spook007]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

There have been many comments on the Canucks' trade deadline strategy in various threads so I thought I would collect overall opinion by using a poll. Also, I wanted to make comments on a distinction that I have not seen previously discussed -- the distinction between what people think the club SHOULD do and what they think it WILL do.  

 

The three options are i) being sellers, ii) standing pat or iii) being buyers. I don't don't think the third option is a likely option but I included it for completeness. "Standing pat" could include small "hockey trades" -- trading one player for another at about the same career stage, like trading a depth forward for a depth defenceman or whatever. 

 

My answers are as follows.

 

SHOULD

 

First, as for what the Canucks should do, I think they should be sellers. I think they should make at least one big move (Miller and/or Boeser) and one or more smaller but still significant moves (Motte, Schenn, Halak, etc. ) and, for the right deal, it could make sense to move Garland, Myers, or Pearson. 

 

The argument against the seller option is the Canucks have been doing well since Boudreau took over, have an outside chance of making the playoffs this year, and would be favored to make the playoffs next year if they stand pat. 

 

The problem is that the Canucks are not as good as they looked during the initial Boudreau winning streak. Yes, they are better than they looked in the first part of the season and Boudreau is a better coach than Green. But a big part of their early success with Boudreau was having a red-hot goaltender. In that period Demko was the best goalie in the NHL with a save percentage around 95%. Demko is good, but that performance level is unsustainable. Also, the Canucks benefitted from the temporary energy boost that teams often get from a coaching change but that is also unsustainable. And that win streak had a lot of close games that could have gone either way. Also the quality of opposition was no more average.

 

As recent games indicate, the Canucks are not in same class as the top teams in the league and are no more than marginal playoff contenders. I would also add that the Canucks are a relatively slow team and a relatively soft team. And they do not generate have scoring. They would be unlikely to do well in the playoffs even if they did make it this year.

 

Also, if the Canucks do try to stand pat, they will decline after next year as they have a weak pipeline, aging players in key positions (OEL, Myers) and will almost certainly lose Miller. And it is doubtful that they even can stand pat as they do not have enough cap room to qualify Boeser. Something has to give. 

 

And, personally, I want to see a Cup in my lifetime. I have been following the Canucks since they entered the NHL and I want to see the team try to build a Cup contender. The current team is not a Cup contender. But, they have a chance to build a contender around an excellent goalie, a potential Norris-quality D-man (Hughes) and other two other key players who are still young (Horvat and Pettersson). They have a great opportunity to acquire assets that will allow for a window of opportunity to make Cup runs possibly as early as next year and quite likely two or three years down the road. 

 

WILL

 

I am pretty sure that JR will make significant moves. First, based on his comments, my sense is that he views the situation in a similar way to what I have just described. Second, I am sure he wants to put his mark on the team. He will not to run with the Benning team, which is what he has right now.

 

GM's and team presidents never explicitly criticize the people they replace. JR has come as close to explicit criticism as I have seen for such a situation. He has said that a team that is not in a playoff position should not be so cap-constrained. He also said that a team in the Canucks' position should not be trading high draft picks (like the Canucks have just done--going without first round picks for the past two years.) He has also indicated that the age structure of the team is not ideal. 

 

I think JR dislikes what I see as the Benning model -- mortgage the future in attempt to maybe sneak into the playoffs "now". I think JR wants to rebuild the prospect pipeline and realign the age distribution of the team so that an affordable group of high quality players peak together to open a Cup window.

 

JR said he would observe the team through January and then decide on strategy. The moves will not necessarily start right away and there is probably some advantage until waiting until closer to the deadline. JR could wait until the season is over, but you can often get the best possible deals at the deadline. It is certainly the easiest time to pick up draft picks. 

 

In any case, I am sure JR did not come to Vancouver to just oversee the team built by Benning. I think he is eager to get moving on restructuring the team. 

 

Another great post James...

Like your last line. Agree 100%... A man known to like a trade or 50 is hardly gonna sit pat for long unless the team is smashing it up... 

[D.B Cooper]

Even though it’s new management and blah blah blah blah.  
 

It’s still the Canucks.  
 

My guess is it’s going to be the same as always.  
A bunch of Meh moves, followed by excuses why they couldn’t get it done.  

[erkayloomeh]

6 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Liked your idea right up to the part, what comes back has to be picks... The concern being picks are harder to predict...

I'd prefer a mix... 

The top players should at least bring good or great prospects back (reason being they are a season or 3 further in their development, so we know, we'll get something useable back... if its all picks, we could end up with nothing... picks are defo no guarantees...nevertheless I like you proposal... 

I'll be surprised if Brock isn't moved and expect Miller to be gone as well...

 

Good point. I guess if your getting good prospects that look like there trending upwards then that would be ideal. 

otherwise if its picks that are good, then dont forget they are tradable for players as well especially if you can take advantage of someone tight on the cap....like we did with Miller. 

Pretty sweet we got a couple years out of Miller (where would we be without him this year) and are likely going to recoup more than what we gave up.

[Ballisticsports.]

42 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

You're really underestimating how much of a problem a locker room cancer like Green can be.  Naslund almost requested a trade thanks to Keenan, should be have been moved?

 

This is the first time in Petterson's career they he has played under an NHL quality coach, and he's finally responding.  It makes no sense to sell low.

I get you hate Green, but where is your proof Green wrecked him and Ep didn't do it on his own lack of commitment?

That is just making excuses for EP

Did Green or Bruce tell him to no longer back check or stay planted and not move around and shoot wide all the time, fumble the puck etc?

 

EP played like a all star under Green up until this year when he got his raise

Benning was quoted last Spring that signing Green was a high priority BECAUSE the players liked playing for him and trusted him

To just state he was cancer ,where is your proof, especially since Benning said otherwise?

 

I am just glad we got some new change in direction from the top down and hopefully make us an elite team once again

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

I know you're kind of locked into moving Miller, but there might be other avenues to improvement, like Boeser and Garland, and moving other contracts. 

Sure but then you're tweaking around the edges and this team needs more than that. Like way more. ESPECIALLY given the structural and succession issues.

 

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

 

But for sure there are some real issues on the right side defence that aren't going to be solved any other way if we're looking at a competitive window sooner than later. 

You can't properly address those issues while retaining Miller. At least I think you finally agree lol. And IMO, Miller or not, we're not contending with those issues...ergo...

[King Heffy]

14 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I get you hate Green, but where is your proof Green wrecked him and Ep didn't do it on his own lack of commitment?

That is just making excuses for EP

Did Green or Bruce tell him to no longer back check or stay planted and not move around and shoot wide all the time, fumble the puck etc?

 

EP played like a all star under Green up until this year when he got his raise

Benning was quoted last Spring that signing Green was a high priority BECAUSE the players liked playing for him and trusted him

To just state he was cancer ,where is your proof, especially since Benning said otherwise?

 

I am just glad we got some new change in direction from the top down and hopefully make us an elite team once again

 

Well Green threw the players under the bus for things that were clearly his fault, and gifted unearned roster spots to his pet plugs.  Do you want a coach with serious character issues anywhere near your locker room?  Add in the fact that he couldn't even set the lineup properly and it's pretty obvious he is the root cause of the problem.  Bruce has specifically said that effort isn't the issue.

Edited February 3, 2022 by King Heffy

[Rabbit]

Clearly Canucks should be the seller, both before TDL and off season.

 

The only issue is what players to be traded?

JT  - I agreed he should be traded, due to cap issue, but do not know before TDL  or off season.

Pettersson - I would like to keep him, if the coaches have confidence to coach him back to two years before.

Boeser - He will be a very valued asset to trade, what the returns JR want.

Garland  -  I will agree to trade him

 Pearson - I like him, but I think the GM will use him as a sweet in the big moves.

Bottom 6 - most of them are great in the bottom six positions, might be small moves.

Huges, Schenn and Myers -  I like to keep these three defensemen, the only issues is how to fix our RD.

Goalie - Keep Demko, Spenser and trade Halak.

 

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

He's started to play better now that he doesn't have a coach actively destroying his confidence.  It's going to take a while to undo all the damage Green caused to Petey and the rest of the players.

The same one who let EP and Brock and QHs come into the league and with very little start time work their way all the way up?   Can't have it both ways.   Whatever is going on with these guys is 100% on them.   It's been two months. 

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

The same one who let EP and Brock and QHs come into the league and with very little start time work their way all the way up?   Can't have it both ways.   Whatever is going on with these guys is 100% on them.   It's been two months. 

They succeeded in spite of Green, not because of him.  Both are playing better now that we have a real coach as well.  Petey is showing signs of breaking out, so it makes sense to be a little more patient instead of selling for pennies on the dollar.

[IBatch]

44 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Well Green threw the players under the bus for things that were clearly his fault, and gifted unearned roster spots to his pet plugs.  Do you want a coach with serious character issues anywhere near your locker room?  Add in the fact that he couldn't even set the lineup properly and it's pretty obvious he is the root cause of the problem.  Bruce has specifically said that effort isn't the issue.

Lol.  When Green calls players out they are getting thrown under the bus - when Bruce does it's a holy defined moment that was much deserved.   Green is guilty of pigeon holing players into roles they weren't that good at - being stubborn, and making a mess of this years camp.   But he was also the same guy who launched some careers, and recovered some too.    I'm happy we have Bruce but this blaming Green stuff is getting old.   

[JM_]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Sure but then you're tweaking around the edges and this team needs more than that. Like way more. ESPECIALLY given the structural and succession issues.

 

You can't properly address those issues while retaining Miller. At least I think you finally agree lol. And IMO, Miller or not, we're not contending with those issues...ergo...

maybe, but I still don't see a solid plan for our C depth yet in any of the Miller trade ideas. 

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Lol.  When Green calls players out they are getting thrown under the bus - when Bruce does it's a holy defined moment that was much deserved.   Green is guilty of pigeon holing players into roles they weren't that good at - being stubborn, and making a mess of this years camp.   But he was also the same guy who launched some careers, and recovered some too.    I'm happy we have Bruce but this blaming Green stuff is getting old.   

Boudreau cited a specific example of a play by a veteran who knew better, was in a leadership role, and definitely wasn't suffering from any confidence issues.  Green blamed the whole team for his inability to properly prepare his players.  Since Boudreau says that Petey is putting in the effort, I'll take his word for it.

Edited February 3, 2022 by King Heffy

[sxqhfeh]

1 hour ago, spook007 said:

What do you expect to get for Petey?

exactly, this kid has no values to trade from, but if they can find a trade partner, a top 2 RHD, they will get rid of him 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

maybe, but I still don't see a solid plan for our C depth yet in any of the Miller trade ideas. 

Everything doesn't get solved in one trade. Or likely even one off season (unless management is that good and LUCKY). This is about building towards 2+ years from now (management's stated plan and the beginning of Hughes and Petey's prime... not coincidentally).

 

But again, you look at guys like Chytil/Compher coming back, you look at UFA's like Paul/Tierney/Sturm this summer, maybe we draft one this summer, maybe Boeser gets packaged for one....

 

Besides, I think you're overblowing our 'C problem'. Horvat, Pettersson (sheltered "Sedin role"), Paul/Tierney/Sturm or similar and Lammiko is perfectly fine while we transition to contenders. Especially if we support them with better role/depth players and ESPECIALLY defensemen.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Everything doesn't get solved in one trade. Or likely even one off season (unless management is that good and LUCKY). This is about building towards 2+ years from now (management's stated plan and the beginning of Hughes and Petey's prime... not coincidentally).

 

But again, you look at guys like Chytil/Compher coming back, you look at UFA's like Paul/Tierney/Sturm this summer, maybe we draft one this summer, maybe Boeser gets packaged for one....

 

Besides, I think you're overblowing our 'C problem'. Horvat, Pettersson (sheltered "Sedin role"), Paul/Tierney/Sturm or similar and Lammiko is perfectly fine while we transition to contenders. Especially if we support them with better role/depth players and ESPECIALLY defensemen.

hmmm.. .dunno that still seems thin to me. I'd feel a lot better about your plan if we had a C in abby with good size that was close to stepping in. 

 

looking at the standings I expect we might see a move pretty soon, with this week off I can imagine JR's phone is pretty warm. 

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, JM_ said:

hmmm.. .dunno that still seems thin to me. I'd feel a lot better about your plan if we had a C in abby with good size that was close to stepping in. 

 

looking at the standings I expect we might see a move pretty soon, with this week off I can imagine JR's phone is pretty warm. 

We've got some longer shots that are likely bottom/mid 6 C's in Europe (maybe one becomes a 2C?), and I'd love to get Barron back from a Rangers deal but he's also probably bottom 6.

 

But again, this all doesn't get sorted overnight.

 

Maybe in two years, after fixing our D and adding Schneider and Jiricek at the draft, one of our existing long shots like Jurmo (or other), hits big and we can trade one of those three guys for a top C and slide Pettersson to W? I don't know man, I don't have a crystal ball.

 

That doesn't change that you need to start taking rights steps now, so you can make more later. Even if there are no assurances and it's scary. You can't let indecision, rooted in fear of the unknown, rule your decision making.

 

And we don't fix the clear structural and succession issues this team has, by keeping Miller. Full stop. IMO, we get worse the next couple seasons trying to slap more money on clinging to the current, not good enough, team.

 

We start there and keep making good, smart choices from there.

Edited February 3, 2022 by aGENT

[longsuffering]

IF there is a club willing to take on the Pettersson project at his price I think he should be traded. The experiment on the wing didn't work and at centre (his preferred position) he cannot win a face-off. He is a very expensive passenger.

But I don't think he will be traded... too much invested in his potential to let go.