How did JR/PA do on TDL 2022? (10 being best, 1 being worst)

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, thrago said:

What the Ducks just did is what the Rangers did a few years ago and look at them now.

would our owner allow this deep of a retool though?  I wish he would, but I don't think he's got the stomach for it.

[Barbarian]

8 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Motte had value NOW to the team, the coach, and to fans who pay the freight to watch a good team try to win.

Doesn't matter if Motte was drafted first overall or last; not relevant at all; current value is.

2023 is even worse as it is even another year further out.

"Walk for nothing" is an overused express which does not include the value of the player at this time. 

Curious about that - the value that Motte had now, what was it, exactly? His play for the remaining 18 games? Because after that, he walks - for nothing more than his play during those 18 games. Richardson is a serviceable player who can fill those remaining 18 games and then he walks on his 1 year, $800,000 contract. Off the books and off the cap. And we got him without having to give up any assets whatsoever - we gained a 4th round pick in exchange for 18 games of Motte.

 

Once Richardson is off the books at the end of this season, we can bring up a Lockwood or cheap player to fill in the position if he is ready next season, while having Motte's cap money to spend on upgrading other parts of the team.

 

A 4th round pick is not only a player from the 2023 draft (with a low chance of making it in the NHL), it is also a bargaining chip and an asset for trade negotiations with other teams during the offseason and moving forward. Teams may trade their 2023 picks in order to move up in the upcoming draft, and recouping a 2023 4th could be beneficial to them. The Canucks could also combine the 2023 4th along with a player we want to move for cap reasons and sweeten the deal for another team. 

 

A draft pick has value because it offers the POTENTIAL of a good player - it's a bet, and the promise of potential that a pick contains is a valuable asset to trade, not just to use. Getting one in exchange for 18 games of Motte (who I'm a big fan of), is worth it IMO.

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Itchyfinger said:

internally your telling your prospects that they are not worthy of a chance. When watching that Lockwood kid skate, he would have been a perfect fit to play on the lamo line

Internally you are telling your prospects to get better than a 37 yr old- or find another career.

 

[BertaNuck]

Disappointed 

[24K PureCool]

I was promised the real trader Jim 

 

[Goal:thecup]

4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Motte is not going to make or break the rest of our season. We have to go 14-4 in order to have even a small chance of making the playoffs. It does matter that Motte was drafted in the 4th round because there are so many complaining that we won't find an NHL player in the 4th round; well, Motte is from the 4th round. We also have Lockwood knocking on the door, and he's apparently going to see games this year, as he's another Motte-type player.

 

So, basically what you're saying is that you'd rather have Motte here for 18 games instead of clearing cap, getting a 4th round pick in a deep draft, and letting one of our best grinding-type player prospects get a chance at the end of a failed season. 

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. 

Clearing cap; I guess you'd have to subtract Richardson's $800,000 from Motte's to come up with that big savings.

The savings on the D was ok and I'm ok with the 2 D moves.

I don't know how many times I said, "They don't have to make the playoffs for Motte to still have value THIS YEAR."

So your 14-4 calculation doesn't cut it for me.

We had Lockwood and Motte, now we have Lockwood; see the math?

Players that 'hit' in the later rounds are rare and more rare the later the round otherwise we wouldn't need scouts etc.

Again, the math is worse in the later rounds, and the fourth round is a later round.

It does not matter if Motte had been acquired as a free agent European; it is his current value on the table for discussion.

So basically what I am saying is yes, I would rather have Motte here for 18 games and I doubt I am alone; the rest of the team, the coaching staff, and the paying public want to see the team win now, and in the future.

We did not have to trade Motte.

He was worth more to us pie-in-the-sky hopes we could draft and develop an equivalent player.

I can agree to disagree; but I cannot agree with your position.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

would our owner allow this deep of a retool though?  I wish he would, but I don't think he's got the stomach for it.

Well, JR already said he expects we will be contenders in 2024. I'm already planning the parade...

[Itchyfinger]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

Internally you are telling your prospects to get better than a 37 yr old- or find another career.

 

It’s a move that doesn’t make your team better, something that the old management would do. More of a distraction away from the fact that you haven’t really done anything to improve your team. And to say Richardson is better than the all of your current prospects is a slippery slope that can up costing you long term. It’s mismanagement of your current assets.

[eeeeergh]

37 minutes ago, Itchyfinger said:

Really like the dermott in hamonic out,but I just don’t understand the Richardson claim off waivers, makes no sense.

Gives the current team a chance to still push for the playoffs.

Once we're officially out, I'm sure they'll let the young guys come up and get some time

[thrago]

My biggest concern is less about the lack of return for Motte, but more about the lack of significant change made. I don't believe and not even a little bit that you get simular or better value in the summer.  There is absolutely no pressure on teams in the summer to make there teams better.  They have 10 months to do so. 

 

Its to bad JR was sick this weekend cause I don't believe Alvin has a clue whats going on.  In his presser the other day he was asked if anyone was being held out of the games. His response was no I don't  believe so anyways. Isn't that something the should know for sure one way or the other?

 

 

[Oregon.Duck]

Folks are a bit too emotional in this thread, when explaining why we shouldn’t have traded Motte. He was great. Would have walked in a couple months. This was a logical trade.  
 

It’s also why we’re armchair GMs and not doing the actual job. 

[Itchyfinger]

1 minute ago, Itchyfinger said:

It’s a move that doesn’t make your team better, something that the old management would do. More of a distraction away from the fact that you haven’t really done anything to improve your team. And to say Richardson is better than the all of your current prospects is a slippery slope that can up costing you long term. It’s mismanagement of your current assets.

Most 4th line players are borderline ahl/nhl guys, who are given a chance. Now you’ve taken that chance away by claiming a guy who’s 37 years old ,while on the other hand making a statement you want to get younger. Makes no sense.

[J-Dizzle]

Holy meltdown batman... gotta love CDC on deadline day lol. 

 

Looks like they're gonna let the team make a push, highly doubt they'll make it. We'll see what transpires in the off season. 

[Gurn]

6 minutes ago, Itchyfinger said:

It’s a move that doesn’t make your team better, something that the old management would do. More of a distraction away from the fact that you haven’t really done anything to improve your team. And to say Richardson is better than the all of your current prospects is a slippery slope that can up costing you long term. It’s mismanagement of your current assets.

Telling your prospects to get better is never a bad thing.

Any prospect that is "put out" or "worried" about not being able to beat out Richardson, should be playing for another team anyway.

[Warhippy]

42 minutes ago, Roberts said:

i think what bothers people is that the canucks never seem to be all in on buying or selling, they are always trying to stay in between. look how much the ducks have been selling now that they know they aren't in the playoff race this year, i think that's what some canucks fans were hoping for.

I'd agree with th sentiment here.

 

Pick a direction and own it

[BCNate]

Today was fine.  Worst thing we could have done is forced a trade that didn't need to be made.  

 

 

[BCNate]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

I'd agree with th sentiment here.

 

Pick a direction and own it

The Ducks situation was far different than ours.  They were looking at losing 3 quality UFA's for nothing, and did well to get returns on them.  We dodn't have any key UFA's, and kept our tradable assets until at least the off season, where the market has more buyers.  

[Itchyfinger]

Just now, gurn said:

Telling your prospects to get better is never a bad thing.

Any prospect that is "put out" or "worried" about not being able to beat out Richardson, should be playing for another team anyway.

Richardson is not better than prospects, he’s a plug whose taken a chance away for one of your prospects. We’ve taken a guy who couldn’t crack the flames ,who would have been sent to the ahl. A distraction that doesn’t make your team better. This new management has said repeatedly that this team was going to get younger, why claim a 37 year old. 

[Jester13]

9 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Clearing cap; I guess you'd have to subtract Richardson's $800,000 from Motte's to come up with that big savings.

The savings on the D was ok and I'm ok with the 2 D moves.

I don't know how many times I said, "They don't have to make the playoffs for Motte to still have value THIS YEAR."

So your 14-4 calculation doesn't cut it for me.

We had Lockwood and Motte, now we have Lockwood; see the math?

Players that 'hit' in the later rounds are rare and more rare the later the round otherwise we wouldn't need scouts etc.

Again, the math is worse in the later rounds, and the fourth round is a later round.

It does not matter if Motte had been acquired as a free agent European; it is his current value on the table for discussion.

So basically what I am saying is yes, I would rather have Motte here for 18 games and I doubt I am alone; the rest of the team, the coaching staff, and the paying public want to see the team win now, and in the future.

We did not have to trade Motte.

He was worth more to us pie-in-the-sky hopes we could draft and develop an equivalent player.

I can agree to disagree; but I cannot agree with your position.

Motte is not the catalyst for us "winning now", and we 100% did have to trade Motte because we cannot afford what he's asking for and thus will not be re-signing him. 

 

No one "wanted" Motte to be traded - players, fans, coaches, etc. - but the writing was on the wall for having to make this trade. The cap space and pick in a deep draft are worth more than 18 games in a failed season, especially if it also means we hold back a budding prospect from making the jump. If you think otherwise then you're thinking with your heart and not your head.

 

FWIW, agreeing to disagree means we agree to, well, disagree, so of course you don't have to agree with my position; therein lies the agreement. 

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Itchyfinger said:

Richardson is not better than prospects, he’s a plug whose taken a chance away for one of your prospects. We’ve taken a guy who couldn’t crack the flames ,who would have been sent to the ahl. A distraction that doesn’t make your team better. This new management has said repeatedly that this team was going to get younger, why claim a 37 year old. 

If the prospect are better than Richardson, they will either be playing in front of him up in the show, or playing bigger minutes in the AHL to develop.