[Rumour] Canucks trying to find a market for Oliver Ekman-Larsson

[The Lock]

7 minutes ago, AV. said:

Yes, I acknowledged that a detail in two cases were similar, although, that "similarity" did not bear any importance to the topic of discussion, hence making the two cases "not at all similar".  The "similarity" was superfluous to point out in the first place, just as it would be to point out that both teams are NHL teams, both individuals are NHL players, and both players play the same position, and using that to imply the cases are similar.

How about this? I've literally gone back to your discussion with others and have seen a lot of hot air blown with a debate that kind of went all over the place. Define here what your argument is and then I can either agree or disagree that it's relevant to what we're talking about.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

How about this? I've literally gone back to your discussion with others and have seen a lot of hot air blown with a debate that kind of went all over the place. Define here what your argument is and then I can either agree or disagree that it's relevant to what we're talking about.

"Arizona had no immediate cap problems (beyond figuring out how to reach the floor) like Tampa Bay did.  Really, if Arizona had any pressure, it was figuring out how to move OEL to get rid of his long-term contract and to move on from a player that had soured on the organization.  But I say they escaped pretty well to recoup a series of picks, a series of expiring contracts, and to only do all that at the cost of moving a winger they weren't too interested bringing back anyway.  So, yeah, a great comparison to show, once again, Benning paying a premium to help teams fix their issues".

This was the original topic of discussion.  This deflect discussion about Toffoli vs Garland only stemmed from the user looking to compare the situations and imply that Arizona was in the same boat as Vancouver, but as I pointed out, Arizona was not looking to keep Garland and Vancouver *was* looking to keep Toffoli.

[The Lock]

28 minutes ago, AV. said:

"Arizona had no immediate cap problems (beyond figuring out how to reach the floor) like Tampa Bay did.  Really, if Arizona had any pressure, it was figuring out how to move OEL to get rid of his long-term contract and to move on from a player that had soured on the organization.  But I say they escaped pretty well to recoup a series of picks, a series of expiring contracts, and to only do all that at the cost of moving a winger they weren't too interested bringing back anyway.  So, yeah, a great comparison to show, once again, Benning paying a premium to help teams fix their issues".

This was the original topic of discussion.  This deflect discussion about Toffoli vs Garland only stemmed from the user looking to compare the situations and imply that Arizona was in the same boat as Vancouver, but as I pointed out, Arizona was not looking to keep Garland and Vancouver *was* looking to keep Toffoli.

There's grey area in this in that, if Garland wasn't traded to Vancouver, what then? Was it that Garland was "not wanted" by Arizona or was it that a potentially good deal for them was coming up via Benning? So, while the trade itself could be deemed as separate from the Toffoli/Garland debate, the way you worded it to accuse Benning is where you did start leaving it vunerable for debate. That was likely what led you down that path.

[stawns]

54 minutes ago, eeeeergh said:

I actually really agree with this take. 

He might be overpaid a bit, but not by more than 1.5-2m/year. Is that the end of the world? Absolutely not. We have contracts that are underpayments too - Demko is easily 2-3m/year underpaid, Hughes is underpaid, Miller and Horvat are both underpaid based on their performance too. 

For some perspective, people really need to look at other teams rosters - basically every team has some players that are a little overpaid, and some that are a little underpaid. Its normal. 

Replacing OEL would not be easy. Imo he's still a major upgrade on Edler. Defensively responsible, but still moves the puck well and can run a powerplay. 

I'd actually like to see OEL and Hughes on the same pp, with OEL as the QB and Hughes as a rover, of sorts.  Let Hughes move all over the zone and OEL distribute the puck from the top

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

There's grey area in this in that, if Garland wasn't traded to Vancouver, what then? Was it that Garland was "not wanted" by Arizona or was it that a potentially good deal for them was coming up via Benning? So, while the trade itself could be deemed as separate from the Toffoli/Garland debate, the way you worded it to accuse Benning is where you did start leaving it vunerable for debate. That was likely what led you down that path.

If not to Vancouver, he'd be playing elsewhere.  I think that much can inferred from the DailyFaceoff article.

We went down this path because the user asked for a source on Arizona not wanting to bring back Garland.  When provided, the user deflected it by insisting that it must have been a case similar to Toffoli (it wasn't).  Fine for them to have that opinion, but not really the truth, based on reports that have come out.

[The Lock]

8 minutes ago, AV. said:

If not to Vancouver, he'd be playing elsewhere.  I think that much can inferred from the DailyFaceoff article.

We went down this path because the user asked for a source on Arizona not wanting to bring back Garland.  When provided, the user deflected it by insisting that it must have been a case similar to Toffoli (it wasn't).  Fine for them to have that opinion, but not really the truth, based on reports that have come out.

The problem is you're making a lot of assumptions here yourself. Realistically, we'll never know if Garland would have been traded anyway or not. It's a likely scenario given his services would be in demand, but it also depends on the value Arizona would have gotten back otherwise. Chychrun's another example who wasn't traded, albeit he'd probably fetch a higher price than Garland.

 

That being said, I can see there you might think they way you do. Garland reportedly wasn't given a phone call; however, the question remains was that because they didn't want him or because they knew they'd be trading him soon but would want him otherwise? It's not as obvious as you may think.

 

The people who make these articles most of the time are just people like you can me: people watching the sport who have opinions. lol

Edited May 12, 2022 by The Lock

[AV.]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

The problem is you're making a lot of assumptions here yourself. Realistically, we'll never know if Garland would have been traded anyway or not. It's a likely scenario given his services would be in demand, but it also depends on the value Arizona would have gotten back otherwise. Chychrun's another example who wasn't traded, albeit he'd probably fetch a higher price than Garland.

 

That being said, I can see there you might think they way you do. Garland reportedly wasn't given a phone call; however, the question remains was that because they didn't want him or because they knew they'd be trading him soon but would want him otherwise? It's not as obvious as you may think.

 

The people who make these articles most of the time are just people like you can me: people watching the sport who have opinions. lol

"We'll never know" could be said for anything if you want to try hard enough to seek any possible explanation than the one provided.  We don't need to do that here, though.  Facts are, Garland was an RFA, Arizona made no efforts to communicate about a new contract, and he was dealt.  Dots connect pretty easily.

And, no, FranK Seravalli is connected to individuals and groups within the game of hockey.  His word holds water.

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, AV. said:

"We'll never know" could be said for anything if you want to try hard enough to seek any possible explanation than the one provided.  We don't need to do that here, though.  Facts are, Garland was an RFA, Arizona made no efforts to communicate about a new contract, and he was dealt.  Dots connect pretty easily.

And, no, FranK Seravalli is connected to individuals and groups within the game of hockey.  His word holds water.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, otherwise this conversation's going to go on forever.

[AV.]

14 minutes ago, The Lock said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, otherwise this conversation's going to go on forever.

Oh, ok, if you insist 

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, eeeeergh said:

I actually really agree with this take. 

He might be overpaid a bit, but not by more than 1.5-2m/year. Is that the end of the world? Absolutely not. We have contracts that are underpayments too - Demko is easily 2-3m/year underpaid, Hughes is underpaid, Miller and Horvat are both underpaid based on their performance too. 

For some perspective, people really need to look at other teams rosters - basically every team has some players that are a little overpaid, and some that are a little underpaid. Its normal. 

Replacing OEL would not be easy. Imo he's still a major upgrade on Edler. Defensively responsible, but still moves the puck well and can run a powerplay. 

I don't mind a couple guys being overpaid by 1.5ish if they are playing the roles. 

OEL is our 1D and taking the Toughest matchups on this team. 

That to me is much better than paying someone like 2.65 to Dickinson for a 3rd line winger role when we had initially signed him to be a centre. 

Having players we may no longer want or need is much worse than having a good player in a key role making maybe 1.5m more than their worth. 

 

[eeeeergh]

12 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

I don't mind a couple guys being overpaid by 1.5ish if they are playing the roles. 

OEL is our 1D and taking the Toughest matchups on this team. 

That to me is much better than paying someone like 2.65 to Dickinson for a 3rd line winger role when we had initially signed him to be a centre. 

Having players we may no longer want or need is much worse than having a good player in a key role making maybe 1.5m more than their worth. 

 

Yep I absolutely agree. OEL also plays big - he hits, and intervenes when one of our stars gets pushed around or Demko gets run into. 

Instead of retaining salary to dump OEL, retain salary if you have to to dump dickinson. 

Takes a lot of pressure off Rathbone as well to have him playing behind OEL and Hughes. 

Myers would also be so much easier to move than OEL, and there are RHD defensive defensemen available we could pick up to take his spot (Colin Miller, Manson, etc.)

[CanucksJay]

3 minutes ago, eeeeergh said:

Yep I absolutely agree. OEL also plays big - he hits, and intervenes when one of our stars gets pushed around or Demko gets run into. 

Instead of retaining salary to dump OEL, retain salary if you have to to dump dickinson. 

Takes a lot of pressure off Rathbone as well to have him playing behind OEL and Hughes. 

Myers would also be so much easier to move than OEL, and there are RHD defensive defensemen available we could pick up to take his spot (Colin Miller, Manson, etc.)

Yup

I like Myers but I would move Myers before OEL for sure

OEL is a tier above Myers in terms of talent and for whatever reason, if Myers is more attractive to other teams, then great.

 

[J-P]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

I'd actually like to see OEL and Hughes on the same pp, with OEL as the QB and Hughes as a rover, of sorts.  Let Hughes move all over the zone and OEL distribute the puck from the top

I've been saying that all year as well. QH would be leathal as a rover and make the whole PP so much more dynamic. Having someone who can shoot the puck and distribute one timers from the top better than QH would also do wonders. 

[eeeeergh]

35 minutes ago, J-P said:

I've been saying that all year as well. QH would be leathal as a rover and make the whole PP so much more dynamic. Having someone who can shoot the puck and distribute one timers from the top better than QH would also do wonders. 

and it would open up some space on PP2 for Rathbone

[CanucksJay]

2 hours ago, J-P said:

I've been saying that all year as well. QH would be leathal as a rover and make the whole PP so much more dynamic. Having someone who can shoot the puck and distribute one timers from the top better than QH would also do wonders. 

I'm hoping BB experiments with this in camp. 

No more extended camps where we look at AHL fodder for 95% of camp. 

I wanna see BB take the guys we will actually play for the season and try different looks to see what works. 

OEL distributes and shoots the puck while Quinn gains zone entry and plays rover would be ideal. We keep talking about lack of movement but if we see him all over the zone, it should create confusion on the pk unit and start opening up seams for peteys one timer or bumper pass to Bo 

[Gawdzukes]

8 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

I am just saying that the success of Miller has been to take a non-playoff team and turned them into a better non-playoff team. 

I do think a useful metric should be does a move get us closer to a cup.
Is trading for Miller progressing us towards cup contender or did it help us become another team in the squishy middle hoping their goalie gets hot enough to go on a run. 
Ultimately some level of team success needs to be thought about when looking at whether it was a successful trade and I prefer the measure of building towards a cup than building a possible playoff team if all goes well. 
Has the trade brought us closer to the Stanley cup, I am not sure it has.  With Miller playing his best hockey we are still not a playoff team and we are capped out, that’s a bad mix. 
In isolation absolutely a fair price to pay for Miller, but when looking at lifecycle of a team, that was Benning pulling the shoot on a rebuild way early and ultimately still not creating a contending team despite the price. A little more patience would likely have put us in better shape in building a contender but then again when a bad GM is making the moves, it may not have mattered. 

Ummm, you're all over the board, I wasn't talking about whether or not JB should have been making the trade or not or whether we should keep Miller. I don't think we should fwiw. Regardless he's both increased in value and played better than anyone could have hoped for. JB knocked it out of the park. Whether people think it's fluke or not he hit it out of the park.. If you can trade for a 26 year old player who is making $5.25 in terms of today's cap and have him go from tied for 131st to 9th place for points in 3 years you do it. Even Arizona should do that trade today if offered a similar scenario. You still need to have good players on your team unless you're only lame ass plan is to tank for years on end. Then no .. you don't need any players or trades at all. Like really, good players are bad for teams now?

 

By the way hockey is a team sport with 18 players dressed every game. Thinking one 3rd line player should take you that much closer to the cup is absolutely and utterly, simply, ridiculous, as is thinking Miller doesn't make this team a lot better than not having him.

[BPA]

2 hours ago, J-P said:

I've been saying that all year as well. QH would be leathal as a rover and make the whole PP so much more dynamic. Having someone who can shoot the puck and distribute one timers from the top better than QH would also do wonders. 

That rover spot is Miller on the half wall.  Don’t think Miller is gonna give that up.  QH taking BB spot is a not an option as QH wouldn’t get many touches down low.  Unless you think Bo or EP gets kicked off the PP1?

[Me_]

Hey just wondering if OEL Miller Horvat Boeser Garland Myers have been traded no k bye.

[Gawdzukes]

7 hours ago, stawns said:

I'd actually like to see OEL and Hughes on the same pp, with OEL as the QB and Hughes as a rover, of sorts.  Let Hughes move all over the zone and OEL distribute the puck from the top

Hughes can replace Boeser. He'll need to work on his shot a bit which is good anyway.

[Gawdzukes]

2 hours ago, BPA said:

That rover spot is Miller on the half wall.  Don’t think Miller is gonna give that up.  QH taking BB spot is a not an option as QH wouldn’t get many touches down low.  Unless you think Bo or EP gets kicked off the PP1?

ummm