Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum-specific Rules
Forum Closure

[Rumour] Rangers shopping Nils Lundkvist

-Vintage Canuck-
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sophomore Jinx Canucks Prospect

Sophomore Jinx

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

They'd have to add just to make the cap work anyway; I'd start with Reaves: dead drop heavyweight.

Kid's a Sveede, and if PA & Co like him, I'm with them; they know all about Lundkvist, for sure, for sure.

Still too much cap on Garland; Pearson's AAV is a couple mil less; and easier to balance.

What do you think?  Pearson for Reaves and Lundkvist?  How bad are they 'shopping Lundkvist'?

 

Signed,

This one goes up to eleven.

Now you're talking, I do that deal all day long. I'll take Reaves any day, we could definitely use him. While I like Pearson, Reaves and Lundqvist add more value imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herberts Vasiljevs Canucks First-Line

Herberts Vasiljevs

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Garland for him straight up? We get under the cap, flip one of our many wingers and get a young RD. He's more of a puck mover so would need some protection, so would have to play with someone like OEL, but may work well for our future considering we have no one on that right side going forward. He is still fairly unproven though so maybe they give us a mid to later pick too?

I came here to propose the exact same thing. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWJC Canucks First-Line

RWJC

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Herberts Vasiljevs said:

I came here to propose the exact same thing. :lol:

No way to Garland straight up, imho.

Garland is actually still quite valuable to this club. We don’t know how Kuz or Mik will perform, if Podz takes a step forward. Any of these things don’t happen and it could put our top 9 in flux and Garland has proven he can play anywhere within it and be effective.

 

Keep him until it looks as though we’re in the clear with our wingers. He’s a solid asset. 

 

Edited by RWJC
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWJC Canucks First-Line

RWJC

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Sophomore Jinx said:

Now you're talking, I do that deal all day long. I'll take Reaves any day, we could definitely use him. While I like Pearson, Reaves and Lundqvist add more value imho.

Unfortunately I think as much as I appreciate Pearson, he’s being overrated in this deal. Rags may have a holdout in Ludqvist but as witnessed last season, it’s not going to affect them in any way. I don’t think they are desperately looking to offload him, and Pearson likely doesn’t move the needle in that deal unless we’re attaching a 3rd  or 4th round pick or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sophomore Jinx Canucks Prospect

Sophomore Jinx

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Unfortunately I think as much as I appreciate Pearson, he’s being overrated in this deal. Rags may have a holdout in Ludqvist but as witnessed last season, it’s not going to affect them in any way. I don’t think they are desperately looking to offload him, and Pearson likely doesn’t move the needle in that deal unless we’re attaching a 3rd  or 4th round pick or something.

True enough, and attaching a 3rd or 4th? No biggie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IBatch Canucks Hall-of-Famer

IBatch

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, RWJC said:

Unfortunately I think as much as I appreciate Pearson, he’s being overrated in this deal. Rags may have a holdout in Ludqvist but as witnessed last season, it’s not going to affect them in any way. I don’t think they are desperately looking to offload him, and Pearson likely doesn’t move the needle in that deal unless we’re attaching a 3rd  or 4th round pick or something.

To me this is a high risk move for the Canucks unless they are actually pretty convinced he's a player.   So far he hasn't cracked the top hundred.  Even OJ was low 80's going into last season.   If they aren't then Pearson's value is better spent elsewhere at the TDL for a second or whatever. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IBatch Canucks Hall-of-Famer

IBatch

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, RWJC said:

No way to Garland straight up, imho.

Garland is actually still quite valuable to this club. We don’t know how Kuz or Mik will perform, if Podz takes a step forward. Any of these things don’t happen and it could put our top 9 in flux and Garland has proven he can play anywhere within it and be effective.

 

Keep him until it looks as though we’re in the clear with our wingers. He’s a solid asset. 

 

Absolutely.   Garland isn't a cap dump.   Neither is Pearson really.    Unless he's part of a deal to bring an actual top four D back - just keep him (Garland). 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alflives Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Alflives

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, RWJC said:

Unfortunately I think as much as I appreciate Pearson, he’s being overrated in this deal. Rags may have a holdout in Ludqvist but as witnessed last season, it’s not going to affect them in any way. I don’t think they are desperately looking to offload him, and Pearson likely doesn’t move the needle in that deal unless we’re attaching a 3rd  or 4th round pick or something.

Where does Lundquist play in our lineup?  I just don’t see him making our club.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DownUndaCanuck Canucks Franchise Player

DownUndaCanuck

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, RWJC said:

No way to Garland straight up, imho.

Garland is actually still quite valuable to this club. We don’t know how Kuz or Mik will perform, if Podz takes a step forward. Any of these things don’t happen and it could put our top 9 in flux and Garland has proven he can play anywhere within it and be effective.

 

Keep him until it looks as though we’re in the clear with our wingers. He’s a solid asset. 

 

I do understand this, but not sure how we're going to free up 2.5M and fix our defence problem otherwise. I'm not sure if management can just waive Dickinson or move pieces around to make our cap fit the way it looks so far, they can probably jiggle things around a lot but 2.5M over the cap is a fair bit to fiddle with.

 

Garland is simply the odd man out but if we don't move him we're utterly stacked with wingers, I don't see any other teams with as deep a winger selection as us. Kuzmenko is obviously a wild card but the rest are fairly known. I think we can bank on 20 goals from Boeser, Mikheyev, Petey, Miller and Bo (with likely a few 30 goal scorers in that bunch...dare I say possibly almost all of them?) and then sure, guys like Podkolzin and Kuzmenko are unknowns (but realistically, 15-25 goals is not out of the question. Factor in Garland who should net us 15-20 and Pearson who's still good for 10-15, Hoglander who hopefully can hit 10-15 and we've got 8 x 20 goal scorers there. 

 

By comparison, Florida had 7 last year (but actually 10 if you look at their 20 goal scoring pace players lol). 

 

There's no problem going into the season stacked up front, but when we've got such a glaring hole on defence it would have been nice to try and balance things up and trade a winger for a defenceman

 

I know a Miller trade was probably far too tough but surely there are 1 for 1 winger for defencemen deals out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilentSam Canucks All-Star

SilentSam

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Unless this guy is a legit top 3 or 4 defenceman then no. We have more than enough 5, 6, 7 defenders on our team. 

I do like the idea of Reaves in any deal with the Rangers though,.   Can help close out the game when needed in a “safe” manner.

… and on our 4th line,.  Might get some great “creasy” goals.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
theo5789 Canucks Franchise Player

theo5789

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, awalk said:

Teeny tiny D man who got leapfrogged by Schneider on the NYR prospect pool and is now being actively 'shopped' via the media because obviously no one wants to pay to acquire him...... 

I wouldn't call him "teeny tiny", he's the same height and weight as Cale Makar. But yeah, I'm not sure what the hype is around him other than being a former 1st round pick. I'd take a look at him as a project dman, but at 22 already and not much to write home about, I feel like I'm missing something that others are seeing that are valuing him much higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awalk Canucks Third-Line

awalk

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I wouldn't call him "teeny tiny", he's the same height and weight as Cale Makar. But yeah, I'm not sure what the hype is around him other than being a former 1st round pick. I'd take a look at him as a project dman, but at 22 already and not much to write home about, I feel like I'm missing something that others are seeing that are valuing him much higher.

When you're as good as Makar, you can get away with it LOL 

Almost 20lbs and an inch smaller than the average NHL Dman. I'm gonna stick with teeny tiny :ph34r:

Edited by awalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goal:thecup Canucks First-Line

Goal:thecup

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I wouldn't call him "teeny tiny", he's the same height and weight as Cale Makar. But yeah, I'm not sure what the hype is around him other than being a former 1st round pick. I'd take a look at him as a project dman, but at 22 already and not much to write home about, I feel like I'm missing something that others are seeing that are valuing him much higher.

I don't want him personally, just that PA for sure is familiar with all these Swedish guys, and if he thinks Lundkvist is ok, he is ok with me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...