Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Rumour] Canucks interested in Ethan Bear


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, CanuckFan1123 said:

I’d hate to give up on Hoglander, but I do feel with the state of the roster, he may never fully have a chance to blossom in Vancouver. At best, most of his playing time will be 3rd or 4th line for the foreseeable future given the talent up front, assuming we don’t start mass trading guys like Brock, Bo, etc. I do think a Hoglander for Bear deal benefits both teams. We desperately need help on defense and call ups like Juulsen and Briesbois are not the answer. Bear isn’t gonna light up the score sheet and he’s not gonna be absolutely incredible on both ends, but he would provide immediate help where we need it at a cheap cost and if he gets his game together, he could be a good longer term asset. I’d do that trade, unless we genuinely feel Hoglander is a part of our top 6, which I can only see if two or three of  Brock, Garland, Podz, Kuz, Mikheyev, Pearson, are moved pretty soon, which I can’t really see. 
 

The biggest win-win trade is probably Pearson for Bear but the most realistic is Hoglander for Bear. 

If they do what they need to do, move 1 or 2 players off the top of the line up, they're going to need guys like Hoglander

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CanuckFan1123 said:

Bear has also been a healthy scratch on a team with much better overall defense than ours. No one is trying to say he’s a game changer that’s going to win us a cup, but he’s available, reasonably priced, and better than most of our current defense. Trust me, I like Hoglander but I think he’s our best trade chip to get a dman without breaking the bank. Bear is a good option. 

he might be on waivers today, doesn't get cheaper than that. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we do end up getting Bear off waivers, I hope there isn't instant hate for the guy. If he ends up a good bottom pair guy moving forward on a cheap deal thats just fine. Its not fair to direct all the d group angst his way. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

he might be on waivers today, doesn't get cheaper than that. 

2.2 isn’t cheap and who does he displace ?  on fulltime basis when or if all the D men are heathy. Not that a totally health backend is likely but he would have to stay in. I guess u could waive him at that time?

Edited by chon derry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chon derry said:

2.2 isn’t cheap and who does he displace ?  on fulltime basis when or if all the D men are heathy. Not that a totally health backend is likely but he would have to stay in. I guess u could waive him at that time?

worry about that then. Right now its fine to take a flyer on the kid if its for free, or is a net benefit in some other way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, combover said:

A quality roster d man would be worth hoglander but that’s not what your getting in Bear. You point out hoglander been a heathy scratch yet Bear been a heathy scratch in every game. 
he’s a small bottom pair guy that struggles in is own end he’s not the answer to any problem he’s a #6,7 that’s what he is what he’s been its why teams find him expendable, 

it would be a waste to trade anything that’s not a cap dump aswell  for him. 
If hoglander going then A decent pick should be accompanying  Little bear back. 

 




 

Nice little $2.2m cap dump for the Canes as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

worry about that then. Right now its fine to take a flyer on the kid if its for free, or is a net benefit in some other way. 

Well acquiring him does fill the gap and by doing so they’d have to decide if his play is better than whatever 3rd or 4th dman returning is capable of. In that aspect “for free “ up until decision Time does make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chon derry said:

Well acquiring him does fill the gap and by doing so they’d have to decide if his play is better than whatever 3rd or 4th dman returning is capable of. In that aspect “for free “ up until decision Time does make sense. 

we're not really in a position to be choosy. If we get the Bear that we saw in Edmonton and he can improve a bit from there? sure why not? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, diesel_3 said:

Bear doesn't move the needle at all.

Is this FO just going to make lateral moves just to say to the fans 'see! we are doing something!'

PASSSSSSS!

 

Agreed.  pretty sad when this team is hyping up the possibility of a guy that can't displace Chatfield for a roster spot

  • Cheers 1
  • There it is 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JM_ said:

we're not really in a position to be choosy. If we get the Bear that we saw in Edmonton and he can improve a bit from there? sure why not? 

He is First Nations. It  could be a good PR move with this bewildered management group. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chon derry said:

He is First Nations. It  could be a good PR move with this bewildered management group. 

If we want a good PR move, give free seats at the next game to the Canucks for kids foundation.

 

Trading assets just to trade assets for a pr move is how to throw gasoline on the fire

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chon derry said:

He is First Nations. It  could be a good PR move with this bewildered management group. 

for sure. 

 

I don't think anyone is pumping Bears tires, but I don't see why he couldn't become a serviceable bottom pair guy who's a bit above what we have now.

 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

If we want a good PR move, give free seats at the next game to the Canucks for kids foundation.

 

Trading assets just to trade assets for a pr move is how to throw gasoline on the fire

My posts weren’t about trading  but acquiring off waivers.  I’ll add Carolinas decision to go with  chatfield  could be the 1.5 mil difference in salary.? Which given the fact they ( canucks) let chatfeild go at that price is on its own kinda dumb in retrospect 

Edited by chon derry
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chon derry said:

My posts weren’t about trading  but acquiring off waivers.  I’ll add Carolinas decision to go with  chatfield  could be the 1.5 mil difference in salary.? Which given the fact they ( canucks) let chatfeild go at that price is on its own kinda dumb in retrospect 

Chatfield was bad here. The only reason we're talking about him now is because of Bear. The only reason I can see Chatfield in over Bear is he's faster skating in a straight line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, chon derry said:

My posts weren’t about trading  but acquiring off waivers.  I’ll add Carolinas decision to go with  chatfield  could be the 1.5 mil difference in salary.? Which given the fact they ( canucks) let chatfeild go at that price is on its own kinda dumb in retrospect 

Totally fair.  but seeing what people are suggesting for him is kind of crazy.

 

I'd rather trade Hoglander or Pearson for that pick and hope for the best from the scouts as opposed to paying assets for guys not even playing right now

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, R3aL said:

Realistically Bear could be a waiver wire claim that’s the extent I’d pick him up and roll the dice. No more draft picks or young trade capital can be traded for players like this.

Agreed. Maybe drafting and developing our own dmen!?!? What a concept.

  • Vintage 1
  • There it is 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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