JM_ Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: Would Dipietro get us Bear? Mikey got no value. Woo maybe? I'd love to see it for Poolman 1 for 1 but that means Waddell has had a stroke. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Drive-By Body Pierce Posted September 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2022 Edmonton didn't hold on to Bear... enough said? 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post canuck73_3 Posted September 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, John McClane said: That’s too bad that CAR would be up against the cap. I was hoping the Canucks could send Pearson there way in the trade. Oh well. I don’t get why so many of you want to ship out a solid useful player like Pearson. Would much rather dump Dickinson if dropping a forward with salary. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 34 minutes ago, Alflives said: Yup. We need a Gillis move where he got Hamhuis and Errhoff and Tanev. Hamhuis was a free agent who wanted to sign here. Ehrhoff was a good advantage of cap. Taney was one of the best free agent signings from college 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Would Dipietro get us Bear? I think the only thing DiPietro is going to get us is some of his Nonna's spaghetti and meatballs... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 30 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said: I don’t get why so many of you want to ship out a solid useful player like Pearson. Would much rather dump Dickinson if dropping a forward with salary. We can probably trade Pearson and actually get an asset back. Dickinson has negative value and will cost us an asset. That would be the reason to trade Pearson over Dickinson... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRaj91 Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: We can probably trade Pearson and actually get an asset back. Dickinson has negative value and will cost us an asset. That would be the reason to trade Pearson over Dickinson... Agreed. Pearson probably gets us a decent LD or RD, could help us a ton. I did like the way he played though last year, especially with Miller so we'll have to see how that turns out this year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hairy Kneel Posted September 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2022 Are we that desperate? I think Juulsen Burroughs are cheaper alternatives and not much drop off from EB 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said: Edmonton didn't hold on to Bear... enough said? He wanted out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post brownky Posted September 19, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2022 15 minutes ago, Odd. said: He wanted out. I did too after living in Edmonton for just 5 months. 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 Yet another bottom pairing RD 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 Would be nice. Carolina are lighter on the left-side of their defense. I wonder if something involving Dermott -- plus, I would assume, some additional value -- would be realistic? Would make things a little cramped on the right-side unless someone was moved out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 22 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Yet another bottom pairing RD Pretty much. I like Bear for what he is, in a vacuum. But he's largely more of what we already have and doesn't actually fill any short term holes, or the long term caverns in our top 4/right side. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 Thing with adding Bear is that he is another smaller defensemen. Can he play top 4? If Hughes/OEL work out the Canucks need another top 4, preferably a cheaper young and better 2 way/match up player than Myers. But with Schenn possibly moving at TDL, maybe Myers in the off season I could see it filling a hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 4 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said: Just for fun... Nucks: Horvat, Poolman Canes: Staal, Bear, Morrow, 2024 2nd(Flyers pick) Canes inform Staal they won't re-sign him, thus he agrees to move on. We lose a little Bo-value, by adding Poolman to pkg. Horvat would LT fill the role of Staal. Terrible trade, Canucks get Bear and Staal that has zero value, a nothing pick and Morrow. I rather have Horvat and re-sign him so we are 3 centers deep. This trade is making us go backward and be even more mediocre 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky-Winky Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 3 hours ago, Alflives said: Hogs for Bear. Good for us. Get off the park bench JR, and get this trade done. Agree 1000% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky-Winky Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Coconuts said: Yet another bottom pairing RD well to get a very good RD, it will cost to much...so ya JR has to play his cards on bear etc type players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: We can probably trade Pearson and actually get an asset back. Dickinson has negative value and will cost us an asset. That would be the reason to trade Pearson over Dickinson... Who do you think they were trying to move this off-season without having to add draft picks. Creating cap space was an off-season priority and they said all along that they weren't going to be giving up draft picks. They probably didn't think they could move Dickinson without having to give up picks - ie it was others they were hoping to move. Both Allvin and Rutherford confirmed that they weren't able to make the moves they wanted this off-season because they couldn't move cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, mll said: Who do you think they were trying to move this off-season without having to add draft picks. Creating cap space was an off-season priority and they said all along that they weren't going to be giving up draft picks. They probably didn't think they could move Dickinson without having to give up picks - ie it was others they were hoping to move. Both Allvin and Rutherford confirmed that they weren't able to make the moves they wanted this off-season because they couldn't move cap. Is there some type of confirmation that JR/PA were trying to trade Pearson? Or is it just speculation on your part based on their comments? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonoman Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, brownky said: I did too after living in Edmonton for just 5 months. I lasted 2 years. Much nicer town was Saskatoon, 5 years. Back on the island for 30 years now 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts