[Proposal] Canucks - Kings

[Odjick the Warrior]

Sean Durzi 

Lias Anderson 

for 

Nils Höglander 

Jett Woo

Aiden McDonough 

 

Edit-Sorry forgot to add McDonough 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Odjick 4 Premier

[Devron]

And LA never answers Alvin’s call again 

[Odjick the Warrior]

Just now, Devron said:

And LA never answers Alvin’s call again 

LA has too many D that need to pass waivers and need ELC help on the wing and that’s Höglander

 

[Devron]

1 minute ago, Odjick 4 Premier said:

LA has too many D that need to pass waivers and need ELC help on the wing and that’s Höglander

 

I’m pretty sure Durzi is in their plans though. A young Top 4 defencemen. They’d have no problem putting Edler or Walker on waivers if they had too. We’d have to add a first if LA was truly shopping Durzi 

[Odjick the Warrior]

Just now, Devron said:

I’m pretty sure Durzi is in their plans though. A young Top 4 defencemen. They’d have no problem putting Edler or Walker on waivers if they had too. We’d have to add a first if LA was truly shopping Durzi 

Höglander and McDonough aren’t exactly garbage 

Kings RHD depth chart goes Doughty, Roy, Brandt, Walker with Druzi playing #4 on his offside and outside of Edler they have Bjornfot and Jordan Spence in their farm system so their cupboard isn’t close to empty and Höglander could step in and replace Trevor Moore or Vilardi and give more offense on a ELC with waiver exemption and McDonough who is a blue chip college prospect will be turning pro next year 

[Devron]

8 minutes ago, Odjick 4 Premier said:

Höglander and McDonough aren’t exactly garbage 

Kings RHD depth chart goes Doughty, Roy, Brandt, Walker with Druzi playing #4 on his offside and outside of Edler they have Bjornfot and Jordan Spence in their farm system so their cupboard isn’t close to empty and Höglander could step in and replace Trevor Moore or Vilardi and give more offense on a ELC with waiver exemption and McDonough who is a blue chip college prospect will be turning pro next year 

Well no but you didn’t have McDonough in your original post! So that new. Is Clarke making the team this year? 

[BigTramFan]

1 hour ago, Odjick 4 Premier said:

LA has too many D that need to pass waivers and need ELC help on the wing and that’s Höglander

 

A lot of their young D are waiver exempt. They only have 7 NHL Dmen that are not waiver exempt so not really an issue.

[wildcam]

2 hours ago, Odjick 4 Premier said:

Sean Durzi 

Lias Anderson 

for 

Nils Höglander 

Jett Woo

Never happen Durzi 23 - RD played like a # 2 RD in playoffs-- This guy will not be moved-- Never--  Oh - 1.7 X 2 yrs -- Great contract just signed, bright future in LA,,,,,,,,,,

[Drakrami]

5 hours ago, Odjick 4 Premier said:

LA has too many D that need to pass waivers and need ELC help on the wing and that’s Höglander

 

And why would anyone be high on Hoglander again...? 5 feet 9 scored 10 goals last season. You can basically stick any star AHLer in those minutes and produce the same. 

[higgyfan]

People are overrating Durzi.  He is very good offensively, but his defensive game is quite awful. He had

to switch to his left side during the later part of the season, so that Roy could be his babysitting partner.

Ahem...Matt Roy would be a great partner for Quinn (and the Kings still have Doughty)! Unfortunately

the price for Roy would be too high for the Canucks.

 

 

 

[The Lock]

On 10/8/2022 at 4:09 AM, Drakrami said:

And why would anyone be high on Hoglander again...? 5 feet 9 scored 10 goals last season. You can basically stick any star AHLer in those minutes and produce the same. 

Because he still has potential to have a comeback season and has proven to be a hard worker in the past. This isn't saying he will but there's a chance he will.

 

Not everyone's going to have a good season year after year. That's simply reality meaning it makes no sense to give up on a player just because they have 1 down year. If this becomes perpetual than sure, but not for 1 year. You also have a history of being unrealistically hard on our players so there's that.

Edited October 9, 2022 by The Lock

[Drakrami]

6 hours ago, The Lock said:

Because he still has potential to have a comeback season and has proven to be a hard worker in the past. This isn't saying he will but there's a chance he will.

 

Not everyone's going to have a good season year after year. That's simply reality meaning it makes no sense to give up on a player just because they have 1 down year. If this becomes perpetual than sure, but not for 1 year. You also have a history of being unrealistically hard on our players so there's that.

And the point of the topic is... LA will trade 

Sean Durzi 

Lias Anderson 

for Hoglander's "potential in CDC eyes" when they probably haven't even heard of him before. They'd much rather stick with Anderson #7 drafted, someone they actually traded for. 

[The Lock]

On 10/9/2022 at 6:00 PM, Drakrami said:

And the point of the topic is... LA will trade 

Sean Durzi 

Lias Anderson 

for Hoglander's "potential in CDC eyes" when they probably haven't even heard of him before. They'd much rather stick with Anderson #7 drafted, someone they actually traded for. 

If you seriously think LA hasn't heard of Hoglander, a player who's played in the NHL for 2 years now, then you might want to rethink that. Even if he hadn't played an NHL game, LA has something called scouts who would know about prospects on other teams and would have even had Hoglander on a list somewhere during draft. So if your argument is that "they probably haven't even heard of him before", if you don't see how silly that is of an argument you're making, I can't help you. Again, you tend to be unrealistic about our prospects and this just proves it.

 

Even with this trade, so you're saying we sell low with the potential of him getting better? Is that it? I don't really understand you.

 

And once again, please learn what scouts are because you seem to have no clue what they are supposed to be doing given your post.

Edited October 11, 2022 by The Lock

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

If you seriously think LA hasn't heard of Hoglander, a player who's played in the NHL for 2 years now, then you might want to rethink that. Even if he hadn't played an NHL game, LA has something called scouts who would know about prospects on other teams and would have even had Hoglander on a list somewhere during draft. So if your argument is that "they probably haven't even heard of him before", if you don't see how silly that is of an argument you're making, I can't help you. Again, you tend to be unrealistic about our prospects and this just proves it.

 

Even with this trade, so you're saying we sell low with the potential of him getting better? Is that it? I don't really understand you.

 

And once again, please learn what scouts are because you seem to have no clue what they are supposed to be doing given your post.

Not to mention Hoglander played on the same line as Fagemo at the WJHC.  Pretty sure the Kings would keep tabs on their own prospects.  LA is one of the last teams I'd mock regarding their scouting.

[Drakrami]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

If you seriously think LA hasn't heard of Hoglander, a player who's played in the NHL for 2 years now, then you might want to rethink that. Even if he hadn't played an NHL game, LA has something called scouts who would know about prospects on other teams and would have even had Hoglander on a list somewhere during draft. So if your argument is that "they probably haven't even heard of him before", if you don't see how silly that is of an argument you're making, I can't help you. Again, you tend to be unrealistic about our prospects and this just proves it.

 

Even with this trade, so you're saying we sell low with the potential of him getting better? Is that it? I don't really understand you.

 

And once again, please learn what scouts are because you seem to have no clue what they are supposed to be doing given your post.

lol just stop being so high on our mediocre players. Just like Gaudette and Virtanen, who were trending much better than Hoglander but are now a bunch of nobodies after they left the Canucks. There's a reason Hoglander is in every other trade proposal: Hes expendable, but CDC wishes to get "high value" back for him. If we couldn't move Gaudette for anything major, I dont know why people are proposing we get juicy pieces like Durzi/Anderson back, that's the point of the post. 

[The Lock]

12 hours ago, Drakrami said:

lol just stop being so high on our mediocre players. Just like Gaudette and Virtanen, who were trending much better than Hoglander but are now a bunch of nobodies after they left the Canucks. There's a reason Hoglander is in every other trade proposal: Hes expendable, but CDC wishes to get "high value" back for him. If we couldn't move Gaudette for anything major, I dont know why people are proposing we get juicy pieces like Durzi/Anderson back, that's the point of the post. 

Stop being so low on players who've barely had the chance. He has 1 down year, a very common sophomore slump no less, and already you want to throw him under the bus. This isn't like Gaudette or Virtanen at this point. Those 2 have had years with us where they were mediocre. Hoglander's only had 1 so far where he's actually slumped. We could hardly move Gaudette for anything because he had literally been on the team for 4 years and reportedly not being the greatest person in the locker room.

 

Look, I understand if there's concern. He did have a down season, but a lot of players do. I think it's important we at least see what he does this season before we start thinking we need to trade him. Other teams would literally be sharks on this waiting to pounce if this is how we treat Hogs because they would see a buy low sell high scenario for themselves. You're literally giving them a gift horse if you think Hogs is hardly worth anything at this point.

 

If you're going to think Hogs is another Gaudette or a Virtanen, before he even has a chance to bounce back, then we might as well be a team that should have traded all of our players over the past 5 years and become the next bottom feeder for the next decade.

 

Simply put, you seem to want to think everyone's a Gaudette or Virtanen while playing half the time those 2 played here, which again: unrealistic.

 

Also have you looked up what scouts are yet, because that post of yours clearly showed you had no clue what you were talking about.

Edited October 11, 2022 by The Lock

[Drakrami]

15 hours ago, The Lock said:

Stop being so low on players who've barely had the chance. He has 1 down year, a very common sophomore slump no less, and already you want to throw him under the bus. This isn't like Gaudette or Virtanen at this point. Those 2 have had years with us where they were mediocre. Hoglander's only had 1 so far where he's actually slumped. We could hardly move Gaudette for anything because he had literally been on the team for 4 years and reportedly not being the greatest person in the locker room.

 

Look, I understand if there's concern. He did have a down season, but a lot of players do. I think it's important we at least see what he does this season before we start thinking we need to trade him. Other teams would literally be sharks on this waiting to pounce if this is how we treat Hogs because they would see a buy low sell high scenario for themselves. You're literally giving them a gift horse if you think Hogs is hardly worth anything at this point.

 

If you're going to think Hogs is another Gaudette or a Virtanen, before he even has a chance to bounce back, then we might as well be a team that should have traded all of our players over the past 5 years and become the next bottom feeder for the next decade.

 

Simply put, you seem to want to think everyone's a Gaudette or Virtanen while playing half the time those 2 played here, which again: unrealistic.

 

Also have you looked up what scouts are yet, because that post of yours clearly showed you had no clue what you were talking about.

When you are saying high or low, you are talking about expectations of the player on the ice or the trade value of the player lol? I have been talking about trade value all along. Hoglander's simply not worth that much if we dangle him in a trade. 

 

On the ice, I am all hands cheering for him. I hope he breaks out and solidify our 3rd/2nd line. In fact one of my favorite players is Brayden Point. If Hoglander could somehow turn into playing like Point that would be amazing. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Drakrami

[The Lock]

On 10/11/2022 at 10:08 PM, Drakrami said:

When you are saying high or low, you are talking about expectations of the player on the ice or the trade value of the player lol? I have been talking about trade value all along. Hoglander's simply not worth that much if we dangle him in a trade. 

 

On the ice, I am all hands cheering for him. I hope he breaks out and solidify our 3rd/2nd line. In fact one of my favorite players is Brayden Point. If Hoglander could somehow turn into playing like Point that would be amazing. 

I'm talking about both on the ice and trade value. Those aren't mutually exclusive from each other. The value of a player is largely determined by their on ice performance. There are of course other factors such as age (in Hogs favour), how a place is off ice (I've never heard of antics from him so also in favour), cap hit (also in favour as he's still on an entry level contract), etc.

 

So what exactly are you trying to say here? That his trade value's magically dropped and it has nothing to do with on ice? If anything, you should look at his cap hit and the fact that he's still on that entry level contract. That's huge. We shouldn't be trading away players like that.

 

So I'm talking about both. His trade value's going to be higher than you are implying here, even if you look at factors off the ice. The only thing that lowers his trade value is his on ice performance of the last year. That's it. So what exactly are you implying here by trying to separate on ice from trade value? Enlighten me on how it's different. 

 

And  it's great that you want to cheer for him, so maybe do that? You clearly realise he has potential. That's also going to increase that trade value. If you're against trading him and want to see him get better, than how about we agree on that?

Edited October 13, 2022 by The Lock

[DownUndaCanuck]

Durzi's not great defensively but I'd go for Roy though. If they want scoring, I'd do Garland for Roy straight up. We get a 27 year old top-4 righty, he's not elite but he'd do a good job with Hughes. We've got so many good wingers to fill Garland's spot and he goes into their top-6 where they've said they need more scoring.

[LTC123]

Horvat

Rathbone  

 

for 

 

Durzi 

2023 2nd

2024 3rd