Would you trade Pettersson or Hughes along with a top 10 pick for the #1 overall?

[PetterssonOrPeterson]

15 minutes ago, nergish said:

I think there's a slight chance he's better offensively than EP40, but is it worth it considering his lack of defensive ability and being sub-6 feet? 

Hughes is just too rare of a player on the back-end, impossible to replace.

 

I actually don't know whether to call him generational or franchise... kind of hard to see which level he will be at in the NHL. 

 

You're right, his height might play a bit of a factor and his defensive play isn't there but offensively putting up generational numbers. 

Pundits also seem a little hesitant to flat out label him as generational unlike what they did with McDavid. 

 

I want to compare him to Mackinnon but Mackinnon has that dynamic skating explosiveness which I don't think Bedard has.

Maybe a Matthews since their shots both seem to be their strongest trait? 

[Canuck You]

Everyone got a price mang!

 

[MeanSeanBean]

4 minutes ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

i agree.

i think that even if this team continues to suck, we still have a generational talent to sort of ease that pain a little.

 

say what you want about mcdavid but lots of edmonton fans were at least happy that they had him as some reassurance even though they were constantly missing the playoffs. 

It's something to cheer for that gives you hope of a better future. Cheering for Horvat right now feels shallow, past padding stats for a better return. When you get to cheer for young elite talent, it's a glimpse into what you hope a team can become.

 

This team was just ranked 28th in our prospect. Only a small handful of teams have less to cheer for in hopes of making the future better. Not only that, this team is dog now.

 

Bedard would at least be a shining star we can bank or future on. Edmonton is an average team, but they have a generational talent so there's hope they could win big with him. We need that, we have nothing else and very little hope. 

[Master Mind]

4 minutes ago, tas said:

the conditions are there to keep the thread from derailing into yet another meaningless circular argument about trade value, which isn't the point.

Sounds about as meaningful as conditions that would never apply.

[nergish]

3 minutes ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

I actually don't know whether to call him generational or franchise... kind of hard to see which level he will be at in the NHL. 

 

You're right, his height might play a bit of a factor and his defensive play isn't there but offensively putting up generational numbers. 

Pundits also seem a little hesitant to flat out label him as generational unlike what they did with McDavid. 

 

I want to compare him to Mackinnon but Mackinnon has that dynamic skating explosiveness which I don't think Bedard has.

Maybe a Matthews since their shots both seem to be their strongest trait? 

I think Bedard's separating factor (other than his lethal shot) is his hockey IQ.

He reminds me a ton of Brayden Point, in that the puck just seems to find him no matter what, due to his on-ice intelligence and spatial awareness.

 

So, he's kind of like a Caufield/Point/Yzerman hybrid. Good luck putting a ceiling on that! Franchise player, to be certain.

But I'm just not sure how much better that is than a prime Elias Pettersson.

 

[tas]

2 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

Sounds about as meaningful as conditions that would never apply.

it's ok if you don't understand. you don't need to. 

[Brad Marchand]

I'd honestly do it.

 

If all it took was this year's first round pick and one of Hughes or Pettersson, I'd make that trade right away. From there, there could be two options to pursue:

 

1. Trade the other for the assets that would be required to offload Ekman-Larsson and Miller. There's no way this team will be in a position to compete as long as those contracts are on the books.

2. Keep the other, do what you can to trade Miller and ride out the OEL contract. In this scenario, I would keep Hughes since Bedard would theoretically replace Pettersson as the franchise centre.

 

Offload some other expendable assets (Horvat, Boeser, Garland whatever) and spend the next four years building around Bedard. Leverage other teams to take on some of their bad contracts for additional draft/prospect capital. At the end of that window, he will only be 22 and almost every bad contract should be off the books. In the scenario they keep Hughes, he'll also only be 28 and hopefully will have at least one competent top-pairing defencemen to partner with. They'll need to sign him to an extension by this time, so hopefully he'll be happy enough to do it.

 

Downside is that finding all the other necessary pieces to contend is no guarantee. Either of these two options is risky but I would take them over maintaining the status quo. They have no prospect capital to help them fill the gaps on the team or offload their bad contracts. Those four years would hypothetically be spent filling those gaps.

 

I honestly wish it was this simple. The harsh reality is that the Canucks will probably do none of these things and spend the next half decade trying to squeeze what they can out of this mediocre group of players.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Brad Marchand

[86Viking]

Easy answer for me...trade EP40 with the pick NOT Hughes, when have we ever had that dynamic of a D man...NEVER is the answer.

 

If we can trade JT before the TDL, maybe we can sign Horvat? The return would be less and we would be taking a contract back of some kind but if we are getting #1 overall and Bedard we are hoping he can be a C at the NHL level, something I think he is determined enough to get better at once he arrives in the NHL next fall.

 

We can then build around Bedard, Hughes and Demko-if he regains his form and we make sure he is healthy before he returns.

 

Problem is we still need to fix the D...a proper coaching staff with D structure would help. Could we convince Colorado to take JT and them send us Girard back? Then, hope that if Tocchet is hired as the new coach it will motivate OEL to waive his NTC....Canucks would need to retain on OEL but that is better than remotely considering a buyout!

 

Trade Kuzmenko for a good prospect or maybe a late 1st round pick, could we add Stillman to Kuz to clear just over another 1m in cap space or the LTIR of Pearson? Allow Garland to see if he can thrive under former coach Tocchet in a top 6 role?

 

Be a BOLD move, but offering our 2023 1st round pick AND Elias Pettersson for the 1st overall pick would bring excitement around our team like never before. Would suck to lose EP, but no way we get Bedard in a trade without offering him imo. Sadly, a team might even ask for more even with EP having a career year.

 

Or let's get CRAZY and trade Bo, JT, Kuz, Schenn for as many picks and prospects as possible. Bundle the Canucks 1st with anything else we have NOT named QH or EP and see if that could get us the 1st overall...I doubt it would but ya never know!

[van_ws]

I would do it for sure, no questions asked. 

[Master Mind]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

it's ok if you don't understand. you don't need to. 

You're asking if members here would accept a deal that the other team would not, so you have to put in a condition that the other team would automatically accept because that's how unrealistic and pointless it is.

[86Viking]

I get the fact EP is on a crazy pace for 100pts but WHY are some on CDC so willing to trade Hughes...we don't have a replacement for him, but if we moved EP in a deal we would have a replacement in Bedard!

[tas]

2 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

You're asking if members here would accept a deal that the other team would not, so you have to put in a condition that the other team would automatically accept because that's how unrealistic and pointless it is.

just go away. I am gleaning the exact insights from responses that I was looking for ... other than from yours, of course, because you're too dense to get it. 

[Master Mind]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

just go away. I am gleaning the exact insights from responses that I was looking for ... other than from yours, of course, because you're too dense to get it. 

I'll read whichever threads I please. You probably shouldn't make threads if you can't handle people pointing out the flaws in them.

[tas]

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

I'll read whichever threads I please. You probably shouldn't make threads if you can't handle people pointing out the flaws in them.

it's not flawed just because you're too dumb to understand my premise and motivations. go ruin your own thread. everyone else here seems to be able to go along no problem.  

[-DLC-]

Enough with the personal digs folks.

[Mustard Tiger]

Nah. It's get lucky or bust. I'd rather get two more 1sts in kuz + horvat trades while acquiring almost ready now prospects like bourque + capdumps from Dallas for boeser.

 

By the time all the youth is hitting their prime, Bedard is hitting UFA to come home 

[Master Mind]

6 minutes ago, tas said:

it's not flawed just because you're too dumb to understand my premise and motivations. go ruin your own thread. everyone else here seems to be able to go along no problem.  

I fully understand them, so I can post my thoughts on them.

 

Notice how I criticize the ideas, while you criticize the poster. Big difference and shows a lot about you and how you handle making threads.

[tas]

3 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

I fully understand them, so I can post my thoughts on them.

 

Notice how I criticize the ideas, while you criticize the poster. Big difference and shows a lot about you and how you handle making threads.

all you've done is demonstrate that you have no clue what my purpose was for the thought experiment. you should have simply answered yes, you would make either trade. period. end of story. but instead you had to be "that guy" on the internet. congrats. 

[Qwags]

Well if it's an automatic yes, I'd ask for a lot more than just a top 10 pick.

 

Don't have anything to lose.

[Master Mind]

2 minutes ago, tas said:

all you've done is demonstrate that you have no clue what my purpose was for the thought experiment. you should have simply answered yes, you would make either trade. period. end of story. but instead you had to be "that guy" on the internet. congrats. 

I can't say yes to trade ideas that aren't even remotely possible.

 

If being "that guy" means being someone to call out ridiculous ideas, I'm fine with that. Much better then being someone who uses personal attacks against others, so yes I will congratulate myself for that.