Ted Lasso Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 With the addition of Severson, CBJ fans expect Peeke to be traded for a forward. Their middle six wingers are very thin, and It’s likely Babcock will prefer to play veterans over guys like Johnson or Marchenko. Garland drives his line, and has great 5 on 5 production. Sounds like a good fit for a team with questions at 2C. Are these players far apart in value? Would we have to add? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby James Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 I think every Canucks fan would want to do this deal. We know a winger needs to be moved for cap reasons and Peeke is somewhat young and signed for 3 years at a decent price (if he's top 4 quality). I'm just not sure how highly they value him. RHD are often needed by many teams, but it is true they really need quality forwards now that their D group is bolstered. Maybe Garland and Rathbone for Peeke? Or Garland and Beau for Peeke and a bottom 6 winger of theirs (to clear some cap). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Peeke was -41 this past season. IMHAO he's not what we need. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Peeke was -41 this past season. IMHAO he's not what we need. Columbus was garbage, +/- is virtually meaningless here Edited June 9 by canuck73_3 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 I'd totally do it. 100%. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Just now, canuck73_3 said: Columbus was garbage, =/- is virtually meaningless here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 7 minutes ago, Alflives said: Peeke was -41 this past season. IMHAO he's not what we need. He'd be ok 16-17 minutes a night if he wasnt part of the shutdown pair Probably decent as Hughes' partner 5v5, and then Peeke takes some PK time as well But i dont see him as a upgrade over Bear, except size/grit. Only reason id do this deal is to shed cap. But if we did it, it means Bear is on his way out which i dont like. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Swap out Garland for one of Pod/Hog then perhaps you catch their attention. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Lasso Posted June 9 Author Share Posted June 9 6 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: Swap out Garland for one of Pod/Hog then perhaps you catch their attention. How about Beauvillier as an alternate? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) I'd do it and let Bear walk or flip him for like a 5th or 6th if we could get one Acquire a young RD who costs roughly 2M less than Garland and save cap by letting Bear walk and slotting someone like Hoglander into Garland's spot Edited June 9 by Coconuts 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 22 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: I'd totally do it. 100%. I'd swap Garland out for Beauvillier but a yes from me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckFan1123 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 I think it would be a great trade on both sides. Saves money, adds a big need on defense since Peeke really would replace what Schenn gave us. I love Garland and I love how feisty he plays but he kind of seems like the odd man out on offense right now. But Columbus has a bigger need at wing right now than us. My concern with Peeke is that I’m not actually sure he’s as good as he’s supposed to be. Either that, or Columbus is just really that bad… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Just now, Kenny Powers said: How about Beauvillier as an alternate? Maybe as a ufa acquisition if they are in the mix. They lack a lot of size and physicality on the wings. They’re kind of soft there. They have a lot of skilled guys on the wing(a lot of which is young/developing). A 3rd overall who will be the face of this core. The young players will get better and they have two forwards who can already put up a PPG in Laine and Gaudreau. Offence probably should be a wait and see approach. They needed help of D right away. The smart thing for CBJ would be to build up the bottom 6. Hence why guys like Pod/Hog would be more enticing. IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilduce39 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 27 minutes ago, eeeeergh said: He'd be ok 16-17 minutes a night if he wasnt part of the shutdown pair Probably decent as Hughes' partner 5v5, and then Peeke takes some PK time as well But i dont see him as a upgrade over Bear, except size/grit. Only reason id do this deal is to shed cap. But if we did it, it means Bear is on his way out which i dont like. Yeah, Myers needs to be on the move before we trade for RD this offseason. Otherwise we wait a year - and that might be best with a lot more cap flexibility upcoming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Curse Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS, cap savings too baby, Peeke is a 4/5 I would still add another R D - Mayfield, dumba, Clifton all good options, CBJ is crazy to give Severson all that $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 28 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said: I'd swap Garland out for Beauvillier but a yes from me I’ll do you one better by adding the 11th and Hoglander and switching Peeke to Jiricek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeeeergh Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 24 minutes ago, ilduce39 said: Yeah, Myers needs to be on the move before we trade for RD this offseason. Otherwise we wait a year - and that might be best with a lot more cap flexibility upcoming. yea id say wait a year, we still have a bunch of unknowns 1. can OEL regain his 2021 form? 2. how will this D perform with more structure? 3. how close is filip johansson to playing in the nhl? 4. can hirose play for a full season like he did those past few games? answers to those, plus myers contract expired will paint a clear picture of what to do 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 8 minutes ago, Pears said: I’ll do you one better by adding the 11th and Hoglander and switching Peeke to Jiricek. If Reinbacher is not available I'd go for that. I'd hang on to the pick until then 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Pears said: I’ll do you one better by adding the 11th and Hoglander and switching Peeke to Jiricek. I'd love Jiricek but I could see CBJ saying no to Garland, Hoglander, and the 11th if they value him as much as those who speak of him in hockey circles He sounds like a can't miss top pairing RD to be, bird in hand and all that Edited June 9 by Coconuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 6 minutes ago, Coconuts said: I'd love Jiricek but I could see CBJ saying no to Garland, Hoglander, and the 11th if they value him as much as those who speak of him in hockey circles He sounds like a can't miss top pairing RD to be, bird in hand and all that Yeah, but them getting Severson and Provorov, he won’t be seeing top 4 minutes any time soon and there isn’t any sense in having him on the bottom pair. I’d still love Peeke but if we wanna be bold, no harm in asking about Jiricek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now