HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Canucks at the Trade Deadline - Part III (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1389645)

Mr. Canucklehead 03-30-2013 02:19 AM

Canucks at the Trade Deadline - Part III
 
MOD NOTICE - there is a general purpose Roberto Luongo thread to discuss all things relating to Luongo and Vancouver's current goaltending situation. Please keep that discussion on that subject there. All other matters relating to the trade deadline can be posted here.

Thank you.

keslerburrows 03-30-2013 02:20 AM

Jason Pominville. Please Mike.

vector209 03-30-2013 02:21 AM

Mike Green. Please, Jason.

DJOpus 03-30-2013 02:23 AM

Please find me a top 6 forward that can pass preferably someone who can play centre or wing.

If we can get two of those guys (one for each role), even better.

Also, I know Raymond is looking good right now. I've also seen what a healthy Raymond can do in the playoffs, it's not that great. If we can get a proven playoff scorer for Raymond (or trade Raymond for picks, and trade similar picks for a proven playoff scorer) then do it.

Samzilla 03-30-2013 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vector209 (Post 62756603)
Mike Green. Please, Jason.

Please no.

Vankiller Whale 03-30-2013 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keslerburrows (Post 62756581)
Jason Pominville. Please Mike.

He's probably number one target if we can get him without overpaying, 2nd choice would be Doan.

DJOpus 03-30-2013 02:42 AM

The problem with Pomminville is that I have no idea how we fit him in next year ($5.3 AAV) and we have cheap guys that can play his spot (Hansen and Kassian) at a reasonable level.

Also, at a hit of $5.3M, you are really banking on Pomminville getting back to his career high levels every year, he's been on pace/put up less than 58 points in two of the last three years (including this one), and under 67 points in four of the last five years while getting prime minutes with a very good offensive player in Vanek.

Comparing Pomminville's production to a guy like Roy's who likely would command a similar salary (IMO), Roy has put up a 60 point pace in four of the last five years (including this one) and over a 67 point pace in three of the last five years (including four years with Pomminville).

Luongownage 03-30-2013 02:44 AM

Ryan Clowe and Derek Roy.

Botch knows nothing, Gillis can make this happen.

vector209 03-30-2013 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luongownage (Post 62756899)
Ryan Clowe and Derek Roy.

Botch knows nothing, Gillis can make this happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samzilla (Post 62756641)
Please no.

What Sam said.

keslerburrows 03-30-2013 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJOpus (Post 62756869)
The problem with Pomminville is that I have no idea how we fit him in next year ($5.3 AAV) and we have cheap guys that can play his spot (Hansen and Kassian) at a reasonable level.

Also, at a hit of $5.3M, you are really banking on Pomminville getting back to his career high levels every year, he's been on pace/put up less than 58 points in two of the last three years (including this one), and under 67 points in four of the last five years while getting prime minutes with a very good offensive player in Vanek.

Comparing Pomminville's production to a guy like Roy's who likely would command a similar salary (IMO), Roy has put up a 60 point pace in four of the last five years (including this one) and over a 67 point pace in three of the last five years (including four years with Pomminville).

I hear ya, I'd take either. I just think Pominville is one of those players that would fit this team very well.

Vankiller Whale 03-30-2013 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJOpus (Post 62756869)
The problem with Pomminville is that I have no idea how we fit him in next year ($5.3 AAV) and we have cheap guys that can play his spot (Hansen and Kassian) at a reasonable level.

Also, at a hit of $5.3M, you are really banking on Pomminville getting back to his career high levels every year, he's been on pace/put up less than 58 points in two of the last three years (including this one), and under 67 points in four of the last five years while getting prime minutes with a very good offensive player in Vanek.

Comparing Pomminville's production to a guy like Roy's who likely would command a similar salary (IMO), Roy has put up a 60 point pace in four of the last five years (including this one) and over a 67 point pace in three of the last five years (including four years with Pomminville).

There seems to be a lot of cherry picking stats here.

2009: 66 points
2010: 62 points
2011: 52 points(on pace for 58.4 in 82 games)
2012: 73 points
2013: (on pace for 55 points, in a year the entire Sabres are underperforming)

So generally he can be expected to put up ~60 points, give or take.

Derek Roy is better offensively(although only had 44 points in 80 games last year, and is on pace for 60 points this year) He's cheaper than Pominville now, at 4 mil, but his new contract he could easily get 5.5-6 mil.

Couple that with Pominville having a significant size advantage, is much better defensively, and has the veteran presence of a captain, as well as being signed for two seasons instead of one, and he makes a lot more sense, to me at least, to target.

TheDiver* 03-30-2013 04:08 AM

I have a feeling we are going to be dissapointed with the magnitude of MG's deals.

DJOpus 03-30-2013 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale (Post 62757529)
Couple that with Pominville having a significant size advantage, is much better defensively, and has the veteran presence of a captain, as well as being signed for two seasons instead of one, and he makes a lot more sense, to me at least, to target.

For me the biggest factor is winger vs. centre...and also price (people are saying 2nd + KConn or Schroeder straight up for Roy; Pominville is looking like a 1st + Jensen/Gaunce).

If you get Pominville you basically have to make a choice between him and Booth and likely give Booth away for free because we can't spend that much on four wingers (D. Sedin (6), Pomminville (5.3), Burrows (4.5), and Booth (4.5) unless you go with a cheap centre on the 3rd line (like Schroeder).

If you get Roy, you can build a line around him with two cheaper players (like Hansen and Kassian) while not screwing up any other lines and have it be an effective line. You still have to make a choice on Booth but the choice is likely Booth + low priced player on the 2nd line vs re-signing Raymond + Higgins.

Bgav 03-30-2013 04:29 AM

Sidney Crosby Pls

maroon 6 03-30-2013 04:32 AM

Keith Carney please Mike

LPH 03-30-2013 05:10 AM

Jagr please

vanuck 03-30-2013 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verviticus (Post 62753517)
you dont really need more gamebreakers unless you're a bad team. people seem to view the cup as some sort of summit that once you reach, now you're A Cup Team and it's a foregone conclusion that you either lose to another Cup Team or you were really a big faker

when its more like, you're a team that has x% to win the cup and either thats good enough because you can sustain that level of competitiveness over a long period of time, or you want to add y% to get (x+y) in exchange for some of competitiveness later. getting a gamebreaker is a great way to increase your chances of winning a cup but its not like we NEED one to have a chance of winning it

adding another good hockey player is a great way to not have to pay for a gamebreaker in exchange for getting a less than y% gain. there really isn't a hump to overcome

I agree with the premise of your team having a certain chance to win it every year. As long as we have a good team every year and can stay healthy. And that when you already have a good team you don't need a gamebreaker as bad as a poor team does.

The thing is: even with the Canucks being a good team, there is still a real concern with this team's offense in the postseason though. Until we can nail down the reason behind it as definitely being all bad luck or injury, there's always going to be questions. Especially when they struggle to get chances against good teams.

Does this team have to be absolutely loaded in order to overcome that problem? How good do they have to be then? And just what sort of price would we have to pay to secure that?

I do think we could use another guy who can really shoot the puck... the one-shot scorer and all. I assume that has a lot to do with what people are reminded of when they think 'gamebreaker'. But then that comes back to acquisition cost.

Even if we decide we don't need one of these gamebreakers, I can't help thinking that at some point a 'diminishing returns' sort of effect starts to come into play. Perhaps there's just a realistic limit to how much 'possession' you can have? Basically I'm wondering if the increase in team possession (and thus your odds to win) isn't really worth the upgrading cost anymore. Unless your team can now somehow control events at a ridiculous rate. Though this part is sort of going off-topic now...

But, maybe this is finally the year we stay healthy in the playoffs and the question goes away for good.

ddawg1950 03-30-2013 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses (Post 62757651)
I have a feeling we are going to be dissapointed with the magnitude of MG's deals.

Maybe.

I think we'll get a pretty good idea of what Gilis thinks of his team.

If he loads up and makes significant moves, then he sees us as contenders this year.

If he is noticeaby conservative in his moves, then I think he is writing this season off.

Nuckles 03-30-2013 10:45 AM

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...24554389860353
Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, VAN have put David Booth on LTIR, which gives them the value of his deal ($4M+) to spend above the cap.
Dat cap space (which we likely wont use)

LeftCoast 03-30-2013 10:48 AM

Cap space this year isn't such a problem. Cap space next year is. Top priorities are getting Higgins (nice news above) and Raymond signed. After the cut down arbitration last year, it might be difficult to re-sign Raymond.

Any move we make at the deadline has to be cap neutral for next season.

y2kcanucks 03-30-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuckles37 (Post 62764473)
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...24554389860353


Dat cap space (which we likely wont use)

Sounds unnecessary unless we are planning to make a big move.

Street Hawk 03-30-2013 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 62764765)
Sounds unnecessary unless we are planning to make a big move.

I think there will not be major moves at the deadline.

Gillis has to figure out a way to move the contracts of Ballard, Booth, Luongo prior to next season. That's about $14 million the club needs in order to round out the final 11/12 players on their roster for next season. Club is at the cap max next season based on the current contracts they have signed and only have 14 players signed.

Not sure how much stomach Aquaman has for buyouts.

Samzilla 03-30-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 62764765)
Sounds unnecessary unless we are planning to make a big move.

We all knew it was coming regardless of whether or not Gillis makes a move. With Booth on LTIR, Gillis can:

-make no moves
-try to make a hockey trade and fail
-try to make a hockey trade and succeed

Without Booth on LTIR, Gillis can:

-make no moves

It's all about options.

y2kcanucks 03-30-2013 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samzilla (Post 62765769)
We all knew it was coming regardless of whether or not Gillis makes a move. With Booth on LTIR, Gillis can:

-make no moves
-try to make a hockey trade and fail
-try to make a hockey trade and succeed

Without Booth on LTIR, Gillis can:

-make no moves

It's all about options.

Booth has been deemed out for the season for a while now though, you'd think that LTIRing him would have been done a while ago. I just find the timing a little interesting.

Tiranis 03-30-2013 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 62766061)
Booth has been deemed out for the season for a while now though, you'd think that LTIRing him would have been done a while ago. I just find the timing a little interesting.

There was no reason to do it until now.

---

Canucks will have $6m to spend if they hold off on making moves until the trade deadline. If they move Malhotra to LTIR then they'll have $8.5m.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.