HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Van (Bieksa) - TB (Purcell) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1430391)

ohnoeszz 05-15-2013 10:38 PM

Van (Bieksa) - TB (Purcell)
 
Straight up, one for one trade:

Bieksa

for

Purcell

Smaller periphery pieces could be added on either side if value is slightly off but I think this is a good basis for a trade.

Purcell would slot in next to Kesler and Burrows (Kassian/Hansen with the Sedins) providing that line a high quality playmaker to compliment two aggressive two-way players that can do the bulk of the line's defensive work. Kesler needs a set-up winger.

Bieksa would bring some snarl and all-around ability to the Lightning. I really don't know their team well enough to guess exactly where he would slot in, but I do know that their best RHD, Salo, while an excellent player, isn't long for the NHL. He was talked out of retirement by Gillis a couple years ago after one of his many injuries.

Bieksa would seem to fill a current and long-term need(5+ years - not trying to pretend Bieksa is 23). Salaries are a wash and the Dman market is very thin.

AnthonyJohnson 05-15-2013 10:43 PM

As a Canucks fan, I do this trade. Bieksa is getting old, defensively hazardous and all at the cap hit of $4.5 million. Purcell would be welcomed in Vancouver's lineup slotting in Vancouver's 2nd line alongside Kesler and Burrows, younger and at a cheaper cap hit.

The YzerJesus 05-15-2013 10:46 PM

I'd do this as a Tampa fan. In a heartbeat. Not sure how other would feel though. We deal from a position of strength and add to a position of huge weakness. Bieksa, as far as I know, is the physical, defensive, top-4 D we need.

StringerBell 05-15-2013 11:01 PM

Not interested in Purcell. If we move Bieksa I'd want young, cheap talent back.

DJOpus 05-15-2013 11:27 PM

Not interested in Purcell for Bieksa...the only reason to trade Bieksa is to shed salary...the guy plays 25 minutes a night and provides both offense and toughness from the RD slot.

Connolly + 2015 1st for Bieksa

Note: used a 2015 1st which I figure is about equivalent to a 2013 2nd as I assume you want all your high picks this year.

Drop the Sopel 05-15-2013 11:34 PM

If this is the best offer the Canucks get for Bieksa, I would make that move. Vancouver needs more size and skill up front and Purcell's pas 1st style should mesh well with Kesler.

It's time for Bieksa to move on.

Vankiller Whale 05-15-2013 11:36 PM

No. We'd be better off with Bieksa + signing an impact forward UFA than Purcell + impact defenseman UFA.

Back in 94 05-15-2013 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale (Post 66128107)
No. We'd be better off with Bieksa + signing an impact forward UFA than Purcell + impact defenseman UFA.

Me too, but this would probably happen if we failed to acquire an impact forward UFA as a plan B.

Christina Woloski 05-15-2013 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel (Post 66128039)
If this is the best offer the Canucks get for Bieksa, I would make that move. Vancouver needs more size and skill up front and Purcell's pas 1st style should mesh well with Kesler.

It's time for Bieksa to move on.

Canuck fans ..... Are you guys remotely aware of the Canuck's record when Bieksa is in and out of the line up ?

For that reason alone, I'm out.

DJOpus 05-15-2013 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel (Post 66128039)
It's time for Bieksa to move on.

Bieksa played 33 minutes in the last playoff game of the season while nursing a strained groin...

He has a lot of value to the team and should only be moved on if a great return can be achieved that also fits our team goals of getting some young potentially elite offensive talent and saving a lot of cap space next year.

Teddy Purcell @ $4.5M is not that guy IMO...while Teddy Purcell signed @ $2.5M long-term would be (along with extras).

How much more than $4.5M is Iginla going to be this off-season because I'd take him and his intangibles over Purcell.

Back in 94 05-15-2013 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsBeReality (Post 66128431)
Canuck fans ..... Are you guys remotely aware of the Canuck's record when Bieksa is in and out of the line up ?

For that reason alone, I'm out.

He was in all four games against the Sharks and we got swept.:sarcasm:

blankall 05-15-2013 11:54 PM

Purcell's had a great year last year. He also plays on an offensively loaded team. This trade has the possibility to backfire bigtime on Vancouver. Purcell could easily end up a tweener. Bieksa is a huge part of the Canucks.

Drop the Sopel 05-16-2013 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsBeReality (Post 66128431)
Canuck fans ..... Are you guys remotely aware of the Canuck's record when Bieksa is in and out of the line up ?

For that reason alone, I'm out.

It's our playoff record with him in the lineup and a lack of size and skill up front I'm more concerned with. The Canucks haven't shown a lick of discipline, maturity or composure when it matters and Bieksa is a big part of that.

IMO it's time to shake up the core group and start preaching discipline. Bieksa just doesn't have the demeanor to fall in line with that style of play.

Purcell isn't the ideal return but if he's the best Bieksa would garner, it's something I would probably do. The Canucks are sorely lacking size and playmaking ability in the top 6 and Purcell possess both attributes. Purcell being 4 years younger and more durable also play into the decision.

Cogburn 05-16-2013 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsBeReality (Post 66128431)
Canuck fans ..... Are you guys remotely aware of the Canuck's record when Bieksa is in and out of the line up ?

For that reason alone, I'm out.

Our defensive system has evolved into a nightmare. Ideally, with a new coaching staff and a system that wouldn't make my head explode having it explained to me (see Ballard, Garrison, basically any D not named Mitchell and Hamhuis upon trying the system for the first time).

I'd hope he stays, big Bieksa booster here, but I disagree with that argument going forward.

ohnoeszz 05-16-2013 02:07 AM

Quote:

Not interested in Purcell. If we move Bieksa I'd want young, cheap talent back.
Everyone wants young cheap talent. No one wants to give it up. Its a fantasy that it can be acquired for a trade price that isn't overly exorbitant.

Quote:

Not interested in Purcell for Bieksa...the only reason to trade Bieksa is to shed salary...the guy plays 25 minutes a night and provides both offense and toughness from the RD slot.

Connolly + 2015 1st for Bieksa
He plays 22-23 minutes a night. The reason to trade him is to acquire a top 6 winger with talent that fits the other talent we have.

No team drafting top 3 is trading a first the next year and it doesn't make sense for the Canucks to add Connolly when they have Jensen/Gaunce ready for the NHL in the next year or two with Kassian already improving at the NHL level. Their need is a bonafide proven offensive talent to play with Kesler while the Sedin's cup window is still open.

Quote:

No. We'd be better off with Bieksa + signing an impact forward UFA than Purcell + impact defenseman UFA.
The Canucks don't have the cap space for a high-priced UFA signing and there is a very small market of quality UFA players that would fill the Canuck's needs. Other teams with more money will be bidding for them.

Quote:

Purcell's had a great year last year. He also plays on an offensively loaded team. This trade has the possibility to backfire bigtime on Vancouver. Purcell could easily end up a tweener. Bieksa is a huge part of the Canucks.
He's performed at a 50+ point pace for 3 straight seasons. He's performed at a 60+ point pace the last two seasons. He is fairly proven at this point. Yes he is in an excellent offensive environment but from actually watching him play, he does a lot to create that environment.

He is excellent with the puck on the rush. He does a lot of great things in terms of spacing the ice and creating angles. He has a big body which he can use to protect the puck and still make top notch passes. He is an ideal fit for what the Canucks need next to Kesler. His biggest deficiency as a player (not particularly active/aggressive defensively) is the biggest strength of Kesler/Burrows.

The Canucks have 3 defensemen better than Bieksa. Tanev is a rock defensively on the right side and Corrado looked ready for a full season with the Canucks. I think you overestimate how important Bieksa is to the team.


This all assumes that Bieksa would waive his NTC, which I think is far from a given (though past history has shown Gillis to be very persuasive).

Vankiller Whale 05-16-2013 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohnoeszz (Post 66131693)
The Canucks don't have the cap space for a high-priced UFA signing and there is a very small market of quality UFA players that would fill the Canuck's needs. Other teams with more money will be bidding for them.

Jagr, Iginla, Ryder, Clarkson, etc.

And we do have the cap space to make a solid bid assuming Ballard, Booth, and Luongo are gone.

Butchered 05-16-2013 02:18 AM

Done with absolutely no take backs.

Cogburn 05-16-2013 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butchered (Post 66131853)
Done with absolutely no take backs.

This pretty much confirms my feeling that we're being taken on a ride with this trade.

I'd like Purcell, but the more I think of a Bieksa-Purcell (or the previous Edler-Purcell proposal), the more I don't think it will work for us.

ohnoeszz 05-16-2013 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale (Post 66131711)
Jagr, Iginla, Ryder, Clarkson, etc.

And we do have the cap space to make a solid bid assuming Ballard, Booth, and Luongo are gone.

There is no "etc." out there that I'm aware of.

Even with buyouts in hand I still question the Canucks ability to open up that sort of cap space since depth will still need to be filled out. Tanev could command more than is expected as well as drawing offer sheets.

Jagr I would love, but he is a short-term bandaid.

I find Iginla far-fetched as he will command a hefty price-tag and have no shortage of suitors. Plus as a life-long Flame he doesn't hold any affinity for Vancouver.

Clarkson would be expensive and risky. I don't think he's a great fit for Kesler's line either.

Ryder I don't think is talented enough really to be worth it. He is a pretty marginal addition. We need something that changes the look of the 2nd line and makes them reliably dangerous.

Henrik To Daniel 05-16-2013 02:31 AM

I do this trade in a heartbeat. Purcell is a fantastic playmaker who has 152 points over his last 3 seasons (210 GP). He would be an excellent fit on Kesler's line.

These proposals involving signing guys like Jagr and Iginla need to stop. Gillis clearly has stated that he wants to get younger. Purcell is still in the prime of his career.

Bieksa has questionable leadership abilities. He has worn an A for quite some time now and hasn't got the job done. He needs to be sheltered by good defensemen like Hamhuis or Mitchell to be effective. His "mean streak" is also non existent. A change of scenery would do him well, especially to a small market team like Tampa where he can fly under the radar and do his job right.

Jacko95 05-16-2013 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale (Post 66131711)
Jagr, Iginla, Ryder, Clarkson, etc.

And we do have the cap space to make a solid bid assuming Ballard, Booth, and Luongo are gone.

I doubt Iginla hits the market, Jagr is a posibillity, but I se him retire, Clarkson is nowhere near the talent of Purcell and if Montreal buys out Kaberle they will have no problem resigning Ryder and if they don't resign him, who says you that he would come to Vancouver.

The chance of you signing 1 of them is slim and it's only possible, if 2 of the guys mentioned above leave Vancouver this summer.

But after all I am a Bolts fan and not a Canucks fan and would do the trade..

StringerBell 05-16-2013 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohnoeszz (Post 66131693)
Everyone wants young cheap talent. No one wants to give it up. Its a fantasy that it can be acquired for a trade price that isn't overly exorbitant.

Everyone wants gritty, two way, top four defensemen capable of putting up 40 points too, but no one wants to give them up. I'm quite confident if Bieksa was available someone would be willing to give up young talent for him, despite your sell job to the contrary.

ohnoeszz 05-16-2013 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StringerBell (Post 66132285)
Everyone wants gritty, two way, top four defensemen capable of putting up 40 points too, but no one wants to give them up. I'm quite confident if Bieksa was available someone would be willing to give up young talent for him, despite your sell job to the contrary.

What young talent? And does that young talent actually do anything for the Canucks roster?

My "sell job" is less about the unavailability of young talent (despite the truth in that) and more about the Canucks not needing more shots in the dark to fix the second line. It is an immediate need. Purcell addresses that. A quality 2nd line forward for a quality top 4 D seems like a fair swap to me as long as the teams have depth from where they are dealing.

Quote:

This pretty much confirms my feeling that we're being taken on a ride with this trade.

I'd like Purcell, but the more I think of a Bieksa-Purcell (or the previous Edler-Purcell proposal), the more I don't think it will work for us.
I don't think TB fans' enthusiasm is based on the talent difference between the two. I think its based upon trading from strength, for weakness - something the Canucks are doing here as well. It also seems like Canucks fans are somewhat unfamiliar with Purcell.

I find it funny how eager some are to move Edler (a better defenseman than Bieksa) for Couturier (a worse player than Purcell) when this trade better addresses our needs.

Jacko95 05-16-2013 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohnoeszz (Post 66132613)
I don't think TB fans' enthusiasm is based on the talent difference between the two. I think its based upon trading from strength, for weakness - something the Canucks are doing here as well. It also seems like Canucks fans are somewhat unfamiliar with Purcell.

I find it funny how eager some are to move Edler (a better defenseman than Bieksa) for Couturier (a worse player than Purcell) when this trade better addresses our needs.

That's right, Purcell is our best guy to enter the Ozone, but we have enough talent to trade him away for the right guy and Bieksa would fill a need. Most Bolts fans are for not trading Purcell, but we all know he is the most valuable asset we have to get a quality top4 guy, so we are willing to trade him away for the right price.

416Leafer 05-16-2013 06:13 AM

As an outsider, I think it looks like a pretty good proposal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 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.