HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Naslund? Bertuzzi? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=45619)

Hi-wayman 01-21-2004 01:38 PM

Naslund? Bertuzzi?
 
Though I am a strong Canuck fan, I have never been high on either Bertuzzi or Naslund. I'm also not as concerned about the Canucks winning a cup this year as seeing the team as a strong, young team playing entertaining hockey for many years to come. It's my own personal opinion that both Naslund's & Bertuzzi's trade value is greater than what either brings to the Canucks as a team. This opinion is more true of Bertuzzi than of Naslund as Naslund does lead the league in scoring.
Still, I think even Naslund would get us more assets than what he will bring the team for the few remaining years he will likely be here.

I am curious what fans from other teams would offer the Canucks for either Naslund or Bertuzzi individually or even together. Personally I doubt one team would have assets than would interest the Canucks enough to get both players compared to what each would bring the Canucks individually.

Peter Griffin 01-21-2004 01:41 PM

No offense, but trading either Naslund or Bertuzzi is a rediculous idea. The Canucks are one of the best teams in the league, potential stanley cup contenders, and you want to trade away two of their most important players to get younger and start over again? Sorry, but teams don't do that. I guess you are entitled to your own oppinion though...

jumptheshark 01-21-2004 01:50 PM

Mmmmmm Trading two of the top liners---just a guess--but the guy who not high on them---are you a HUGE supporter of the twins and are pushing for their induction into the hall of fame? I could rant--but this idea of trading both players is a joke.

monster_bertuzzi 01-21-2004 01:54 PM

Hmmm. Hi-Wayman, maybe you're not high on Bertuzzi and Naslund, maybe you're just high on that famous BC bud.

Slats432 01-21-2004 02:28 PM

Naslund? Bertuzzi?

Ah, overrated, blow them out.

I can't believe someone actually said that. :dunno:

I would trade anyone in the league one for one for Naslund aside from a star goaltender.(Unless I was a young rebuilding team.)

Habsaku 01-21-2004 02:32 PM

Good teams always trade their best players :shakehead .


Trade the Sedins first, and get a goaltender. The 2nd line and goaltending is much more of a problem then this ridiculous idea.

Ajacied 01-21-2004 02:35 PM

Naslund wouldn't command as much as his current stats reflect, mostly due to the fact he's nearing UFA status and has contemplated to retire and play the rest of his career in his native Sweden. Hell, he already said that he would definitely return and play for Modo if there was gonna be a lockout, and there's no guarentee he will be back..

Bertuzzi on the other hand, who I think is seemingly worse, would command a heck of a return, there's only a few selection of players that he couldn't fetch straight up..

NFITO 01-21-2004 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
Hmmm. Hi-Wayman, maybe you're not high on Bertuzzi and Naslund, maybe you're just high on that famous BC bud.

:lol:


in all seriousness though, in a way I agree with him about Bertuzzi... he's not playing the dominating game he did the past two years, this year, and it shows in the team's overall play... if we could deal him for 2 to 3 players that could help us, I'd do it...

having said that, it'd never happen... Burke isn't going to sign a guy to a long term deal and then deal him in his first struggling season - especially not a star player... it's a bad example to set for future negotiations and Burke is not one to operate like that... Bertuzzi isn't going anywhere this year... if he continues to struggle next year (if there is one) or long term, then things change (as does his trade value), but right now, he isnt' going anywhere - just a terrible business move and Burke doesn't make many bad business decisions.

As for Naslund - he's mr. everything on our offense this season, so this value has to be very very high to our team - whether its higher as a trade asset is debatable and something we'd probably never really know - but because of his value to our team, he isn't going anywhere either...

I guess it's easy to forget, but this is still one of the youngest teams in the league... nearly all the top contenders (except Ottawa) - Detroit, Colorado, Jersey, Philly, (gulp) Toronto - all have a core leadership group which is in their early to mid 30 - our's is basically in their late 20s, with Naslund being the oldest at barely over 30 (and Linden is 33, but still young compared to the oldest vets on the above mentioned teams)!! this is a young team now... why make massive changes to it?? yes we are struggling at times, and showing a lack of composure at times - but when you have a core like our's at the age we're at, you have to play through that, not flip them over.

still all a moot point... there is absolutely no way that Naslund or Bertuzzi get dealt... they are two of the safest players on the Canucks to not move - along with Linden, Ohlund and Jovo (in that order I assume).

Mothra 01-21-2004 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-wayman
as Naslund does lead the league in scoring.

Robert Lang, WAS C 47 23 33 56

Thats a funny way to spell Naslund

LaVal 01-21-2004 02:39 PM

i would never trade Naslund. partly because he's the glue which holds the team together, and partly like M=G said... he would not fetch too high of a return because of his possible early retirement.

Bertuzzi on the other hand i wouldn't be opposed to trading.

NFITO 01-21-2004 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modano = God
Naslund wouldn't command as much as his current stats reflect, mostly due to the fact he's nearing UFA status and has contemplated to retire and play the rest of his career in his native Sweden. Hell, he already said that he would definitely return and play for Modo if there was gonna be a lockout, and there's no guarentee he will be back..

Bertuzzi on the other hand, who I think is seemingly worse, would command a heck of a return, there's only a few selection of players that he couldn't fetch straight up..

Naslund has also said he definitely won't retire before the end of his current contract, which has 2 years and a team option left on it.

At $5.5 mill a year, he's one of the best bargains in the league, considering his play overall... I think he'd command a fairly significant return - any team would have him for at least 2 more years, given no lockout - which is about as long as any star player in the league who is around 30 could be gaurenteed to be with their team.

most players his age don't have a contract commitment that long - and whether he choses to retire - as opposed to a guy who's headed to UFA status, their guarentee to the team is no different.

doesn't matter anyways... he's not going to get traded, and is more than likely he'll retire a Canuck.

Missionhockey 01-21-2004 02:55 PM

Bertuzzi? Naslund? Pah! Utter crap....I'll give you Jiri Bicek for one of em. :)

Mizral 01-21-2004 03:26 PM

Throw in the rights to Jan Caloun and you have a deal!

BLONG7 01-21-2004 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-wayman
Though I am a strong Canuck fan, I have never been high on either Bertuzzi or Naslund. I'm also not as concerned about the Canucks winning a cup this year as seeing the team as a strong, young team playing entertaining hockey for many years to come. It's my own personal opinion that both Naslund's & Bertuzzi's trade value is greater than what either brings to the Canucks as a team. This opinion is more true of Bertuzzi than of Naslund as Naslund does lead the league in scoring.
Still, I think even Naslund would get us more assets than what he will bring the team for the few remaining years he will likely be here.

I am curious what fans from other teams would offer the Canucks for either Naslund or Bertuzzi individually or even together. Personally I doubt one team would have assets than would interest the Canucks enough to get both players compared to what each would bring the Canucks individually.

Huh??? You gotta be kidding? Do not let Brian Burke hear you speak like this he will have Tony Soprano take you out!! BTW I would say that Bob Gainey is open to discussing a trade for either of these guys, that you are not sold on. :shakehead

oilers_guy_eddie 01-21-2004 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-wayman
Though I am a strong Canuck fan, I have never been high on either Bertuzzi or Naslund. I'm also not as concerned about the Canucks winning a cup this year as seeing the team as a strong, young team playing entertaining hockey for many years to come.

Awesome post. It's too bad Canucks' management doesn't see things the way you do.

Sincerely;
Oilfan, Flamesfan, Avsfan, and Wildfan.

Reign Nateo 01-21-2004 06:42 PM

Neither will be traded and it's a waste of everyone's time to contemplate it.

Ozy_Flame 01-21-2004 07:32 PM

I wouldn't give as much as die-hard Canuckleheads would be asking for. Bertuzzi now makes too much, and Naslund is set to head home relatively soon. If we're talking about a guy like Luongo, Heatley or Nash, no fudgin' way I trade any of them for either of those two guys. Makes no sense. Besides, both have picked up their games significantly since playing together; you make a deal you're going to have to go for both or nothing.

Arastiroth 01-21-2004 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
Awesome post. It's too bad Canucks' management doesn't see things the way you do.

Sincerely;
Oilfan, Flamesfan, Avsfan, and Wildfan.

:joker: :D

Reign Nateo 01-21-2004 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
I wouldn't give as much as die-hard Canuckleheads would be asking for. Bertuzzi now makes too much, and Naslund is set to head home relatively soon. If we're talking about a guy like Luongo, Heatley or Nash, no fudgin' way I trade any of them for either of those two guys. Makes no sense. Besides, both have picked up their games significantly since playing together; you make a deal you're going to have to go for both or nothing.

Doesn't really matter what you would give up or what Canucks fans would want, neither has any bearing on the situation.

6.6 million is not too much for arguably the games premeir power-forward.

And your last point is incorrect, Naslund had a 41 goal 75 points in 72 game 2000 season under his belt before Bertuzzi blew up in 2001. Not to mention 27 and 36 goal seasons in 1999 and 1998. In fact you couldn't be much more wrong.

nazzy19o 01-21-2004 11:49 PM

after tonights game you look like a fool

Blane Youngblood 01-22-2004 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nazzy19o
after tonights game you look like a fool

he kind of looked like a fool before the game.

Hi-wayman 01-22-2004 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nazzy19o
after tonights game you look like a fool

No I don't. It never is a bad thing to question the status quo & look at where the team could improve long run. I'm still willing to say that Bertuzzi is not helping this team as much as what players he would fetch in a trade could help the team. Tonight he showed what he is capable of, but how often has he shown that this year. Other teams also see his potential, so if he actually was put on the block, I am sure we would be getting back solid value.

Naslund is another matter. He is contributing & he is a leader, but I'd still consider trading him for one or two younger, not quite there, potential superstars. Naslund is at his prime & will help a team win now, but it's also likely he will be gone 2 or 3 years from now. I'm not proposing to trade either for less than more than their full value. No, the likelyhood of Vancouver trading Naslund or Bertuzzi is very low, but trading Paval Bure was also once considered hericy. For Naslund I'm talking deals such as Nash or Kovalchuk. For Bertuzzi even more. Nights like tonight only showcase both players in order to make other teams want to pay more. If other teams aren't willing to pay more then we keep them.

Peter Griffin 01-22-2004 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-wayman
Naslund is another matter. He is contributing & he is a leader, but I'd still consider trading him for one or two younger, not quite there, potential superstars. Naslund is at his prime & will help a team win now, but it's also likely he will be gone 2 or 3 years from now. I'm not proposing to trade either for less than more than their full value. No, the likelyhood of Vancouver trading Naslund or Bertuzzi is very low, but trading Paval Bure was also once considered hericy. For Naslund I'm talking deals such as Nash or Kovalchuk. For Bertuzzi even more. Nights like tonight only showcase both players in order to make other teams want to pay more. If other teams aren't willing to pay more then we keep them.

This is what I don't get. The Canucks are a top team right now, they are seen as contenders, and you want to trade away the two biggest pieces of the team to start over again? Why? Do you not want this team to have a chance at winning the cup in the next couple years, because if you want to replace either with Nash or Kovalchuk(don't know why Atlanta or Columbus would think about dealing either), the chances are going to be greatly reduced. Why build a strong team, sign the core to long term contracts, and the trade away the foundation of that core for younger players? I could see the reasoning for trading Bertuzzi if the Canucks could get another top 3 d-man and another top 6 forward, both in their mid-20's, that would likely make the Canucks a stronger, more balanced team. But to trade either for a young kid at this stage of the team's development, makes zero sense.

Yes Bure was traded, but that was a completely a different situation. I hope I don't have to explain why...

NFITO 01-22-2004 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Griffin
This is what I don't get. The Canucks are a top team right now, they are seen as contenders, and you want to trade away the two biggest pieces of the team to start over again? Why? Do you not want this team to have a chance at winning the cup in the next couple years, because if you want to replace either with Nash or Kovalchuk(don't know why Atlanta or Columbus would think about dealing either), the chances are going to be greatly reduced. Why build a strong team, sign the core to long term contracts, and the trade away the foundation of that core for younger players? I could see the reasoning for trading Bertuzzi if the Canucks could get another top 3 d-man and another top 6 forward, both in their mid-20's, that would likely make the Canucks a stronger, more balanced team. But to trade either for a young kid at this stage of the team's development, makes zero sense.

Yes Bure was traded, but that was a completely a different situation. I hope I don't have to explain why...

totally agree... not sure at all what Hi-wayman is thinking... maybe he's become a fan of the Flames or Oilers and just hoping the Canucks get further away from becoming contenders after spending the past 5+ years rebuilding into the situation we're in now.

The trades overall make no sense... contenders don't trade their superstars for a collection of younger players, or even a younger potential superstar - and likewise developing teams like Columbus and Atlanta, don't deal their potential superstars for established ones when the rest of their team isn't ready yet.

neither of these guys are going to get dealt... guys on our team that may make more sense to get dealt - like Jovo - are also not going to get dealt... Burke has built this team around this core and he's not going to jump ship because they're playing inconsistent this one year - this isn't a make it or break up the team season!

Mizral 01-22-2004 12:15 PM

Hi-Wayman,

The point of this whole excersize is to win the Stanley Cup, not to be also-rans for 10 years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.