HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXX - Naughty Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 01:01 AM
  #126
Lundface
Registered User
 
Lundface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
This came up on the trade section, what do you guys think of Malhotra + Gaunce + 1st for Vanek?

If Schroeder can fit in well enough as 3C then I think I would do it. We'd have no holes in our roster and a stacked top-6. If we get a 1st in a Luongo trade to make up for losing one as it is a strong draft, it's even better.(And if we got Bjugstad + 1st then we'd be high flying).
That trade would be a no brainer. Trade Luongo for similar assets as you said and the salary would work out too.

I don't see why Buffalo would make that trade though

Lundface is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:40 AM
  #127
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,398
vCash: 500
Burrows is a non-streaky 20-30 goalscorer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
Hansen gets pretty hefty amounts of love around these parts. The forwards that receive the most scorn are definitely Raymond and Booth. Raymond has had a rough couple of seasons, for sure, but I think Booth showed a fair amount of promise last year.
It's pretty silly to measure how under-appreciated someone is by how much scorn they get.

Alot of it is deserved as well. I think most of us are optimistic about what Booth will do going forward, but he was truly awful in the playoffs. No reason to make excuses for the guy.

Shareefruck is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:42 AM
  #128
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
This came up on the trade section, what do you guys think of Malhotra + Gaunce + 1st for Vanek?

If Schroeder can fit in well enough as 3C then I think I would do it. We'd have no holes in our roster and a stacked top-6. If we get a 1st in a Luongo trade to make up for losing one as it is a strong draft, it's even better.(And if we got Bjugstad + 1st then we'd be high flying).


I would not do that trade. Vanek makes 7m per... That is not only an unsustainable contract on this team, it breaks the cap-covenant they have going. Vanek is not better than either twin or Kesler, yet he is paid more. Therefore, he doesn't fit.



The forwards around the league that seem like good fits are those that have a middling salary like Booth. These guys don't upset the natural order. Nor would they be looking for a big pay day when their contracts are up (usually). So it's easier to keep them for longer.


Guys like Clowe, Ruutu, Weiss, Purcell, Simmonds, Okposo, Stafford etc... make more sense than the short-lived usage of Vanek would IMO.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:53 AM
  #129
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,937
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I would not do that trade. Vanek makes 7m per... That is not only an unsustainable contract on this team, it breaks the cap-covenant they have going. Vanek is not better than either twin or Kesler, yet he is paid more. Therefore, he doesn't fit.

Not sure he's a great fit based on needs either - 2/3C or a playmaker for Kesler's line. $7m for yet another shooter on a line with no one to set him up. Even though the $7m is a put off the price is not unreasonable.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:53 AM
  #130
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,395
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I would not do that trade. Vanek makes 7m per... That is not only an unsustainable contract on this team, it breaks the cap-covenant they have going. Vanek is not better than either twin or Kesler, yet he is paid more. Therefore, he doesn't fit.



The forwards around the league that seem like good fits are those that have a middling salary like Booth. These guys don't upset the natural order. Nor would they be looking for a big pay day when their contracts are up (usually). So it's easier to keep them for longer.


Guys like Clowe, Ruutu, Weiss, Purcell, Simmonds, Okposo, Stafford etc... make more sense than the short-lived usage of Vanek would IMO.
To be fair, he only gets 14 minutes a night of ice time, much to the chagrin of Sabres fans. I think if we want to add a top-6 forward we'll have to make some sacrifices, Gillis has said if he has the opportunity to add a high end game changer, he's not averse to going over the internal cap, and that the Sedins also wouldn't mind someone making more than them if it meant they got to play with another high calibre player on the team.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:10 AM
  #131
Orca Smash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,229
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Burrows is a non-streaky 20-30 goalscorer.
It's pretty silly to measure how under-appreciated someone is by how much scorn they get.

Alot of it is deserved as well. I think most of us are optimistic about what Booth will do going forward, but he was truly awful in the playoffs. No reason to make excuses for the guy.
I could add kesler, higgins, pahlsson, bieksa, edler to that list as well. Nobody besides the goalies and sedins showed up. I thought our entire team was pretty bad. Raymond and booth were bad to, just saying majority of our team deserves that scorn then if you feel booth is deserving of what he gets based on playoffs.

Orca Smash is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:24 AM
  #132
Lundface
Registered User
 
Lundface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Not sure he's a great fit based on needs either - 2/3C or a playmaker for Kesler's line. $7m for yet another shooter on a line with no one to set him up. Even though the $7m is a put off the price is not unreasonable.
Vanek is only signed until 2014, so his contract isn't that bad. He puts up good numbers playing around only 17 minutes a game.

This team desperately needs more skill upfront, and Vanek has plenty. The fact that he can play against second pairings will make a big difference, and will help take pressure off the Sedins. If you're worried about chemistry, use him with the Sedins.

Sedin Sedin Burrows
Vanek Kesler Higgins
Booth Schroeder Hansen

Sedin Sedin Vanek
Booth Kesler Burrows
Higgins Schroeder Hansen

That is a legitimate offence.


Last edited by Lundface: 10-05-2012 at 02:42 AM.
Lundface is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:05 AM
  #133
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,170
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Burrows is a non-streaky 20-30 goalscorer.
It's pretty silly to measure how under-appreciated someone is by how much scorn they get.

Alot of it is deserved as well. I think most of us are optimistic about what Booth will do going forward, but he was truly awful in the playoffs. No reason to make excuses for the guy.
Nobody is making excuses for him. You gotta take the good with the bad. He's not Wayne Gretzky IQ-wise. In fact, probably one of the more poor players in the league in this aspect yet is still a very effective player. Yeah, he was not good in the playoffs but if we want to go down that road I could give you a list of who I thought wasn't very good in the playoffs:

Alex Burrows
Ryan Kesler
David Booth
Chris Higgins
Mason Raymond
Manny Malhotra
Jannik Hansen
Max Lapierre
Byron Bitz
Dale Weise
Sami Salo
Sammy Pahlsson
Aaron Rome
Zack Kassian
Andrew Ebbett
Kevin Bieksa
Dan Hamuis

I mean, that's pretty much 75% of our roster. He's in good company. How can you base such a strong opinion of a 5-game sample where a lot of players did not play well?

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:24 AM
  #134
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
To be fair, he only gets 14 minutes a night of ice time, much to the chagrin of Sabres fans. I think if we want to add a top-6 forward we'll have to make some sacrifices, Gillis has said if he has the opportunity to add a high end game changer, he's not averse to going over the internal cap, and that the Sedins also wouldn't mind someone making more than them if it meant they got to play with another high calibre player on the team.

There's a reason Vanek gets his ice-time dropped - he's one dimensional. Almost to a painful degree at times. He can disappear for long stretches, and that's not a 7m player on this team.


You made the point about a game changer bucking the cap-covenant. That's Weber, not Vanek. The former has an impact on almost every facet of the game. The latter's impact is localized to one area. He's not a game changer to me. I mean, why not just sign Semin if this is the type of player that you want to have alter the salary structure? He was available...



There are better top6 options out there for the price point, as I had detailed in my previous post. I would far prefer them to Vanek. At least you know they're likely to be around for a while. When Vanek's contract is up, he's gone to free agency.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 08:30 AM
  #135
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
This came up on the trade section, what do you guys think of Malhotra + Gaunce + 1st for Vanek?

If Schroeder can fit in well enough as 3C then I think I would do it. We'd have no holes in our roster and a stacked top-6. If we get a 1st in a Luongo trade to make up for losing one as it is a strong draft, it's even better.(And if we got Bjugstad + 1st then we'd be high flying).
I'd do it regardless. Now, explain to me why Buffalo would even consider this? They've made it quite clear they are not re-building, so why would they trade a 1st line talent for a #3C and futures? I don't think we have the pieces to pry Vanek out of Buffalo. The only way I see him moved is if the cap drops considerably, and in that case we would not be a destination that could take on extra cap space.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 08:33 AM
  #136
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I would not do that trade. Vanek makes 7m per... That is not only an unsustainable contract on this team, it breaks the cap-covenant they have going. Vanek is not better than either twin or Kesler, yet he is paid more. Therefore, he doesn't fit.



The forwards around the league that seem like good fits are those that have a middling salary like Booth. These guys don't upset the natural order. Nor would they be looking for a big pay day when their contracts are up (usually). So it's easier to keep them for longer.


Guys like Clowe, Ruutu, Weiss, Purcell, Simmonds, Okposo, Stafford etc... make more sense than the short-lived usage of Vanek would IMO.
Do you really think either Sedin or Kesler *****es if they trade for Vanek because he makes more than them? I don't think they care, in fact I think they'd be ecstatic that they have another elite player to help shoulder some of the offense. These guys all want to win, that's their priority. I have to think they're above whining over something so trivial. Vanek brings them an extra inch closer to the Stanley Cup, they'd embrace that for sure. When it came time to re-sign Vanek 2 years later, he'd be taking a cut like everyone else or he'd be walking. Simple as that.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:25 AM
  #137
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,462
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I would not do that trade. Vanek makes 7m per... That is not only an unsustainable contract on this team, it breaks the cap-covenant they have going. Vanek is not better than either twin or Kesler, yet he is paid more. Therefore, he doesn't fit.



The forwards around the league that seem like good fits are those that have a middling salary like Booth. These guys don't upset the natural order. Nor would they be looking for a big pay day when their contracts are up (usually). So it's easier to keep them for longer.


Guys like Clowe, Ruutu, Weiss, Purcell, Simmonds, Okposo, Stafford etc... make more sense than the short-lived usage of Vanek would IMO.
If Mike Gillis shares the same view as you this team will never get out of its playoff scoring funk. You can't just turn down talented players because they make more than the Sedins (who's playoff performance, despite one series against San Jose, has really left a lot to be desired).

I'm not sure Vanek is the right player to be going after, but we shouldn't just avoid all high ticketed players.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:38 AM
  #138
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,395
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Do you really think either Sedin or Kesler *****es if they trade for Vanek because he makes more than them? I don't think they care, in fact I think they'd be ecstatic that they have another elite player to help shoulder some of the offense. These guys all want to win, that's their priority. I have to think they're above whining over something so trivial. Vanek brings them an extra inch closer to the Stanley Cup, they'd embrace that for sure. When it came time to re-sign Vanek 2 years later, he'd be taking a cut like everyone else or he'd be walking. Simple as that.
I agree with you, and here's the quote you can follow to the guy who said yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Personally, I would pull the trigger on this in a heartbeat.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:56 AM
  #139
Nuck This
Registered User
 
Nuck This's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,034
vCash: 500
I thought Booth actually played decently in the playoffs. He was our most physical player.

Nuck This is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:38 AM
  #140
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If Mike Gillis shares the same view as you this team will never get out of its playoff scoring funk. You can't just turn down talented players because they make more than the Sedins (who's playoff performance, despite one series against San Jose, has really left a lot to be desired).

I'm not sure Vanek is the right player to be going after, but we shouldn't just avoid all high ticketed players.
It's a good thing the Sedins didn't take TOO big of a discount. Can you imagine if they took 4mil per season? No Bieksa, Hamhuis, Kesler, Booth, or even Ballard! We'd be ****ed!

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:13 AM
  #141
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
I mean, that's pretty much 75% of our roster. He's in good company. How can you base such a strong opinion of a 5-game sample where a lot of players did not play well?
Yup, when Keith Ballard was one of your best players that playoff round - you've got serious problems (and that isn't particularly a knock against Ballard).

Barney Gumble is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:27 AM
  #142
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,691
vCash: 50
Other posters recently mentioned how some players have been playing in Vancouver on "discounts". Does anybody think this practice will continue? The lockout must signify the end of cosy player/owner relationships!

I think the year will be lost, personally. I have thought this since the initial league position was stated. What does this mean to Vancouver and their bid to remain competitive? I don't think Vancouver has been a destination for Free Agents for some time. I expect teams will be paying full market value upon the eventual resumption of play.

A quick look at the capgeek Canucks page shows the damage can be significant but manageable. It is the RFAs that should cause concern. The prospect pool is pretty shallow in this org. but noe must be mostly signed before next season.

The current signed roster does not look competitive. Can Gillis add enough guys to even maintain the team's playoff status? How?

JuniorNelson is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:31 AM
  #143
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundface View Post

I don't see why Buffalo would make that trade though
They wouldn't.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:32 AM
  #144
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,652
vCash: 500
Vanek on the first unit with the Sedins would be rediculous. His hand eye coordination is absolutely incredible.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:33 AM
  #145
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I would not do that trade. Vanek makes 7m per... That is not only an unsustainable contract on this team, it breaks the cap-covenant they have going. Vanek is not better than either twin or Kesler, yet he is paid more. Therefore, he doesn't fit.
To be honest, I don't think that "internal player cap" really applies to players that are aqcuired via trade. If Gillis has an opportunity to improve this team but said player makes a bit more than the Sedins, or Bieksa, I highly doubt that is going to cause any issues.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:34 AM
  #146
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Vanek on the first unit with the Sedins would be rediculous. His hand eye coordination is absolutely incredible.
Problem is, how much of a liability would they be on the ice?

Barney Gumble is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:37 AM
  #147
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Problem is, how much of a liability would they be on the ice?
Well considering the Sedins as a unit spend the majority of their ice-time in the offensive zone on a regular basis I don't really see that changing much by swapping out Burrows for Vanek. Heck even if they just had Vanek with the Twins on the PP that would be great, which is what I believe the poster was referring to anyway. Would be more effective than when Kesler was with them and allows Kesler to move down and anchor the 2nd unit.

That said, Buffalo is not a rebuilding team and I highly doubt they'd have any interest in dealing Vanek for futures at this point.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:48 AM
  #148
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,462
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
Well considering the Sedins as a unit spend the majority of their ice-time in the offensive zone on a regular basis I don't really see that changing much by swapping out Burrows for Vanek. Heck even if they just had Vanek with the Twins on the PP that would be great, which is what I believe the poster was referring to anyway. Would be more effective than when Kesler was with them and allows Kesler to move down and anchor the 2nd unit.

That said, Buffalo is not a rebuilding team and I highly doubt they'd have any interest in dealing Vanek for futures at this point.
The Sedins got absolutely slaughtered defensively in the 2011 playoffs, and that was when they primarily played with Burrows and Samuelsson.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:50 AM
  #149
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
The Sedins got absolutely slaughtered defensively in the 2011 playoffs, and that was when they primarily played with Burrows and Samuelsson.
What's your point? Should we put Kesler with them to help out defensively? My point was that swapping a Burrows for Vanek isn't going to dramatically change their line defensively, but offensively it could be a big boost. The Sedins' best defense is still going to be their offense.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 12:23 PM
  #150
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,462
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
What's your point? Should we put Kesler with them to help out defensively? My point was that swapping a Burrows for Vanek isn't going to dramatically change their line defensively, but offensively it could be a big boost. The Sedins' best defense is still going to be their offense.
Actually putting Kesler with the Sedins might not be a bad idea. Especially in the playoffs where they have been ventilated. Which means if we were to acquire another center (like Lecavalier in a Luongo to Tampa deal just for the sake of simpleness), moving Kesler up would probably work.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.