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 - LII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2013, 03:03 AM
  #76
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canuck View Post
If we could get some GM to offer that, I think we take a long look at it.
gillis and whoever that gm could agree to it

David71 is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 03:17 AM
  #77
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Botchford on Twitter has been talking about a Detroit - Vancouver trade that was being bandied about at the draft. I'm not going to post links to all of the posts, but he says the Canucks wanted three good young players and Detroit's first for Edler. He also said that a guess that it was Brendan Smith, Gustav Nyquist, Calle Jarnkrok and Detroit's first was 'close' and that the deal fell apart when Gillis wanted the pick.

It's probably just Botchford being Botchford, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. I didn't really like the idea of trading Edler this summer, but if that's the type of return he could have gotten, I wouldn't have been too upset.

If they had executed that deal, they might as well have traded Kesler+Burrows right after. If the middle tier of Kesler-Edler-Schneider is 2/3rds gone, might as well trade the lot. That way, when the Sedins and Luongo (he could go too actually) fall off, it's just about the youth and not gradually phasing to Kesler/Edler.

Trading Edler should signal more trades. Personally, I would not have done that deal. Nyquist is the best piece, but I'm not sure how well he's going to fare in the pros. The pick would have to be high teens to make it work for me. Not as high on Jarnkrok as I was before either. Still, interesting speculation.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 03:34 AM
  #78
SgtToody
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arttk View Post
Except getting screwed by the refs is a fact. 15 penalties ( and the timing of them) in 2 games compared to like 5 or 6 for us? We WERE the statistical anomaly because no other series had such discrepancy. To dismiss it just as an excuse is shallow in my point of view. Hell even in the preseason we can see the refs are still screwing around with us, I am not sure how it is possible to think that referring can not be a factor.
This is exactly what we need... More whining and less accountability! Everyone knows you can't spell FAN without an F.

SgtToody is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 03:37 AM
  #79
SgtToody
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
3 pieces of junk and a late first for a top pairing primed defence man? Pass.
However, despite some disagreement over the 'junk' thing, the deal also opens a spot for Corrado... The one area where any prospect is remotely close to breaking through is defence. You've got to give up something, as the saying goes. Right now the 'reset' looks more like a repeat...

SgtToody is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 10:25 AM
  #80
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 15,697
vCash: 500
Botch floated Edler for Bobby Ryan. Would've liked that deal.

Burke's Evil Spirit is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 10:32 AM
  #81
Alflives
Registered User
 
Alflives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
If they had executed that deal, they might as well have traded Kesler+Burrows right after. If the middle tier of Kesler-Edler-Schneider is 2/3rds gone, might as well trade the lot. That way, when the Sedins and Luongo (he could go too actually) fall off, it's just about the youth and not gradually phasing to Kesler/Edler.

Trading Edler should signal more trades. Personally, I would not have done that deal. Nyquist is the best piece, but I'm not sure how well he's going to fare in the pros. The pick would have to be high teens to make it work for me. Not as high on Jarnkrok as I was before either. Still, interesting speculation.
I realize it's a long way off, but do you see the Canucks as 'sellers' at the deadline, or sooner even? If so, which guys are up for the picking, and what return could we expect? I wonder, if the twins are not signed, might they be deadline trade candidates? Would they return a top ten pick, like Schnieder did?

Alflives is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 10:42 AM
  #82
arttk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Denmark
Posts: 1,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtToody View Post
This is exactly what we need... More whining and less accountability! Everyone knows you can't spell FAN without an F.
Not sure how stating facts can be called whining. Sure I agree the team needs to more discipline but when you have cases where av gets a penalty for barely saying anything, it shows you the reality of how skewed things are for us.

arttk is online now  
Old
10-02-2013, 10:48 AM
  #83
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
I realize it's a long way off, but do you see the Canucks as 'sellers' at the deadline, or sooner even? If so, which guys are up for the picking, and what return could we expect? I wonder, if the twins are not signed, might they be deadline trade candidates? Would they return a top ten pick, like Schnieder did?
I certainly don't see us as 'sellers' no. Especially not of the Sedins. Selling a Sedin(s) instantly craters this team into a nether land of not good enough to win a cup and not bad enough to score a top-5 pick.

We have a 34 year old top-10 (top-5 IMO) goalie on a long term contract. Our defensive core is also top-5/10 IMO and our top 4 D are 32, 30, 28, 27. All on long term contracts. If we start selling one or two pieces, that D core and goalie alone are going to be enough to keep up out of a top-5 pick for the next couple of years. The age and quality of our defence, and the fact we only have one real sure-fire top-4 D prospect, means that the best opportunity for this team is in the next 3-4 years.

Yossarian54 is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 10:54 AM
  #84
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
I realize it's a long way off, but do you see the Canucks as 'sellers' at the deadline, or sooner even? If so, which guys are up for the picking, and what return could we expect? I wonder, if the twins are not signed, might they be deadline trade candidates? Would they return a top ten pick, like Schnieder did?
Whoever they return he had better have fantastic gap control so the Canucks can exit the zone without having to make long passes.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 10:56 AM
  #85
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,357
vCash: 500
I wouldn't trade Edler right now. He looks more "comfortable" in JT's system.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 11:03 AM
  #86
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke's Evil Spirit View Post
Botch floated Edler for Bobby Ryan. Would've liked that deal.
That deal would have been perfect for this team. Ugh

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 11:04 AM
  #87
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Had to Google what that meant, and oh is that low DBR.
I feel it is more or less appropriate.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 11:08 AM
  #88
Alflives
Registered User
 
Alflives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian54 View Post
I certainly don't see us as 'sellers' no. Especially not of the Sedins. Selling a Sedin(s) instantly craters this team into a nether land of not good enough to win a cup and not bad enough to score a top-5 pick.

We have a 34 year old top-10 (top-5 IMO) goalie on a long term contract. Our defensive core is also top-5/10 IMO and our top 4 D are 32, 30, 28, 27. All on long term contracts. If we start selling one or two pieces, that D core and goalie alone are going to be enough to keep up out of a top-5 pick for the next couple of years. The age and quality of our defence, and the fact we only have one real sure-fire top-4 D prospect, means that the best opportunity for this team is in the next 3-4 years.
What you write makes sense, if we are looking to continue with a current roster that has zero (close to zero) chance of winning a cup. Do you not think it would be wiser to move the older players this season, so their return is high?

Luongo wants out, and with the cap going up, and his motivation to play great (as you write: "top 5 goalie") he should be a lot more 'moveable' this coming summer. That makes the team not as good. If the Twins were moved at the coming deadline, then the team would take another step back. This would create a domino affect among the other older players: Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, who might also want to be moved. Kelser is a keeper, unless he wanted out too. Moving these players, and getting (high) picks, and ,or, (grade A) prospects would create (if management does a good job!) a future window, where the chances of winning a cup are a lot better than they are now.


Last edited by Alflives: 10-02-2013 at 11:15 AM.
Alflives is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 11:17 AM
  #89
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
That deal would have been perfect for this team. Ugh
I'd have been okay with the deal, but would rather we chase Cammalleri or Vanek and not give up Edler at all.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 12:34 PM
  #90
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
What you write makes sense, if we are looking to continue with a current roster that has zero (close to zero) chance of winning a cup. Do you not think it would be wiser to move the older players this season, so their return is high?

Luongo wants out, and with the cap going up, and his motivation to play great (as you write: "top 5 goalie") he should be a lot more 'moveable' this coming summer. That makes the team not as good. If the Twins were moved at the coming deadline, then the team would take another step back. This would create a domino affect among the other older players: Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, who might also want to be moved. Kelser is a keeper, unless he wanted out too. Moving these players, and getting (high) picks, and ,or, (grade A) prospects would create (if management does a good job!) a future window, where the chances of winning a cup are a lot better than they are now.
I think that holds water only if you truly believe this roster has zero chance of winning a cup in the next 3 years or so. I don't think anyone can realistically say that is the case. Boston and LA have shown you don't need to have the best players, just be healthy and hot at the right time. You're also making the assumption that Lu is moveable.

Anyway, even if you do believe that, you need to go absolutely full retard. Sell everything that isn't nailed down. And then you have to hope that the kids you draft can replace guys like Lu, Hamhuis and Burrows, not to mention the ****ing franchise all time points leader. I think it is idiotic to think that you can do this and be sure of a better chance of winning the cup in 7,8,9 years or however long it takes.

Yossarian54 is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 12:42 PM
  #91
Amused To Death
Registered User
 
Amused To Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
I wouldn't trade Edler right now. He looks more "comfortable" in JT's system.
Went to the Phoenix game, haven't seen Edler look so dominant in a few years. This will be a *good* year for Edler.

Amused To Death is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 12:54 PM
  #92
arttk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Denmark
Posts: 1,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
That deal would have been perfect for this team. Ugh
Don't see how Ana want anything like that, they got rid of Bobby Ryan to shed salary, getting Edler doesn't really help them with that.

arttk is online now  
Old
10-02-2013, 01:01 PM
  #93
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
That deal would have been perfect for this team. Ugh

Not with Ryan's contract running out, and with Edler locked up for a long time. It also really hampers VAN's puck moving ability from their own zone. Tough call, but I would say no to that deal. Unless, another good Dman was brought in from a subsequent deal.

Edit: Urbom on waivers. If the team hadn't already picked up Stanton, he would have been nice project for them.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 10-02-2013 at 01:24 PM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 01:37 PM
  #94
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
I'd have been okay with the deal, but would rather we chase Cammalleri or Vanek and not give up Edler at all.
Well, FYI, it would be impossible to chase a Cammy or Vanek if you don't trade a significant chunk of AAV back the other way.

Betamax* is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 01:40 PM
  #95
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian54 View Post
I certainly don't see us as 'sellers' no. Especially not of the Sedins. Selling a Sedin(s) instantly craters this team into a nether land of not good enough to win a cup and not bad enough to score a top-5 pick.

We have a 34 year old top-10 (top-5 IMO) goalie on a long term contract. Our defensive core is also top-5/10 IMO and our top 4 D are 32, 30, 28, 27. All on long term contracts. If we start selling one or two pieces, that D core and goalie alone are going to be enough to keep up out of a top-5 pick for the next couple of years. The age and quality of our defence, and the fact we only have one real sure-fire top-4 D prospect, means that the best opportunity for this team is in the next 3-4 years.
Personally, I think we're already in that nether-region of mediocrity.

-on Luongo, he doesn't want to be here. So there's that hanging over this organization's head, which probably needs to be dealt with over the course of the next year.

-on our D core, the "by committee" strategy hasn't really worked, historically. You need that one (or two) stud(s), who can play multiple minutes, in multiple situations, a do-all type. I don't think we have that guy. We don't have that star defenceman.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 02:02 PM
  #96
Lundface
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Personally, I think we're already in that nether-region of mediocrity.

-on Luongo, he doesn't want to be here. So there's that hanging over this organization's head, which probably needs to be dealt with over the course of the next year.

-on our D core, the "by committee" strategy hasn't really worked, historically. You need that one (or two) stud(s), who can play multiple minutes, in multiple situations, a do-all type. I don't think we have that guy. We don't have that star defenceman.
While this is true, I personally feel Hamhuis Garrison would be a rock steady shutdown pairing especially with the new system. Our d won't be engaging mindlessly to pinch anymore, could make it very hard first forwards to get by these two. Edler and Tanev could clean up the rest of the tough minutes and suddenly we become a tough team to score on. If there was anyway to trade Bieksa for a second line playmaker I'd be all over it.

Lundface is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 02:29 PM
  #97
ziploc
Registered User
 
ziploc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Personally, I think we're already in that nether-region of mediocrity.

-on Luongo, he doesn't want to be here. So there's that hanging over this organization's head, which probably needs to be dealt with over the course of the next year.

-on our D core, the "by committee" strategy hasn't really worked, historically. You need that one (or two) stud(s), who can play multiple minutes, in multiple situations, a do-all type. I don't think we have that guy. We don't have that star defenceman.
I agree about the stud defenseman. A true #1 shutdown guy seems pretty important, and I think we have been waiting/hoping/praying for Edler to become that for some time. Doesn't look like he will hit those heights, and elite #1 guys don't grow on trees, so we have tried to get a whole bunch of very good but not great defenseman to compensate. It nearly worked, and barring Hamhuis' injury, would have worked IMHO. We are committed to this way though, and it's not the worst. I don't think we will be mediocre, but this group might not be able to finally get us over the hump. A lot depends on Edler's play this year.

ziploc is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 02:51 PM
  #98
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziploc View Post
I agree about the stud defenseman. A true #1 shutdown guy seems pretty important, and I think we have been waiting/hoping/praying for Edler to become that for some time. Doesn't look like he will hit those heights, and elite #1 guys don't grow on trees, so we have tried to get a whole bunch of very good but not great defenseman to compensate. It nearly worked, and barring Hamhuis' injury, would have worked IMHO. We are committed to this way though, and it's not the worst. I don't think we will be mediocre, but this group might not be able to finally get us over the hump. A lot depends on Edler's play this year.
On some teams , any one of our 4 would be a top D man

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 03:03 PM
  #99
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post
Well, FYI, it would be impossible to chase a Cammy or Vanek if you don't trade a significant chunk of AAV back the other way.
Both teams will likely hold salary to get a better deal. Cammalleri at 50% is quite doable even if we kept Booth.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
10-02-2013, 04:58 PM
  #100
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Not with Ryan's contract running out, and with Edler locked up for a long time. It also really hampers VAN's puck moving ability from their own zone. Tough call, but I would say no to that deal. Unless, another good Dman was brought in from a subsequent deal.

Edit: Urbom on waivers. If the team hadn't already picked up Stanton, he would have been nice project for them.
Right because there's a rule somewhere that states we couldn't re-sign Bobby Ryan. I forgot about that.

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 08:23 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.