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

Would you guys have pulled the trigger on the Lecavalier trade?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2005, 04:47 PM
  #1
bhj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 205
vCash: 500
Would you guys have pulled the trigger on the Lecavalier trade?

I'm just wondering, a few years ago, there were rumors that Burke wanted to Cassel and another player for Lecavalier, but the Lightening rejected the proposal and asked for
Morrison and Ohlund in return.

I'm just wondering if you guys would have pulled the trigger on the trade?



Personally, i would have rejected the trade because Ohlund is a rock at defense, and Morrison is solid at both end of the ice. It's delimma because i wonder what kind of damage would have done to this line

Bert. Lecavalier Nazzy

What is your take on it?

bhj is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 04:51 PM
  #2
clay
Registered User
 
clay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,709
vCash: 500
I really don't think that rumour was real, considering that Lecavlier was considered by some to be the next Lemieux, but if it was, i still wouldn't have taken it because of Ohlund in particular, and Morrison is a very sold 1st line centre.

clay is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 04:57 PM
  #3
The Produce Man
Master of Puppets
 
The Produce Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,134
vCash: 500
As big a fan I am of Lecavalier, we would be a worse team adding him and subtracting Ohlund and Morrison.

The Produce Man is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 04:57 PM
  #4
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhj
I'm just wondering, a few years ago, there were rumors that Burke wanted to Cassel and another player for Lecavalier, but the Lightening rejected the proposal and asked for
Morrison and Ohlund in return.

I'm just wondering if you guys would have pulled the trigger on the trade?



Personally, i would have rejected the trade because Ohlund is a rock at defense, and Morrison is solid at both end of the ice. It's delimma because i wonder what kind of damage would have done to this line

Bert. Lecavalier Nazzy

What is your take on it?
at the time I might have been more inclined to pull the trigger... in hindsight it's better for the canucks they didn't.

We couldn't afford that top line.... with a $39mill payroll, having Naslund and Bertuzzi with Morrison and Ohlund is better for this team.

Ohlund is one of the most important players to this team... and having a top line, in today's NHL, you can't have 3 players making that kind of money tied up to one line... it's hard enough having Naslund and Bertuzzi's contract alone.

It's really not that different for the Lightning right now either... by committing to Lecavalier and St. Louis as they did, it likely means that they won't be able to give Richards what he will command (and still ice a competitive overall team). They basically chose Lecavalier long term over Richards... if they had made that trade it'd be a lot easier right now for them to keep Richards as their #1, with Morrison as their #2... and Ohlund as their #1 dman as well.

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 05:01 PM
  #5
bure94
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhj
I'm just wondering, a few years ago, there were rumors that Burke wanted to Cassel and another player for Lecavalier, but the Lightening rejected the proposal and asked for
Morrison and Ohlund in return.

I'm just wondering if you guys would have pulled the trigger on the trade?



Personally, i would have rejected the trade because Ohlund is a rock at defense, and Morrison is solid at both end of the ice. It's delimma because i wonder what kind of damage would have done to this line

Bert. Lecavalier Nazzy

What is your take on it?

Lecavalier >>>> Morrison.
Ohlund >>> any defenseman on the Lightning or ufa's we could realistically afford in between.

Ohlund is the rock we need on defense. Maybe Jovo+Mo for LeCav yeah I'd do that.

bure94 is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 07:05 PM
  #6
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clay
Morrison is a very sold 1st line centre.
Morrison is a 2nd line centre on 25 teams in the league - 1st on about 5, including ours unfortunatly.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 07:38 PM
  #7
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,372
vCash: 500
I think TB thought hard about trading Lecavalier but obviously hesistant as you never want to trade a player like that. But if we were able to sign him to a long-term contract, yes I would have pulled the deal with hindsight or not. Lecavalier is definitely a player you can build around. Lecavalier is an upgrade over Morrison. With Lecavalier, we wouldn't need Morrison. The loss of Ohlund would hurt, but we can easily find a replacement that is just as solid as Ohlund defensively but without the offensive talent. Or a guy who can make a bigger offensive contribution but not as defensively solid as Ohlund. Or just a poor man's Ohlund. Ie. we will make do.

F A N is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 08:11 PM
  #8
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,365
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
I think TB thought hard about trading Lecavalier but obviously hesistant as you never want to trade a player like that. But if we were able to sign him to a long-term contract, yes I would have pulled the deal with hindsight or not. Lecavalier is definitely a player you can build around. Lecavalier is an upgrade over Morrison. With Lecavalier, we wouldn't need Morrison. The loss of Ohlund would hurt, but we can easily find a replacement that is just as solid as Ohlund defensively but without the offensive talent. Or a guy who can make a bigger offensive contribution but not as defensively solid as Ohlund. Or just a poor man's Ohlund. Ie. we will make do.
Lecavalier's salary = Morrison's + Ohlund's salaries.

At best we'd replace Ohlund with a player like Doig or a rookie like Bieksa and be forced to drop Park or Carter for Bouck. Bad.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 08:39 PM
  #9
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
Morrison is a 2nd line centre on 25 teams in the league - 1st on about 5, including ours unfortunatly.
25 teams have a better center than Morrison? Don't think so. Morrison would easily be the 1st line center on Calgary, Chicago, Columbus, Edmonton, Florida, Minnesota, Nashville and Washington and would likely be the 1st line center on Atlanta, Carolina,Buffalo, NY Rangers and Phoenix. Unfortunately, most of those teams are non-playoff clubs, but I'd say Morrison is a middle of the pack 1st line center, not a 2nd line center playing in a 1st line role like you are suggesting.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 08:56 PM
  #10
JonathanTwinkleToews
is a Canuck fan.
 
JonathanTwinkleToews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
I thought it involved the Sedins? Meh, all these trade rumours.

JonathanTwinkleToews is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 08:57 PM
  #11
QuickDynamite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi
Country: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 4,815
vCash: 500
I wouldn't do that. Ohlund is the anchor of our defense.

QuickDynamite is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 10:05 PM
  #12
Cupless
Wants new username
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
There's not many players in the league that I would trade Ohlund away for even up, let alone adding Morrison to the package.

When you get a stud defenseman who can be the best defensive player on your team and is still an offensive threat and physical presence you don't let it go. A rounded player like that will win you more playoff games than a star scoring center.

Cupless is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 10:39 PM
  #13
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 55,019
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhj
I'm just wondering, a few years ago, there were rumors that Burke wanted to Cassel and another player for Lecavalier, but the Lightening rejected the proposal and asked for
Morrison and Ohlund in return.

I'm just wondering if you guys would have pulled the trigger on the trade?



Personally, i would have rejected the trade because Ohlund is a rock at defense, and Morrison is solid at both end of the ice. It's delimma because i wonder what kind of damage would have done to this line

Bert. Lecavalier Nazzy

What is your take on it?
I was living in Florida at the time of the rumours and from what I gathered the Tampa was not realy interested in trading Vince enless they got alot

The only source I had with the tampa group(worked low level in the organization) and he suggested that the only way the deal would have gotten done is if the nucks tossed the twins, Ohland and Morrison in. A few teams beside the nucks called and no one would meet the asking price--which turned out to be a good thing

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 10:40 PM
  #14
Avery4Byng*
 
Avery4Byng*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ktown
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,751
vCash: 500
No thanks, Ohlund and Morrison are fine.

Avery4Byng* is offline  
Old
10-21-2005, 10:45 PM
  #15
ruutu37
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
Morrison is a 2nd line centre on 25 teams in the league - 1st on about 5, including ours unfortunatly.

wrong.
name 25.

ruutu37 is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 12:55 AM
  #16
Yammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of East Van
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhj
I'm just wondering, a few years ago, there were rumors that Burke wanted to Cassel and another player for Lecavalier, but the Lightening rejected the proposal and asked for
Morrison and Ohlund in return.

I'm just wondering if you guys would have pulled the trigger on the trade?
Hmmm. On one hand it is fair value. On the other hand, it concentrates a lot of salary in a key player, and I think if anything the Canucks are doing too much of that.

On the balance, I think you say the team with the best player wins that trade, and Lecavalier is the best of them. So, yes.

Yammer is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 12:57 AM
  #17
Yammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of East Van
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapel113x
I wouldn't do that. Ohlund is the anchor of our defense.
Yes, now. But three years ago, or whenever, he didn't have the value because we did not know if he was going to come all the way back from the eye injury. He still doesn't have full vision on one side.

Yammer is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 01:00 AM
  #18
Yammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of East Van
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Lecavalier's salary = Morrison's + Ohlund's salaries.

At best we'd replace Ohlund with a player like Doig or a rookie like Bieksa and be forced to drop Park or Carter for Bouck. Bad.
That's pretty far from "at best." I cannot think of too many teams that win Cups without a true #1 center. New Jersey with Arnott (who was better then, and had the size and reach of your prototypical top pivot).

No, if you have Lecavalier then you have other salary options. For example from this year, the team could have spent Naslund money on Scott Niedermeyer. It is about asset building.

Obviously the Canucks are not hurting because of this non-trade, of course.

Yammer is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 01:26 AM
  #19
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yammer
That's pretty far from "at best." I cannot think of too many teams that win Cups without a true #1 center. New Jersey with Arnott (who was better then, and had the size and reach of your prototypical top pivot).
See, generally speaking there are three keys.

1. Ace goaltender
2. Legit #1 center
3. Top defensive d-man.

And generally speaking a team needs 2 out of three.

So, in essence, we'd be losing one key to gain another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruutu37
wrong.
name 25.
While it is exaduration. Morrison is not the type of #1 that wins cups. His middle of the road, average. Just like Cloutier really. And we have no idea what Morrison would be at this point in his career if seperated from Naslund.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 01:34 AM
  #20
QuickDynamite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi
Country: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 4,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yammer
Yes, now. But three years ago, or whenever, he didn't have the value because we did not know if he was going to come all the way back from the eye injury. He still doesn't have full vision on one side.
He was still an excellent defenseman, the eye injury wasn't hurting his on ice play. At that point Lecavalier had done pretty much nothing in the NHL either and was considered to be a disapointment. I remember hearing his name in trade rumours more than once back then.

QuickDynamite is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 01:41 AM
  #21
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,365
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yammer
That's pretty far from "at best." I cannot think of too many teams that win Cups without a true #1 center. New Jersey with Arnott (who was better then, and had the size and reach of your prototypical top pivot).

No, if you have Lecavalier then you have other salary options. For example from this year, the team could have spent Naslund money on Scott Niedermeyer. It is about asset building.

Obviously the Canucks are not hurting because of this non-trade, of course.
If you are going to dump Naslund for FA why not just get a FA centre and keep Ohlund?

me2 is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 02:39 AM
  #22
bhj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
If you are going to dump Naslund for FA why not just get a FA centre and keep Ohlund?
Maybe because Vinny is like 7 years younger than Nazzy?

but i mean losing Ohlund would be a huge loss

bhj is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 04:27 AM
  #23
bure94
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 717
vCash: 500
After putting some thought into it, I think maybe now would be the best time to trade Mo' for a top center. Brendan's not the best offensively and Naslund and Bertuzzi are now putting effort into backchecking unlike many seasons ago. So Mo covering for them isn't such a big deal.

Obviously Lecav isn't on the block, I don't know what top flight Center we could parlay from Morrison. Jokinen ?

bure94 is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 04:44 AM
  #24
QuickDynamite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi
Country: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 4,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bure94
After putting some thought into it, I think maybe now would be the best time to trade Mo' for a top center. Brendan's not the best offensively and Naslund and Bertuzzi are now putting effort into backchecking unlike many seasons ago. So Mo covering for them isn't such a big deal.

Obviously Lecav isn't on the block, I don't know what top flight Center we could parlay from Morrison. Jokinen ?
I think our best bet would be to package our draft picks and trade up for a top 5 pick this season and draft a #1 Centre (I believe we have a 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th). If the Canucks got a true #1 NHL ready Centre we'd run into alot of cap problems.

If the Canucks stink it up in the playoffs again Nonis should probably trade away Morrison, Cloutier possibly trade Bertuzzi and possibly make a coaching change just to shake up the team and build around Sedins, Jovo, Naslund, Ohlund much like the Senators have done the past few years by getting rid of guys like Bonk, Lalime, Hossa etc.

QuickDynamite is offline  
Old
10-22-2005, 04:47 AM
  #25
CaptNukie83
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Problem is $$$.
especially since new CBA, spending is tight.
but would i have pulled trigger then(at the time of speculation/rumour before new cba)? of course!
but right now, there is cap and all, mo and ohlund are better fits economically.

CaptNukie83 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 06:49 AM.

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.