HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Van-Ana

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2010, 04:51 AM
  #26
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,968
vCash: 500
I guess it depends on what Anaheim's priorities are. They've got Getzlaf and Perry in their primes and if they feel that they don't want to wait 3 or 4 years for Fowler to get to the point where he's a dependable defenseman in the NHL, then they may decide that it fits better into their plans to acquire Bieksa and sign him long term and to trade Fowler.

B-rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 11:58 AM
  #27
nuckfan insk
Registered User
 
nuckfan insk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: saskatoon Sask
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,329
vCash: 934
bieksa's agent said they want to negotiate a extension with a team. so 1, bieksa has a say where he goes. 2 the team aquiring him wouldnt be getting a rental.

nuckfan insk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 12:02 PM
  #28
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucbourdon View Post
bieksa + 1st is a fair proposal
Why the hell would we give up the 1st? A 40-point dman AND a 1st for a prospect?

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 04:02 PM
  #29
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Why the hell would we give up the 1st? A 40-point dman AND a 1st for a prospect?
Let's say we propose Bieksa for Fowler, i think its closer in value but do you really see Anaheim saying yes to that trade? I seriously doubt it. If I remember correctly, Bieksa had only one year till UFA, i doubt he would have much value, not to mention his poor play last season didnt help too!

Vancouver_2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 04:34 PM
  #30
shortshorts
broken athlete
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,315
vCash: 500
This is absolutely stupid. Fowler is projected to be Bieksa like. HFboards has got to learn that newly drafted prospects have more value to their team then to others. The only time you see crazy proposals are for prospects that are basically shoe-ins to be superstars in the league.

shortshorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 08:36 PM
  #31
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,428
vCash: 500
Vanaheim Caducks

YogiCanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 09:31 PM
  #32
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,172
vCash: 500
As far as trade partners, I would choose Anaheim because I think there is less liklihood the deal comes back to haunt us. Anaheim is a team on a major downward trend. They have one line, no defense and I still don't buy the goaltending. They won't give us Fowler, so let's just let that go. But a 2nd round pick and a prospect might work out pretty well for us.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 06:09 PM
  #33
GCM
Kesler Did This
 
GCM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,854
vCash: 500
Since Anaheim wants Bieksa

Is it too much to ask for a Bieksa - Fowler deal straight up?

Fowler is unproven at the NHL level, but he's highly touted, so he does have some value, regardless of his drop in the draft.

Bieksa is a proven NHL defenseman, is able to hit 40 points consistently in a season. His injuries are a non-issue because they're freak accidents and not likely to reoccur so it's not like he's injury prone.

Most would say due to Bieksa's consistency that he has more value than just Fowler, but it's worth it to remember that it's one year of Bieksa, so his value is lowered a bit (though his agent made it public they would sign an extension if traded).

I think there's value on both sides. Anaheim's D looks like trash right now and they could really use a PMD like Bieksa. Canucks need to dump salary but want value back and can't really afford a roster player.

Problem is it's very unlikely Anaheim trades a draft pick that was rated top 5 and fell into their laps the same year they drafted him. It would also be trading away the future of what could soon be a rebuilding franchise (especially if they lose Ryan).


I dunno, if not Fowler, what's a good trade with Anaheim for Bieksa? They don't really have anything we could use...

GCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 06:14 PM
  #34
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,097
vCash: 500
Do you really need a topic for this when there's a proposal already going on between Van and Ana?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=801685

Anyways, Bieksa's value probably has not jumped up to a 1st round pick. At best it looks like his value is @ a 2nd + a 3rd liner or a 2nd + a 3rd or a 2nd + a decent prospect. None of those combo add up to be a 1st... yet alone a mid first. Expect to at least include a 2nd round pick (or even a 1st) before Ana would even consider it. For Fowler, i actually expect they want an overpayment rather than his value so you might have to look at a top 10 pick in terms of value (or even top 5). In which case, it will basically take Bieksa + Raymond + maybe a 1st/2nd (like i said overpayment, as in treating Fowler like a top 5 pick).

denkiteki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:00 PM
  #35
Bgav
We Stylin'
 
Bgav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,898
vCash: 1752
If i were the ducks i would laugh so hard

Bgav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:03 PM
  #36
Menzies16
Registered User
 
Menzies16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 106
vCash: 500
UGH...

Fowler is worth as much as almost all of our prospects. Minus maybe Hodgson.

To clear this up I don't mean combined

Menzies16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:15 PM
  #37
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,868
vCash: 500
Maybe if Burke was still the GM.....and really drunk.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:15 PM
  #38
David Booth Fan
Registered User
 
David Booth Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,428
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David Booth Fan
Bieksa for 2nd round pick. Done deal.

David Booth Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:27 PM
  #39
droller*
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outraged666 View Post
Bieksa for 2nd round pick. Done deal.

this is the going rate for a D like Bieska at the trade deadline. Looks good to me!

droller* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:31 PM
  #40
Cntrmid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
Dude, what's wrong with you. We're talking about this literally right now in another thread.. that you've posted in.

And the answer is, your proposal is ridiculous. Take it to the Anaheim board and see what they think.

Cntrmid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:31 PM
  #41
David Booth Fan
Registered User
 
David Booth Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,428
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David Booth Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by droller View Post
this is the going rate for a D like Bieska at the trade deadline. Looks good to me!
I dont think anyone can argue with this fact. Its a salary dump. We arent getting Fowler or any highly touted prospect for Bieksa.

The 2nd round pick can be used at the deadline to fill in holes.

David Booth Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:35 PM
  #42
JerkChicken
Registered User
 
JerkChicken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Sound
Country: Cayman Islands
Posts: 2,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outraged666 View Post
I dont think anyone can argue with this fact. Its a salary dump. We arent getting Fowler or any highly touted prospect for Bieksa.

The 2nd round pick can be used at the deadline to fill in holes.
Agreed, but I think that Gillis would probably like a big, solid 3rd/4th line winger to add to a draft pick in return for Bieksa.

IE: A Moen, Chipchura, Chimera type player.

JerkChicken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:39 PM
  #43
BerSTUzzi
Registered User
 
BerSTUzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,695
vCash: 500
I was thinking Beleskey + 4th for Bieksa

BerSTUzzi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 07:57 PM
  #44
defer*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
why would the ducks trade fowler (one of the top 2 prospects in the system) for a marginal top 4 defender with 1 year on his contract?

they wouldnt.

he and sbisa are basically untouchable unless overpayment.

The ducks are not in "win now mode" like the canucks. we cannot afford to trade away our future for a mediocre playoff position this year.

defer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2010, 08:10 PM
  #45
GCM
Kesler Did This
 
GCM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
Fowler for Bieksa straight up is fair value?

You're dreaming. Anaheim rated Fowler #3 in the draft, and he immediately becomes their best prospect. What makes you think one year of Bieksa is worth that for Fowler, to Anaheim?
Fowler fell in the draft and hasn't done anything in the NHL. Bieksa is a 40 point defenseman. Anaheim doesn't have us by the balls or anything. Their defense is the same as last year except they subbed Lydman in for Neidermayer. They're in a more tragic situation. Fowler is going to take some time to develop (I understand they have time) but Bieksa is good now and still young.

A lot of teams passed up on Fowler and reasons being cited are his defensive play.

There is an overrating of Fowler and an underrating of Bieksa going on if people think it takes Bieksa +. Prospects with 0 NHL games have a pretty high chance to bust. Bieksa is proven. Has he had a rough season, sure, is he consistent, yes.

The only thing holding Bieksa's value down is his contract term. Canucks would probably keep him if he wasn't making the money he is but we don't have space to so we're forced to trade him.

I think a straight up trade is indeed fair. If Fowler were to bust out, Anaheim would win the trade easy. If Fowler became a reasonably good defenseman and Bieksa signed an extension, both sides win. If Bieksa goes to FA and Fowler becomes good Van wins. So it's relatively even in my opinion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CaribbeanCanuck View Post
Agreed, but I think that Gillis would probably like a big, solid 3rd/4th line winger to add to a draft pick in return for Bieksa.

IE: A Moen, Chipchura, Chimera type player.
I like Bieksa for Moen straight up the most. Moen is exactly what we need and at a perfect price for a 3rd liner.

GCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2010, 01:24 PM
  #46
Cntrmid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
Fowler fell in the draft and hasn't done anything in the NHL. Bieksa is a 40 point defenseman. Anaheim doesn't have us by the balls or anything. Their defense is the same as last year except they subbed Lydman in for Neidermayer. They're in a more tragic situation. Fowler is going to take some time to develop (I understand they have time) but Bieksa is good now and still young.

A lot of teams passed up on Fowler and reasons being cited are his defensive play.

There is an overrating of Fowler and an underrating of Bieksa going on if people think it takes Bieksa +. Prospects with 0 NHL games have a pretty high chance to bust. Bieksa is proven. Has he had a rough season, sure, is he consistent, yes.

The only thing holding Bieksa's value down is his contract term. Canucks would probably keep him if he wasn't making the money he is but we don't have space to so we're forced to trade him.

I think a straight up trade is indeed fair. If Fowler were to bust out, Anaheim would win the trade easy. If Fowler became a reasonably good defenseman and Bieksa signed an extension, both sides win. If Bieksa goes to FA and Fowler becomes good Van wins. So it's relatively even in my opinion.





I like Bieksa for Moen straight up the most. Moen is exactly what we need and at a perfect price for a 3rd liner.
Are you arguing, in the same post, that Bieksa = Fowler AND that Bieksa = Moen? Wouldn't that mean that Fowler = Moen??

Waaayy out to lunch...

(Not to mention your implication that if both Fowler and Moen were available, you would take Moen!! That is just too much to even respond to.)

Cntrmid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2010, 08:51 PM
  #47
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
Fowler fell in the draft and hasn't done anything in the NHL. Bieksa is a 40 point defenseman. Anaheim doesn't have us by the balls or anything. Their defense is the same as last year except they subbed Lydman in for Neidermayer. They're in a more tragic situation. Fowler is going to take some time to develop (I understand they have time) but Bieksa is good now and still young.

A lot of teams passed up on Fowler and reasons being cited are his defensive play.

There is an overrating of Fowler and an underrating of Bieksa going on if people think it takes Bieksa +. Prospects with 0 NHL games have a pretty high chance to bust. Bieksa is proven. Has he had a rough season, sure, is he consistent, yes.

The only thing holding Bieksa's value down is his contract term. Canucks would probably keep him if he wasn't making the money he is but we don't have space to so we're forced to trade him.

I think a straight up trade is indeed fair. If Fowler were to bust out, Anaheim would win the trade easy. If Fowler became a reasonably good defenseman and Bieksa signed an extension, both sides win. If Bieksa goes to FA and Fowler becomes good Van wins. So it's relatively even in my opinion.
He fell off the list not because of anything but the fact that teams had at least 1 other player they had rated above him (each being different) due to either what their scouts saw or the needs of the team (e.g. teams that needed a center or a goalie, or a winger, etc). He was still the 3rd dman picked (going by memory) in a draft that was suppose to be deep in terms of dman. Proven vs unproven can be debated but you also have to remember that Bieksa does not currently have the value of a 1st rounder and a 1st rounder who's just picked doesn't suddenly lose all of his value. Its like suggesting to the Oilers to trade Hall for say Raymond because Raymond is more proven than Hall.

If one team is not looking to move someone, then you might have to over pay to get them to move that player. In the case of Fowler, if the Ducks really like him, he might be worth more than a mid first round pick to them... it takes 2 GM to trade. Not like a team could offer us the value of Hodgson (i.e. say mid 1st rounder) and we would accept the trade. We would demand a lot more than what his value is to the rest of the league. In the case of Fowler, like i said before, the Ducks might value him as a top 5 pick and would only be willing to trade him for return of that value (to them not us). I.e. they might only be willing to trade Fowler if we gave them Bieksa + Raymond + 2011 1st. If you want 1 specific player, the asking price for that player could become much higher than his actual value. E.g. for all you know MG really wanted Oreskovich and the breakdown of the trade could have been Grabner for Oreskovich (not saying that actually happened but if we really wanted Oreskovich and the only way Florida would trade him was to include Grabner, MG might have pulled the trigger if he sees Oreskovich value to us higher than Grabner next year).

Heck you could argue that we overpaid to get Malhotra because we really wanted him. I doubt you can argue he's worth 2.5mil to play solid defense and put up 30 points. But the only way we could get him was to overpay, so we did that and it was (in my opinion) a great move as it upgrades our 3rd line and PK (both weaknesses in the playoff).

denkiteki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2010, 10:12 PM
  #48
LickTheEnvelope
Decertified Poster
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,021
vCash: 500
Bieksa + a first round pick

for

Fowler + McMillan + a fourth round pick

Would be about fair IMO.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 07:05 AM
  #49
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Bieksa + a first round pick

for

Fowler + McMillan + a fourth round pick

Would be about fair IMO.
Nope, makes no sense for the Ducks.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 08:01 AM
  #50
MartinFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 95
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to MartinFC
One question guys. Did you ever see player from first round being traded one month after the draft? I didnīt

MartinFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:02 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. Đ2014 All Rights Reserved.