HFBoards

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

All Purpose Proposals Mashup Pt. II

View Poll Results: would you sign morrison
yes 13 19.70%
no 53 80.30%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2011, 06:59 PM
  #451
keslehr*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSwede21 View Post
To Detroit:
Cory Schneider
Keith Ballard
2012 4th round pick

To Vancouver:
Petr Mrazek
Tomas Jurco

Detroit wants a cup run, and Vancouver wants some prospects. Plus I LOVE Petr Mrazek. Made 52 saves in a 5-2 win vs USA.
How about, no.

keslehr* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 07:07 PM
  #452
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Could these work?


Andrew Alberts for Marc-Andre Gragnani (BUF).


MAG is younger, has potential, but is a bottom pairing Dman right now. Alberts gives them more size and is signed next year while MAG is RFA. If they don't want to re-up MAG, Alberts makes a lot of sense for them. More sense than a pick anyways because they'll be looking to bounce back next year.


Victor Oreskovich and Aaron Volpatti for Chris Thorburn (WPG)


WPG gets younger assets with little upside for someone who isn't working there any longer. Van gets a player that can play a bit and chuck the knuckles.


There's also Slater from WPG. Depth forwards that are bit interesting are: Bonino in ANA, Emmerton in DET, Tlusty in CAR. These are all younger players that could develop in this system/environment.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2011, 05:26 AM
  #453
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Ok revised trades:



Alberts to ANA for Gordon and a 4th.


Anaheim's D needs to be restructured, Alberts could be a part of the transition. He's the type of player they target regardless. I could see him doing well there. Gordon is a contract dump by them and is a marginal 4th liner. It would be ideal to get the team's 3rd back, but I'm not sure Alberts carries that kind of value.



4th rndr (ANA) + Volpatti to BUF for Gragnani.


Perhaps MAG carries more value, but it seems fair. An offensive D that hasn't put it together at the NHL level. He'll be 25 soon, so I'm not sure if he improves significantly from where he is now, but he does have upside. Could a Gragnani+Ballard pairing work? I'm not sure, but it has the potential to make the team better so worth a shot. I think MAG is a devalued asset that is ready to be moved...

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2011, 12:20 PM
  #454
whoshouse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 964
vCash: 500
Do you think Alberts could be traded off for a pick? Maybe the Canucks 3rd rounder? I would rather the team acquire contract space than a simple 1 for 1 trade. Gillis can then trade for a dman to fill Alberts spot.

whoshouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2012, 04:45 AM
  #455
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoshouse View Post
Do you think Alberts could be traded off for a pick? Maybe the Canucks 3rd rounder? I would rather the team acquire contract space than a simple 1 for 1 trade. Gillis can then trade for a dman to fill Alberts spot.
Honestly don't believe any Dman are on their way out, since Vancouver's D corps has not been healthy for a full playoff run at all with this core.

I think the biggest concern is our defensive depth. Trying to add top 4 rental depth is the Nucks mission this Trade Deadline.

Removing even our 8th Dman doesn't seem right when we had #7 n #8 playing in the top 4 last playoffs for stretches.

Dealing Alberts would be working backwards to the original idea of acquiring Alberts. He may be slow and kinda iffy on gap control, but he's a physical player, and brings an edge in the playoffs. At his current role I think he's ok, and that will be fine till Rome returns

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2012, 06:42 AM
  #456
Royal Canuck
#Shinkaruk4Calder
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,691
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent007 View Post


Yeah that's what Vancouver wants right now.

After all it's not like we're tied for 1st in the NHL right now.



Can someone please post an epic picture here

While we're at it Max Friberg has scored 6 goals for team Sweden. Can we trade Kesler for him??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
That's horrible value for Schneider. 2nd round pick and a goalie that might or might not amount to anything, especially on a team already loaded with top-notch goaltending (Luongo, Lack, Cannata, etc.)

Such an epic fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
I see you haven't followed the Canucks since ? 2000?

fyi, the Canucks aren't rebuilding... and they're not going to help any other team, especially one in their own conference, get closer to the Cup, while they load up on prospects.

Maybe you don't get much NHL info in Sweden?
Guys, don't be harsh. This is only if the Canucks blow it this year and are looking to rebuild. And im actually Canadian, , living in Canada, I just have a lot of Heritage in Sweden. It's not a ridiculous deal by any means and Vancouver could use some prospects for the future, were not gunna have the twins forever.

Royal Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2012, 06:43 AM
  #457
Royal Canuck
#Shinkaruk4Calder
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,691
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent007 View Post


Yeah that's what Vancouver wants right now.

After all it's not like we're tied for 1st in the NHL right now.



Can someone please post an epic picture here

While we're at it Max Friberg has scored 6 goals for team Sweden. Can we trade Kesler for him??????
and here we go.

Royal Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2012, 09:33 AM
  #458
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
Honestly don't believe any Dman are on their way out, since Vancouver's D corps has not been healthy for a full playoff run at all with this core.

I think the biggest concern is our defensive depth. Trying to add top 4 rental depth is the Nucks mission this Trade Deadline.

Removing even our 8th Dman doesn't seem right when we had #7 n #8 playing in the top 4 last playoffs for stretches.

Dealing Alberts would be working backwards to the original idea of acquiring Alberts. He may be slow and kinda iffy on gap control, but he's a physical player, and brings an edge in the playoffs. At his current role I think he's ok, and that will be fine till Rome returns

But when Rome returns, Alberts is all but relegated to the press box. That's my issue with Alberts: He brings nothing unique to the table. Worse still, he's completely out of his depth for playoff hockey. He simply cannot play at that speed.


Edge and physicality mean nothing when you are constantly chasing. He has been exploited in the past... He will be exploited again.


I'd rather the team replace him with a more skilled Dman. Gragnani, for instance, is perhaps a shade worse defensively and infinitely better offensively. This is the type of player the nucks should target. He improves the 8 man rotation - and isn't just a place holder for Rome. He's young (24), is likely to be squeezed out of BUF, and brings the primary trait the nucks covet in Dmen = puck movement. A much better choice than AA.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:04 AM
  #459
Agent007
Registered User
 
Agent007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSwede21 View Post
Guys, don't be harsh. This is only if the Canucks blow it this year and are looking to rebuild. And im actually Canadian, , living in Canada, I just have a lot of Heritage in Sweden. It's not a ridiculous deal by any means and Vancouver could use some prospects for the future, were not gunna have the twins forever.
Why would the Canucks blow it up this year?? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

That's like saying Chicago should blow it up because you know Toews, Kane and Keith aren't going to be around forever.

The twins are here now and they are here for another 2 more seasons at least after this season. That means we've got AT LEAST 2 more years to go in this window we've got and I wouldn't be surprised what so ever to see us extend that window by another 2-3 more years.

The team that Gillis is trying to build here is no different then what Detroit did in the early 90's. They started to win and never really had to blow it up despite the fact that guys like Federov, Yzerman and Lidstrom where getting old.

Sure we may not be as strong as we are down the line but who knows what happens 5 years down the line. As of right now we've got at least 3 years (including this year) to win and that's all that really matters.

Agent007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:08 AM
  #460
keslehr*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,045
vCash: 500
Would anyone be adverse to offering a 1st+prospect for Gleason?

keslehr* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:12 AM
  #461
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,984
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslehr View Post
Would anyone be adverse to offering a 1st+prospect for Gleason?
Definitely not worth giving up a 1st rounder for the upcoming draft, and adding a prospect makes it even worse.

I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd + a low end prospect, seeing as how he's an upcoming UFA and would probably be playing less than 18 minutes per game on our team.

Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:15 AM
  #462
keslehr*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Definitely not worth giving up a 1st rounder for the upcoming draft, and adding a prospect makes it even worse.

I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd + a low end prospect, seeing as how he's an upcoming UFA and would probably be playing less than 18 minutes per game on our team.
I want the team to win the Cup, not the draft.

He could be retained, as well - Gillis has signed many of his deadline additions, obviously.

keslehr* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:18 AM
  #463
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,489
vCash: 341
After snagging a player like Jensen in the latter part of the first round last year, I'd rather not give up our first unless it is for someone very solid, low salary and signed to at least another year...But thats just me.

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:31 AM
  #464
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,984
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslehr View Post
I want the team to win the Cup, not the draft.

He could be retained, as well - Gillis has signed many of his deadline additions, obviously.
I have no problem with the Canucks trading their 1st round pick, but it better be for someone worth that pick.

Gleason is a borderline/fringe 2nd pairing d-man that plays about 20 minutes per game on Carolina because there aren't many d-men on the team better than him.
However, on the Canucks, he would definitely play on the bottom pairing, and it's unlikely that he'd get over 18 minutes in a game (when all the d-men are healthy).

Also, Gleason is yet another left handed d-man that plays on the left side. It doesn't really help us.

This draft is supposed to have a lot of higher end talent in the 1st round, and from what I know, a lot of d-men are projected to be drafted in the 1st round. I'd rather get a possible solid d-man prospect for the future, and trade a 2nd (plus other non-important pieces) for a defenseman like Derek Morris, Hal Gill (although he's a lefty and doesn't skate well), etc...


As for Gillis re-signing him before July 1st, I think it would be a lot more difficult than previous guys we've retained. There aren't a lot of good d-men that will be available July 1st, so there will be plenty of teams that will offer more money and more playing time than the Canucks could offer.


Last edited by Nuckles: 01-03-2012 at 02:38 AM.
Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2012, 02:37 AM
  #465
keslehr*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,045
vCash: 500
Well ****, I thought Gleason was a righty, that kind of dampens my enthusiasm for getting him (not entirely though)

keslehr* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 03:52 PM
  #466
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
What is the difference in value between Raymond and Nick Foligno?


I wonder if it would be worth downgrading in skill and speed to get a bigger player next to Hodgson and Hansen on the 3rd line. The difference can be made up with a later pick. Thoughts?

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 05:14 PM
  #467
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,144
vCash: 500
I think we need another top 6 forwards, maybe Salenne is a good choice? What do you guys think the price should be? a first round pick?

Vancouver_2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 05:22 PM
  #468
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver_2010 View Post
I think we need another top 6 forwards, maybe Salenne is a good choice? What do you guys think the price should be? a first round pick?
I can see him going to Winnipeg but not here. And I wouldn't give a first for a rental.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 05:25 PM
  #469
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,257
vCash: 500
What about:

To Carolina-

Andrew Alberts (a player they know, is signed next year, cheapish, and has size)
+3rd

To Vancouver:

Tim Gleason (UFA)

Carolina has 2 signed defensman for next year (Faulk and Pitkanen) and Mcbain is RFA...Alberts would be a solid veteran for them.

Losing Allen, Spacek, and Gleason will leave them with quite a few holes to fill via Free agency...it would be smart to add an NHL defensman through trade, even if its a 5-8th defensman.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 05:47 PM
  #470
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
What about:

To Carolina-

Andrew Alberts (a player they know, is signed next year, cheapish, and has size)
+3rd

To Vancouver:

Tim Gleason (UFA)

Carolina has 2 signed defensman for next year (Faulk and Pitkanen) and Mcbain is RFA...Alberts would be a solid veteran for them.

Losing Allen, Spacek, and Gleason will leave them with quite a few holes to fill via Free agency...it would be smart to add an NHL defensman through trade, even if its a 5-8th defensman.


I like the deal, but CAR can do better. What would you take if you were them? A 2nd rndr, or the package you proposed? I'd take the 2nd and then pay for a 5th dman in FA. The most valuable asset is not Alberts, it's the pick.


Now that Ballard is firmly ensconced on the right side, I no longer see the need for Gleason. He likely won't be an asset that will be retained either, given the money already being dished out to the D for next year.


I'd go for a cheaper options in Gragnani. He's nowhere near as physical and gritty as Gleason, but he's more skilled, is on a much cheaper deal, and his only 24. The fact that he hasn't established himself in the pros is only a good thing because he can grow here.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 05:52 PM
  #471
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I like the deal, but CAR can do better. What would you take if you were them? A 2nd rndr, or the package you proposed? I'd take the 2nd and then pay for a 5th dman in FA. The most valuable asset is not Alberts, it's the pick.


Now that Ballard is firmly ensconced on the right side, I no longer see the need for Gleason. He likely won't be an asset that will be retained either, given the money already being dished out to the D for next year.


I'd go for a cheaper options in Gragnani. He's nowhere near as physical and gritty as Gleason, but he's more skilled, is on a much cheaper deal, and his only 24. The fact that he hasn't established himself in the pros is only a good thing because he can grow here.
Im just of the opinion we need more 'hard nosed' players. Gragnani is not this. I dont see it as an upgrade to the lineup currently, and isn't the type of player THIS team needs going forward.

I want a veteran two way defensman with a bit of a mean streak.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 06:10 PM
  #472
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
^ Well __Gillis__ is of the opinion that you pay for points. Hence, why there were rumours of him targeting Carle earlier on. Is Matt Carle gritty? Nope. In the same vein, Gleason is the antithesis of a skilled puck mover, so I don't see him as a likely target. I believed he would be a good addition at one point, but not anymore.


I'm of the opposite opinion of you. I want the team so packed with skill that the system is played to near perfection. This means getting rid of slow footed, low hockey IQ players like Alberts -- while not bringing more of the same in. Gleason is a much better player, but he drifts between 4/5 status on CAR, what do you think he's going to do here?


Get skilled players here. The team is built to win with skill and skating. Gleason has broken the 20 point barrier once in his career. Meanwhile, Gragnani is set to finish with about 20 points in his first pro season, and he is abundantly more skilled when compared to Gleason. No contest for me.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 06:11 PM
  #473
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
I can see him going to Winnipeg but not here. And I wouldn't give a first for a rental.
it's hard to get another top 6 players with cup winning experience, i think he is going to be a vital piece to our team this year.

Vancouver_2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 06:34 PM
  #474
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
At the draft

get:

Schneider
Ballard
1st round pick

get:
Hedman
2nd or 3rd rounder
Thompson


First ever proposal

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2012, 06:43 PM
  #475
Agent007
Registered User
 
Agent007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RubberSoul View Post
At the draft

get:

Schneider
Ballard
1st round pick

get:
Hedman
2nd or 3rd rounder
Thompson


First ever proposal
I highly doubt we've got a chance at Hedman.

Agent007 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 11:02 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. 2014 All Rights Reserved.