Trade potential?

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Post Reply
User avatar
mattola
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:44 am

Trade potential?

Post by mattola »

Im not one for making proposals. I rather find it silly on CDC how they go about it.

however with the recent signing of Mark Recchi in Tampa that give them 14 forwards.

add to that Brandon Bochenski who also just signed there.

I was reading on Spectors about the latest signings and he mentioned the two most likely candidates to move are Michelle Oulette and Jussi Jokien.

Oulette is a 200 pound RW and Jokien a LW that has the touch in shootouts.

Oulette career high is 19 goals and Jokiens is 17 2 years ago. both are young

Bernier and Oulette on the RW would solidify that postion for the next 4 years and Jokien would come in handy on the shootouts that killed us last year (maybe put us in the playoffs last year)

Tampa Bay needs defense. we need offense.

I would be willing to part with Bieksa and a prospect for Jokien and Oulette.

is that too much? too little? I think Bieksa and a draft pick is good but not sure if many would agree which is why I put in the prospect.
nuckknowitall1944
MVP
MVP
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:31 pm

Post by nuckknowitall1944 »

no way bieksa and a prosepct for ouellet or jokinen maybe bieksa straight across for jokinen but still i would have a hard time dealing bieksa, as i think his trade value is quite low because of last years injury and is due for a big year so ultimatly i would hold off trading him..
User avatar
Icebreaka
CC Veteran
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:36 pm
Location: Burnaby
Contact:

Post by Icebreaka »

I think people are writing Bieksa off way too soon. The guy had a tough year last year with his calf being almost cut off, I have a feeling he's going to be a top Dman this year.
User avatar
mattola
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:44 am

Post by mattola »

im not writing him off. but to make a trade you must give an asset. I believe is our BEST asset to give away and thye need defense. Bieksa is a dman. they need a dman we have lots of dmen. they have lots of forwards we dont have lots of forwards.
MarkMM
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Delta, BC

Post by MarkMM »

I don't think people are writing Bieksa off, on the contrary, I think people think that he's about our only really attractive asset that other teams would want that we could afford to move because of the strength of our defense. That said, I'm not sure I'd move him, maybe for both those guys, but not with a prospect, and I might not even like this trade straight across.
Mark
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Post by Linden Is God »

I think Bieksa and a prospect for those two. I would welcome either Ouellet and Jokinen (why not go after the other Jokinen seeing as we failed going after the other one). I really don't think it would take much to get either. Maybe more a Krajicek for one of them.
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
User avatar
Broda
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:35 am
Location: Vancity
Contact:

Post by Broda »

If Tampa offered both for Bieksa, i think i would probably do it already.. i have written him off already... im kidding.. anyways i think this would be a great trade. I am still very high on bieksa... although his contract is in the same neighbhorhood as jeff finger meaning he only played so many games and got a huge.. possibly deserved raise. But like Matty said. We need offense. I really think with Lu back there we could stand to have a possibly softer d. Only of course if our offence is in gear.
I really think that Oulette is a capable winger. That could solidify our second line right wing role for a few years. And Jokinen would be great as a forward that could jump around. He has flashes of talent and has always been terrific in the shootout. I think we could have used a guy like him last year. I really think i would make this trade. If that rumour was true about eric cole. i know oullette isn't eric cole but getting a second forward in the deal with some offensive upside i think would be a good fit.
User avatar
the Cunning Linguist
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:18 am
Location: If not in here then offthepost.ORG...
Contact:

Post by the Cunning Linguist »

I don't see how trading BXA and not getting a Top 6 dman back is a step forward - we'd eventually have to find a replacement on the Top 6... So we rob Peter to pay Paul. Given the age and fragility of Salo, Ohlund and even Mitchell, a 7th and 8th defenceman with experience is a must...

Ohlund/Salo
Edler/Mitchell
Krajicek/ ?

McIver, Baumer, ????
Image
Image
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Post by Linden Is God »

Well Ive mentioned this in a few threads, and I know I'm getting repetitive, but the Canes have Kaberle and Wallin available. I would much rather keep Bieksa and try to get Jokinen and Ouellet another way.
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
User avatar
Mikodat
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Victoria
Contact:

Post by Mikodat »

<i> I think Bieksa and a draft pick is good but not sure if many would agree which is why I put in the prospect.</i>

Agree , it would be a good trade both ways. And our cap hit would be minimum. Bieksa at 3.75 mill is not a bargain :)... We still got Salo, Mitchell, Ohlund to anchor our d.. all are better than Bieksa at this stage.. plus Edler , Krajicek who show more upside than Bieksa . I doubt they would take Krajicek instead of Bieksa.. Bieksa despite his woeful lack of defensive skills is a crowd pleaser and an offensive dman with ballzzzzz. 2 proven NHL forwards for 1 dman and a prospect sounds about right..
Nuck fan Since 1970 and still no Cup :(
User avatar
Broda
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:35 am
Location: Vancity
Contact:

Post by Broda »

for replaceing d.. i would be surprised if Gilis doesn't add another veteran d man. Yeah i would love to keep bieksa. but you have to give up something good to get something good in return. the one thing that im not a big fan of with bieksa is that he is more so an offensive defenseman. He seems to lack alot of skill infront of our own net. Before his injury last year. He looked brutal in our own zone. Kinda like Phaneuf at times. But i still feel our team would have been alot better with him in the line up. He has game.and is a gamer.
Farhan Lalji

Re: Trade potential?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

mattola wrote:
I would be willing to part with Bieksa and a prospect for Jokien and Oulette.
A LOT of people (online and offline) seem to be comfortable with the idea of trading Bieksa. In many people's minds, Bieksa is our best bargaining chip in terms of making trades (and to a large extent, I can understand that point of view).

A lot of characteristics that make Bieksa appealing to us, (i.e. grit, toughness, relatively young, leadership, power play ability, etc.) will also be of appeal to other teams.

Here is take on it however:

IF you are going to trade Kevin Bieksa, do NOT do it for the following....

a) A player that is either a young prospect, or a draft pick. With Luongo here for 2 more years, Canucks need to be focusing on winning NOW. Canucks are NOT in a rebuilding stage, and should only be looking to add pieces in hopes of becoming a legit contender.

b) A One-for-One player-for-player swap with a forward. Trading Bieksa one for one for a forward, will probably only land us with a player of Taylor Pyatt's ability (or slightly above that). Ultimately - all you are doing here, is strengthening one asset (offense), while depleting another (defense). Making a trade doesn't necessarily make you better....it can just make you different. Our 2005/2006 record, in comparison with our 2007/2008 record, is tremendous evidence of that. Another thing to keep in mind - we saw how our defense was decimated with injuries last season. In this sense, why further deplete our defense and make us even MORE susceptible to injury? Salo and Ohlund have had injury problems for multiple years now...and they aren't getting younger.


IF you are going to trade away a guy like Kevin Bieksa, put him in a part of a package deal (i.e. with draft picks and/or prospects). With this package, you can then either get an upgrade on defense (which further adds to our defensive prowess), OR help up front (so despite our defense being depleted, our offensive prowess has made a SIGNIFICANT upgrade).

That way - even if our defense were to be decimated with injuries (as was the case last year), our offense (and Luongo) would still be dangerous enough to compensate for that.
Post Reply