CanucksCorner.com Forums

Blob Mckenzie wrote:

Topper wrote:

SKYO wrote:It's crazy looking back at all the Canucks trades since it's inception, a lot of trading 2nd rounders to 9th rounders for reclamation projects and castoffs, while sometimes the Canucks did the same in trading older players after their value dropped.

What is crazier is looking at what those second and third rounders became.....and then complaining about the loss of picks.

Its neat you know with absolute certainty who the Canucks would have chosen with those traded picks.

Just as you, looking back through your bubble butt brown eye, pick the most successful player available at the time, and assume the Canuck's would have chosen that guy.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:

Topper wrote:

SKYO wrote:It's crazy looking back at all the Canucks trades since it's inception, a lot of trading 2nd rounders to 9th rounders for reclamation projects and castoffs, while sometimes the Canucks did the same in trading older players after their value dropped.

What is crazier is looking at what those second and third rounders became.....and then complaining about the loss of picks.

Its neat you know with absolute certainty who the Canucks would have chosen with those traded picks.

Never hear you complain how we could have had one of Kuznetsov, Coyle or Brock Nelson had Gillis not traded Bernier, Grabner and our 1st for Buyout Ballard.

Can you imagine, Grabner and his 25 goals wingman to Kuznetsov?

"We didn't like what was left on the board, so we had no problem making the trade for Buyout Ballard" - Mike Gillis

Kinda ironic that Elmer's former team chose Pasternak right after Elmer chose McCann. To be honest I was hoping for Barbashev with that pick and Ritchie in place of Virtanen. It's a good thing Nikita is looking so good because that first round produced a couple of duds for Vancouver.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Kinda ironic that Elmer's former team chose Pasternak right after Elmer chose McCann. To be honest I was hoping for Barbashev with that pick and Ritchie in place of Virtanen. It's a good thing Nikita is looking so good because that first round produced a couple of duds for Vancouver.

But the asset management of getting Gudbranson for the head-case McCann is what you want from a GM, recognizing a problem prospect right away and getting something for it before it becomes known he has an attitude problem. Sort of the opposite of how Gillis asset managed the 10th overall pick - the Hodgson asset, turning that problem into a bigger problem - the AHL'er party animal who ended up in stage 3 substance abuse counselling - Zack the Coke Assassian.

Remember you used to get mad at giggles for how he handled Kassian, all the while, behind the scenes they were trying to deal with Zacks off ice 'rock' stardom ways

I admit I had no idea that Kassian was partying like a rock star. And once I found that out I said it was the right decision to move him to Montreal.

RoyalDude wrote:The only thing with Hansen is do they sign him to big bucks after next season when he hits UFA if some other team doesn't when he will be 31. He like Burrows will feel he is due for a big retirement contract since his value on ice has been way over what his value is in his contract for the last 4 years. Now is the time to trade him, or extend him right away and have him, Edler and Eriksson be the cagey vets to help keep the kids in line once the twins are gone after next season. A big decision

It ain't rocket science. You put Hansen out on the market and if the return isn't that great then you flip him next deadline. Signing him to an extension when he is 32 would be dumb. Either way Ignitowski should be crucified if he doesn't move a d man and at least one forward at the deadline for picks and prospects.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:It ain't rocket science. You put Hansen out on the market and if the return isn't that great then you flip him next deadline.

Signing him to an extension when he is 32 would be dumb.

Bingo.

Trade chips: Burrows, Hansen, Miller, Sbisa.

Big hockey deal: Tanev.


Canucks priorities:

#1) Big top 6 LW.
#2) Draft picks.
#3) Prospects with upside at all areas.


Trade chips all can get back picks and prospects.

Tanev is the one that can get us a big guy top 6 LW, also in the right deal he can get a 1st round pick, which could be used to move up in the draft as well.

So why not combine a trade chip with Tanev for a big top 6 LW and a 1st? Start leveraging assets in a package deal to a contender who are in the win now mode.

SKYO wrote:

Blob Mckenzie wrote:It ain't rocket science. You put Hansen out on the market and if the return isn't that great then you flip him next deadline.

Signing him to an extension when he is 32 would be dumb.

Bingo.

Trade chips: Burrows, Hansen, Miller, Sbisa.

Big hockey deal: Tanev.


Canucks priorities:

#1) Big top 6 LW.
#2) Draft picks.
#3) Prospects with upside at all areas.


Trade chips all can get back picks and prospects.

Tanev is the one that can get us a big guy top 6 LW, also in the right deal he can get a 1st round pick, which could be used to move up in the draft as well.

So why not combine a trade chip with Tanev for a big top 6 LW and a 1st? Start leveraging assets in a package deal to a contender who are in the win now mode.

All good points. This trade deadline can set the team up if mgmt buys into the rebuild in time...although this expansion bullshit will complicate everything. I can see teams ponying up for Hansen, Tanev and maybe Miller. Sbisa likely is worth more to the Canucks as his development might not be recognized around the league after how shitty he was to start his career.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:It ain't rocket science. You put Hansen out on the market and if the return isn't that great then you flip him next deadline. Signing him to an extension when he is 32 would be dumb. Either way Ignitowski should be crucified if he doesn't move a d man and at least one forward at the deadline for picks and prospects.

That would be a great option - except if you don't trade him before the expansion draft he's likely gone. Either that or you lose 24 year old Granlund who has 14 goals on the season. You likely don't have the option to wait until next year, the choice has to be made this deadline.

A dman should absolutely be traded - forwards are badly needed and next year we will have too many dmen for spots even if we lose Sbisa. If we don't lose him then it's 8 dmen for 6 spots assuming Olli is ready.

To be honest maybe they could get a decent offer for Granlund or Baertschi. Then protect Hansen and flip him at next years deadline. You're probably correct in that he should probably move this deadline. They could also expose Sutter in the expansion draft as well and get out from under that contract.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:To be honest maybe they could get a decent offer for Granlund or Baertschi. Then protect Hansen and flip him at next years deadline. You're probably correct in that he should probably move this deadline. They could also expose Sutter in the expansion draft as well and get out from under that contract.

Is Sutter's contract not enabling the team to spend millions on anyone? nay.

His contract isn't a problem.

The team is already weak depth wise on center's so Sutter is staying put.

If another team really wanted Baertschi with Tanev for a big top 6 LW+ then I'd be ok with trading him.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:To be honest maybe they could get a decent offer for Granlund or Baertschi. Then protect Hansen and flip him at next years deadline. You're probably correct in that he should probably move this deadline. They could also expose Sutter in the expansion draft as well and get out from under that contract.

My vote would go to Sutter as well - he's a 3rd line center and not a great one on a big contract. He may get chosen but he's replaceable.

If Trevor and Jim could get creative they'd ask one twin to waive their clause and see if that works. I highly doubt Vegas takes one of them without the other, so would probably just go after somebody else.

The one thing that will make this all a bit difficult is Vegas has to be at the cap floor, around $65 million I think. They will have to pick up some big contracts.

Do folks recall what the centre position was like a year ago with Sutter injured?

How was that FO% doing with Hank and Bo taking wrong side draws.

Topper wrote:Do folks recall what the centre position was like a year ago with Sutter injured?

How was that FO% doing with Hank and Bo taking wrong side draws.

You need a RH center to take draws? There are a number of faceoff specialists who won't cost $4.5 million a season. Sutter does more than that I know, but i don't think he would be that big a loss.

Last year was more lack of dmen and guys like Bartkowsi playing lots of minutes than Sutter missing. In fact they have almost the exact number of points at the same point with Sutter playing a ton versus last year. They were crap this year when Edler and Tanev were out.