Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

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
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by The Brown Knight » Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 am

Art Vandelay wrote:All of Brown KNights awesome trade proposals involve players with NTC . Maybe he is not familiar with what NTC stands for. :look: :roll:
I'm familiar with what an NTC is, but I'm also familiar with the fact that a GM can ask a player if they'd be willing to waive it.

None of these are 'set in stone' ideas on my part.

In a big picture sense, I am intrigued with the idea of moving a top 4 defenseman and one of our wingers for a top 6 forward and a solid 3rd line center. I wonder if in doing so, the pros would outweigh the cons.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11496
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by RoyalDude » Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:48 am

Like NTC's have never been traded before. Like they've never been waived.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11496
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by RoyalDude » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:20 am

Get one of our D to waive NTC and trade them to the Flyers for one of their good young forwards then bring up Corrado. We don't have great depth on D but enough to withstand a hit to it. Philly is a good trade partner as they need help on d and got top 6 talent depth that could help us
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by The Brown Knight » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:28 pm

RoyalDude wrote:then bring up Corrado. We don't have great depth on D but enough to withstand a hit to it.
Boom. Exactly. 8-)

I feel the same way.

I'm not sure exactly what Philly would be willing to give up, but it's obvious that they need some change as well.

As far as the Sabres go, the only reason why I had Vaneck in mind was due to the fact that he's a UFA at seasons' end.....AND the fact that Buffalo will most likely be looking to rebuild while Vaneck might be looking at an upper echelon team.

If we're thinking Philly though, there are definitely a lot of options for us available if we want to get bigger up front.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises

User avatar
Art Vandelay
CC Veteran
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Art Vandelay » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:11 pm

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an incredibly stupid thing to do .

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Reefer2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:22 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an incredibly stupid thing to do .
Doing nothing different and expecting different results is an incredibly stupid things to do.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11496
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by RoyalDude » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:17 pm

Reefer2 wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an incredibly stupid thing to do .
Doing nothing different and expecting different results is an incredibly stupid things to do.
Don't worry about Bold Moves Art, he is a proponent of Mikes status quo way of managing, slow and thoughtful. It was this kind of trading brilliance that got us Bernier, Ballard, Booth, Roy, Dalpe, Pahlsson, Kassian etc
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

If it's impractical to move one of our d-man, or acquire....

Post by The Brown Knight » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:04 pm

My other line of thought was this:

-if it's impractical to move one of our d-men due to the NTC's.
-if it's impractical for Gillis to get a legit top 6 forward/playmate for Ryan Kesler

Then I suggest the following:

-Use Hansen to acquire another Top 4 calibre defenseman, and use Higgins to acquire a solid 3rd line center.

-Use Jordan Schroeder, Nikalas Jensen, to fill the holes on wing.

In comparison to our 2011 team, our depth at center, depth on defense, and goaltending would be at the same level (I'm disregarding the discrepancy between Schneider and Lack since Luongo started most games that year anyways......and so it's a moot point).

Ultimately - we would still be a 1st round/2nd round calibre team for this year, but we would have the necessary fundamental structure to proceed forward.

Next year and the year after that, is the year that we hope and pray that guys like Shinkaruk, Horvat, and Gaunce make up the difference.

For the time being, increase depth on D and at Center to establish structure for the seasons' to proceed:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Schroder-Kesler-Jensen
Booth-(HigginsTrade)-Kassian
Sestito-Santorelli-Weisse

Hamhuis-Garrison
Edler-Bieksa
(HansenTrade)-Tanev

Luongo
Edler

Those two deals would put our Goaltending, depth at center, and depth on defense would be at our 2011 level).

Next season - we hope that guys like Shinkaruk and Horvat can step up and be difference makers.

How would that plan sound? Focus on increasing depth at center and on D for this year (and in effect, establishing good structure within the line-up, and then banking on Shinkaruk and Horvat to be difference makers next year?)
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by ukcanuck » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:06 pm

Reefer2 wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an incredibly stupid thing to do .
Doing nothing different and expecting different results is an incredibly stupid things to do.
Thats not stupid its insane.

However, waiting until close to the trade deadline to see if there is another team willing to make an equitable hockey trade is probably the smart play

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11496
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by RoyalDude » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:07 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
Reefer2 wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an incredibly stupid thing to do .
Doing nothing different and expecting different results is an incredibly stupid things to do.
Thats not stupid its insane.

However, waiting until close to the trade deadline to see if there is another team willing to make an equitable hockey trade is probably the smart play
You mean like another Derek (4 goals, can't score in the playoffs, 5 foot 9) Roy or shut down specialist can't score Pahlsson to replace offense (Hodgson) type trades at around the TD?
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 7497
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Cornuck » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:14 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
ukcanuck wrote: However, waiting until close to the trade deadline to see if there is another team willing to make an equitable hockey trade is probably the smart play
You mean like another Derek (4 goals, can't score in the playoffs, 5 foot 9) Roy or shut down specialist can't score Pahlsson to replace offense (Hodgson) type trades at around the TD?
YES! That's EXACTLY what we're looking for! I hope we can give up some good assets for useless rental players. Brilliant!
2018-19 - The Road to 82

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Reefer2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:15 pm

RD/Cornuck - I think UK did say
equitable hockey trade
.

A trade now a trade in December or a trade at trade deadline, who cares when just make a good one AND I agree don't trade assets for a rental player again this year. This team is far from a contender so a rental player would be of no value.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by Island Nucklehead » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 am

Mondi wrote: The idea that we've lost Grabner, Malhotra, Salo, Erhoff, Schneider and Hodgson and either not replaced them or replaced them with worse players in crazy. 2011 isn't that long ago, but it feels like an eternity by the way Bold Moves Mike has handled this roster (even if some of it isn't his fault).
Malhotra was a shell of his former self after the eye injury. At least Richardson can play the game without being a threat to himself.

Salo is too old, and Garrison is a better D-man.

Ehrhoff is not a guy you drop a decade-long contract on.

Schneider we'll have to wait-and-see... a top-10 pick in a potentially generational draft could turn out nicely for us.

Grabner and Hodgson... yeah, Ballard sure didn't pan out, but Grabner didn't stick with the Panthers either. Maybe we should've dumped Raymond for him, but woulda-coulda. The guy wasn't getting the trust of his coach with his one-way style and he was eligible for waivers at the time of the trade. Kind of a tough spot. Hodgson was a talent we could still use, but not at the expense of having a rookie placing demands on a team with Sedin-Kesler at 1-2 Centre. The return could've possibly been better (I havent' seen any other trade rumours around him), but let's see how Kassian pans out. It's not like Hodgson went for a rental player.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by dbr » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:53 am

Yeah, no team ever gets really good while multiple players are signed to sweetheart deals and then struggles to maintain their depth as those deals expire and must be extended at closer to the market rate (or the player is lost entirely).. never happens.

Chicago never went from perhaps the most dominant team of the lockout era to a team that couldn't crack the top two in their division. None of those other teams experienced the kind of steep decline that Vancouver has, falling from a 1st overall finish all the way to another 1st overall finish. The Boston Bruins didn't follow up a cup run with a first round playoff exit. This kind of stuff just never happens, except in Vancouver. :crazy:

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Post by dbr » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:49 am

Mondi wrote:Hmm...

Hawks followed up a two season downturn with a Cup win.

Bruins followed a one season downturn with a return to the finals.

LA followed up with a trip the conference finals.

Penguins and Wings have been perennial contenders since 2008.
The Wings have had a bunch of 5th and 7th seed appearances and never got further than the second round since 2009.

The Penguins had a couple of first round exits in a row and won just one playoff series in the three years following their Stanley Cup victory.

See, that is the thing Mondi.

Perennial success with little or no fluctuation from year to year is an exception in this league, especially if you define success as a lengthy playoff run where a few injuries or a couple of bad games can seal a team's fate.

This is evident when you look at these teams recent histories.. unless you choose to selectively ignore some disappointing finishes (ie. the ones teams other than the Canucks had) of course.

I am not even trying to say the Canucks are primed to set the league on fire and return to their peak as a team this year, it is pretty obvious that there is some restructuring going on and it doesn't look finished to me.

I just think the portrayal of reality in your posts is wildly inaccurate and if I didn't know better I might think that was the result of deceit and dishonestly rather than merely a haphazard examination of the facts.
But yeah, because it happened to NJD and PHI, its okay that it's happening here. It's inevitable and fans should be happy with Sestito, Booth and Kassian. Everything is fine.
This is again an inaccurate portrayal of reality and of my opinion for that matter.

Post Reply