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

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

Postby 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
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

Postby 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: 4731
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

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

Postby 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
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

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

Postby 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
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

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

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

Postby 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
Reefer2
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

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

Postby 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
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

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

Postby 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
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

Postby 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
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

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

Postby 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
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

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

Postby 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!
Over 40 years of pain - I just want one day of glory.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4935
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Chester, NE

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

Postby 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
Reefer2
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

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

Postby Mondi » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:21 pm

If this team is viewed as far from a contender, the move is to flip our experienced players for picks and prospects.

Otherwise the team should load up.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to undo trades where we ditched our first round prospects who were closing on being legit NHLers or our useful second-tier veterans, for younger and less experienced people who either suck (Ballard, Booth) or aren't ready (Kassian, Horvat).

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).
User avatar
Mondi
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:02 pm

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

Postby 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.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4347
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

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

Postby Mondi » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:33 am

You can explain away all or most of Gillis' stellar GMing, but the point is not the excuse the point is that the team has declined sharply in 2.5 years from being the best to perhaps middling.

Malhotra was lost in Feb 2011 (I think) and has yet to be replaced. Richardson is perhaps Max Lapierre+.

Luongo got that god awful contract (which was awful even before the new CBA). Subsequently, Schneider was lost for a pick.

Samuelsson, though old and injury prone, was twice the player Booth is in terms of experience, poise and playoff performance. Maybe it was time for him to go, but bringing in a 4 million dollar third liner was not great value.

Salo walked, and was not replaced. Tanev is coming up, but is no where near Salo's level in 2010-2011.

Erhoff and Garrison are perhaps a saw-off, but Erhoff is and was highly underrated as it was not long after he left the PP went from unreal to stinky. As for that contract he got in Buffalo, sure the Canucks weren't going to match. But dumping Ballard and scraping together a comparable offer (at least in terms of cap hit) may have been possible if MG was willing to admit a blunder on Ballard.

Hodgson may have been a problem, but he was also a dumb kid (emphasis on kid). Gillis' job is to manage not dump his problems. Surely Henrik, Gillis and AV could have talked some sense into him (Sedins can't play forever, you're on a contender...etc...etc.). Kassian might be alright in the long run, but Coho is precisely what this team needs today, right now. Kassian spends most of him time in the press box and on the fourth line.

Ballard was trash on Van and there was not way of knowing he'd be that bad, and sure there was no way of knowing what Grabner was going to do, but he was showing signs of sparks and he's exactly the kind of player this team needs rights now.

I'm right there with you on the possible excuses for Gillis but there are plenty of possible critiques too.

The idea that we draft players, groom them and dump them for less experiences guys when the team is (or was) trending toward the Cup is mental. You don't really see the Hawks, Wings, Pens, Bruins or Kings trending down so starkly after a cup run. The only team that has comparably, well perhaps more severely turned down is Philly.
User avatar
Mondi
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Island Nucklehead, RoyalDude and 4 guests