Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Going after 30 year old Thomas Vanek would be the wrong move. Getting a guy like 22 year old Evander Kane could be a massive step in the right direction, depending on the cost.

herb wrote:Going after 30 year old Thomas Vanek would be the wrong move. Getting a guy like 22 year old Evander Kane could be a massive step in the right direction, depending on the cost.

Well. Depending on the cap hit and term, it might be tempting to take 30 year old Vanek plus Horvat, Kassian, probably Corrado and a bunch of draft picks over Kane plus maybe $2m and change in cap space.. but in a vacuum (or if Vanek is signing a 7 year $63m deal this summer) I completely agree.

dbr wrote:

herb wrote:Going after 30 year old Thomas Vanek would be the wrong move. Getting a guy like 22 year old Evander Kane could be a massive step in the right direction, depending on the cost.

Well. Depending on the cap hit and term, it might be tempting to take 30 year old Vanek plus Horvat, Kassian, probably Corrado and a bunch of draft picks over Kane plus maybe $2m and change in cap space.. but in a vacuum (or if Vanek is signing a 7 year $63m deal this summer) I completely agree.

I was trying to generalize a bit.

Overall, building a younger team is what I want to see GMMG do. Going after 30+ year old guys via trade, especially a guy like Vanek who is unlikely to "push us over the top", would not get me excited over the direction Gillis is taking us.

herb wrote:

dbr wrote:

herb wrote:Going after 30 year old Thomas Vanek would be the wrong move. Getting a guy like 22 year old Evander Kane could be a massive step in the right direction, depending on the cost.

Well. Depending on the cap hit and term, it might be tempting to take 30 year old Vanek plus Horvat, Kassian, probably Corrado and a bunch of draft picks over Kane plus maybe $2m and change in cap space.. but in a vacuum (or if Vanek is signing a 7 year $63m deal this summer) I completely agree.

I was trying to generalize a bit.

Overall, building a younger team is what I want to see GMMG do. Going after 30+ year old guys via trade, especially a guy like Vanek who is unlikely to "push us over the top", would not get me excited over the direction Gillis is taking us.

+1

Regardless of cap hit, guys like Vanek are not going to be the difference makers this team needs in the long- or even short-term. For all intents and purposes, he'd be a rental - and a pretty expensive one. If Gillis is going to cough up significant assets in a trade, he may as well go big.

Vader wrote: Ummm...clearly you don't look very closely to stats and trends. You need to consider his scoring relative to the overall scoring in the league

In the past 7 years on an adjusted basis he's been top 5 in the NHL in goals three times and top 15 six times. His rookie year was excellent as well- 25 goals.

So you're just talking about goals, ok, that's fine. I'm talking about total points. I find they are more reflective of a player's overall value to a team, when he's on the ice is he contributing to a scoring play even when he's not the one putting the puck in the net.....

And most top scorers in the east drop in production when they end up in the west. So Vanek really isn't worth the money he is going to ask for.

I suppose it is par for the course though when you consider the extension that Steen just signed. Just shy of $6M per year for a guy who has never scored more than 24 goals in a single season until this year. At least St. Louis was smart enough not to give him any crazy long term.

dbr wrote:
Well. Depending on the cap hit and term, it might be tempting to take 30 year old Vanek plus Horvat, Kassian, probably Corrado and a bunch of draft picks over Kane plus maybe $2m and change in cap space.. but in a vacuum (or if Vanek is signing a 7 year $63m deal this summer) I completely agree.

You think it would cost Kassian, Horvat, Corrado and a bunch of picks to land E Kane ? Seems like quite a lot for a guy with one 30 goal season. I like Kane but that price is sky high for this team. I think he could be had for a cheaper price than that.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:

dbr wrote:
Well. Depending on the cap hit and term, it might be tempting to take 30 year old Vanek plus Horvat, Kassian, probably Corrado and a bunch of draft picks over Kane plus maybe $2m and change in cap space.. but in a vacuum (or if Vanek is signing a 7 year $63m deal this summer) I completely agree.

You think it would cost Kassian, Horvat, Corrado and a bunch of picks to land E Kane ? Seems like quite a lot for a guy with one 30 goal season. I like Kane but that price is sky high for this team. I think he could be had for a cheaper price than that.

Well I probably let my fingers get away from me there, but if I'm the Jets I wouldn't deal Kane for Horvat straight up, and I wouldn't deal him for Horvat plus the kind of dime a dozen throw ins that get bandied about here and elsewhere (Richardson, Weise, a second round pick, etc).

Basically I'd be looking at Horvat plus a decent-to-good roster player. Kassian, Tanev, maybe Hansen if the Jets particularly like him for some reason. Gotta have a pretty compelling reason to take a major step back in the here and now, right?

And that's ignoring the probability that there would be a ton of teams interested in Kane that would have to be outbid..

Look at what Tyler Seguin returned, a legitimate All Star plus a handful of (not top drawer) prospects.. Kane is no Seguin but he's close (in perceived value).

Trade Edler and Schroeder to the Flyers for Grossman and Cole Cassels Oshawa teammate - Scott Laughton

We ain't getting Kane until he's a UFA. Be patient

I really cannot imagine Kane being dealt. In terms of trades, I'm fine with Gillis letting this season play out with pretty much the group we have (maybe a tweak here or there, but nothing major unless it's a clear home run) and then see the young guys start to come into the first team hopefully next year. I like the way the Canucks have played thus far, but there is no realistic trade out there that will make them a serious cup contender (a surprise run is always a possibility for any team that makes it anyway), so I'd take a strong, hard working season, a playoff spot of some sorts and roll the dice in the playoffs, and then keep moving in the direction of slowly transitioning the team to the younger guys over the next 3-5 years.

Boston Canucker wrote:I really cannot imagine Kane being dealt. In terms of trades, I'm fine with Gillis letting this season play out with pretty much the group we have (maybe a tweak here or there, but nothing major unless it's a clear home run) and then see the young guys start to come into the first team hopefully next year. I like the way the Canucks have played thus far, but there is no realistic trade out there that will make them a serious cup contender (a surprise run is always a possibility for any team that makes it anyway), so I'd take a strong, hard working season, a playoff spot of some sorts and roll the dice in the playoffs, and then keep moving in the direction of slowly transitioning the team to the younger guys over the next 3-5 years.

I tend to agree BC. I would love to have E. Kane on the team but not sure I want to give up so much. In juries to Burrows and JS, have hurt us and now we have Stanton and Edler out. Don't want to see any panic moves. With the cap going up and the possibility of buying out Booth we will be in a position to pick up FA or make trades and bring cap back. Add to that, as you say, keep some rosters spots open for some kids.

We are not close enough to the top teams in the league to fool ourselves into thinking we are a player away from winning it all. For us to go deep all the stars have to be aligned, no injuries on our team, lots of injuries on the other team, career playoff performances, MVP type goaltending, a little puck luck. It can be done, but adding a star player won't make it anymore likely.

Hockey Widow wrote:
I tend to agree BC. I would love to have E. Kane on the team but not sure I want to give up so much. In juries to Burrows and JS, have hurt us and now we have Stanton and Edler out. Don't want to see any panic moves. With the cap going up and the possibility of buying out Booth we will be in a position to pick up FA or make trades and bring cap back. Add to that, as you say, keep some rosters spots open for some kids.

We are not close enough to the top teams in the league to fool ourselves into thinking we are a player away from winning it all. For us to go deep all the stars have to be aligned, no injuries on our team, lots of injuries on the other team, career playoff performances, MVP type goaltending, a little puck luck. It can be done, but adding a star player won't make it anymore likely.

With Booth's recent play and rising cap, would the Canucks be better off to keep him? I am not sure who the Canucks can realistically get for $4.2m when the cap expects to go up by 10% or more.

Hockey Widow wrote:

Boston Canucker wrote:I really cannot imagine Kane being dealt. In terms of trades, I'm fine with Gillis letting this season play out with pretty much the group we have (maybe a tweak here or there, but nothing major unless it's a clear home run) and then see the young guys start to come into the first team hopefully next year. I like the way the Canucks have played thus far, but there is no realistic trade out there that will make them a serious cup contender (a surprise run is always a possibility for any team that makes it anyway), so I'd take a strong, hard working season, a playoff spot of some sorts and roll the dice in the playoffs, and then keep moving in the direction of slowly transitioning the team to the younger guys over the next 3-5 years.

I tend to agree. I don't think we are a trade or a single UFA signing away from being a top team again. We need a handful of players to step up and contribute in addition to perhaps a UFA signing or a trade. I don't think now is too early at all to begin to seriously worry about the Sedins' inevitable fall to second line status.

I like the way the team has played, for the most park, and think they are capable of beating teams in the playoffs. They will be underdogs against teams like the Blackhawks, for sure, but they would have a chance if healthy and playing well.


Booth has been playing better. There will be no point in buying him out for the sake of buying him out with the cap going up, unless there is a legitimate upgrade if he can stay healthy and productive.

Trade Shinkaruk for Bo Horvat's London Knights team-mate - Josh Anderson? Straight up?

Taylor Leier - 4th round pick, via Pahlsson trade with Vancouver
Josh Anderson - 4th round pick, via Pahlsson trade with Vancouver

Go Pahlsson.

Go Gillis.

Can't wait for our next Pahlsson/Roy classic Gillis trade deadline deal

Edler to Detroit for Anthony Mantha?