Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

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
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 14877
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:43 pm

Hank it's simple. Neither Green nor Benning nor Linden believe Shinkaruk will be a top six in the NHL and they don't think he will be NHL ready next year. He is obviously a player they don't see fitting in long term. In Granlund they get a player who has already transitioned into the NHL that they think can play wing or centre, kills penalties, is strong on the forecheck and plays a two way game. He projects a low level 2nd liner or a solid 3rd liner.

Treliving basically said the same thing except they don't see Granlund projecting into a top six but rather a dependable 3rd liner. Treliving also said they made the move to manage an asset of a redundant type of player for them. Same reason we moved Shinkaruk, we saw him as a redundant piece.

We lose on the contract status part of the deal but both teams moved out what the saw as redundant piece for prospects that potentially give them some of what they lack.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8329
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Island Nucklehead » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:44 pm

Strangelove wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:I absolutely LOVE this trade!!!!

Shinkaruk sucks. He gets bounced off the puck easy, can't win a puck battle to save his life, is terrible along the boards and extremely awful at getting pucks out. He's the king of blue line cheating, very soft and skinnier than Brad Ference. He takes too many Low percentage shots on goal, they say the puck dies in is stick. He won't amount to a hill of beans

Another brilliant trade by the bird dawg!
Agreed, genius move by a genius GM. :mex:
lol anything to get excited these days, eh boys?

Should be the definition of a "nothing" trade. Dude is already writing off Shinkaruk, what does that say about Granlund, who is older and whose development seems to have stagnated. They're also pretty much the same size. So yeah, you get a bit better two-way player in exchange for someone with a higher skilled ceiling. Shinkaruk is also under control longer, and isn't waiver eligible next year. He's also having a better season than guys like Mantha and Petan, so calling him a bust seems pretty early. At any rate, lots of placeholders for the waiver-wire come October.

Anyways, nothing much to get excited about here, in either direction.

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 14449
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by RoyalDude » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:45 pm

Hank wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:Hank , Boeser is not a power forward whatsoever and neither are the Finns.
Well if you're going to argue about semantics Blob, how about they're elite forwards with some size & power?

At least they're bigger in stature and unlike Shinkaruk, I think these 3 are more of a guaranteed to make it to the NHL as top 6 forwards.

Hunter on the other hand, could make us regret it or become a slightly better Linden Vey.
Blobby was a huge fan of Jordan Schroeder and Nick Jensen
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 14600
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:11 pm

RoyalDude wrote:Shinkaruk a bean pole flyweight but all of a sudden Mr. We are
Too Small McKenzie now loves him! Go figure. Am I surprised? Hell no!
Sorry I forgot Granound was a gorilla . A strapping 176 pounds with his gear on .
“ROR IS OVERRATED, MACKINNON IS A BUM, TAVARES IS DONE”

User avatar
vic
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by vic » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:28 pm

RoyalDude wrote: Another brilliant trade by the bird dawg!
It doesn't count, he traded a MG draft pick.

Kind of how MG didn't deserve credit for Horvat because he traded a Nonis draft pick.

lostinarink
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:55 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by lostinarink » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:38 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:I stole this from Cowpuke, too lazy to do my own write up:

Treliving on the trade:


- Looking at this (Shinkaruk?) for a while
- Thanked Granlund for his service
- Moved lots of young players to our team quickly...need to continue to build our pipeline of prospects (not a great deal of depth in skill positions)
- Scoring goals at the NHL level is difficult...Hunter has done nothing but score; doesn't translate to NHL level automatically, but its an area of need for the Flames
- Number of players at the centre position for the Flames; Drew Shore and Bill Arnold in the minors
- Markus' contract is up, plus waiver eligible at the end of the season; risk exposing him to waivers later on
- Wants to caution fans that Shinkaruk is NOT at the NHL-ready stage yet, still work to be done; but down the road, he can fill a need for us, which is score goals
- Hunter is a competitive player; Flames like that about him and want him to continually improve
- At the junior level, you can beat other teams with raw skill; but need to fine-tune that for the NHL level because you're playing against "redwoods" on the blue line
- Things that stood out with Hunter for the Flames: Competitiveness, quickness, willingness to score goals
- Has potential to be a top six forward; still has a ways to go, but the Flames want to work with him and bring him to that level
- Don't normally see teams deal with div. rivals, and this is our 2nd deal with VAN in recent times
- First had conversations with VAN about this a few months ago
- Evaluated players, determined areas of need; once you make your wish list, many of those players aren't available
- Giving up a good player in Markus Granlund; need to make sure that its the best move for the organization moving forward
- Talked about it internally in the last few weeks, came together in the last few days
- Tried Granlund on the wing in the minors; he is able to play the wing, but wasn't all that comfortable. One of Markus' greatest strength is his hockey IQ. Good to have those players at any position is good, but best to have it at center. And Markus just didn't seem comfortable at wing
- Flames didn't project Markus to be in the top six long-term; not a bad thing, as you need players in all positions. But with the waiver situation and the rest of the roster, this was the correct move to make
Interesting to note that JB and Treliving seems to be on the same page here.
1) HS is not ready for NHL, no promise that he ever will be, but has the tools. Calgary is a buyer because they have an organizational need in the future - not now. Vancouver is a seller because they have invested time and are not seeing the progress in the areas that they feel are important for success at the NHL level.
2) Granlund is an NHL player with upside potential that needs to be re-signed and playing in the NHL. Vancouver is a buyer because after HS/BH/injured BS, they have a hole because McCann/Vey/Cracknell are not the long term 3/4 solutions. They are prepared to take a risk on him at let him grow. They can use him now and into the future. Calgary is a seller because there is no space for him right now. Too many other above him in the feeding trough. He is not going to get into the lineup. They will end up putting him on waivers and losing him for nothing.

Potential win for both teams, but both are taking risks. HS has a higher risk/higher reward potential, Granlund is the safer/more flexible choice with potential upside. Neither one is a clear winner over the other. Both may end up as busts, or have long productive careers.

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4665
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Reefer2 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:44 pm

On the radio they mentioned that the Nucks don't have many prospects in this age group because of the bad draft picking. Maybe it is as simple as that?

Still like deal since I don't think HS was in the long term plans but they could of added him to Vrbata or Hamhuis to maybe get a better return?

lostinarink
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:55 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by lostinarink » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:57 pm

Remember Vey
12/13 AHL 67 pts in 74 games
13/14 AHL 48 pts in 43 games
NHL 38 pts in 117 games (12 goals/28 assists)
Like HS, he was a proven point getter/goal scorer in the AHL
Like HS, he hasn't proven the ability to fight through traffic that is needed for NHL success.
Unlike HS, he is 2 inches taller and stronger.

HS is a big question mark still.

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 10582
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Topper » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:12 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Rumsfeld wrote:Absolutely retarded trade. :lol:
I would have rather seen a 2nd rounder come back, whether it's from this year or next. Why exactly do they need another small, light player who isn't especially fast.
I'm sure the Flames would have preferred a second too.

Next year is another of the retoolbuild. if Granlund isn't any good, he'll clear waivers, if he's ok, he won't be on waivers.

Fun reading all the descriptions of Shrinkwrap's talent not translating to the NHL.......sounds familiar.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 10582
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Topper » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:13 pm

Mondi wrote:The age group theme is a little odd...great players are great players at any age...why not focus on that.
A continuous roll over of the lineup.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
Posts: 6532
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Meds » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:14 pm

Strangelove wrote:
TDA Rum wrote:I think we have to wait until after the trade line is finished to get a good understanding of what Benning & Lindens plan is... i don't think they are done making moves...
Exactly, tomorrow they trade Cracknell for a 5th.

Wednesday, McCann + Vey for Drouin.
Yeah, because Yzerman is gonna deal Drouin for McCann and Vey. :lol:

Arbour
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:54 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Arbour » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:22 pm

lostinarink wrote:

Interesting to note that JB and Treliving seems to be on the same page here.
1) HS is not ready for NHL, no promise that he ever will be, but has the tools. Calgary is a buyer because they have an organizational need in the future - not now. Vancouver is a seller because they have invested time and are not seeing the progress in the areas that they feel are important for success at the NHL level.
2) Granlund is an NHL player with upside potential that needs to be re-signed and playing in the NHL. Vancouver is a buyer because after HS/BH/injured BS, they have a hole because McCann/Vey/Cracknell are not the long term 3/4 solutions. They are prepared to take a risk on him at let him grow. They can use him now and into the future. Calgary is a seller because there is no space for him right now. Too many other above him in the feeding trough. He is not going to get into the lineup. They will end up putting him on waivers and losing him for nothing.

Potential win for both teams, but both are taking risks. HS has a higher risk/higher reward potential, Granlund is the safer/more flexible choice with potential upside. Neither one is a clear winner over the other. Both may end up as busts, or have long productive careers.
Pretty much sums it up. It was a hockey deal with both teams looking for different things. Unfortunately the Canucks aren't a team dealing from strength. This team should have started restocking the cupboard after its first round exit in 2011-12 and if not then the next year after going out four straight to San Jose. Instead the end of the Gillis era seemed to be marked by knee jerk decisions in respect to trades eg Luongo, and contracts with NTC's that made no sense eg Higgins. Benning is attempting to fill that void with little or no trade-able assets and not every trade is going to be a home run.

User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
Posts: 6532
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Meds » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:41 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:I absolutely LOVE Elmers dick when it's covered with Nutella but even if it had Parkay on it I'm good to go
LMAO! :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:45 am

givemeda411 wrote:Chris Higgins: Hunter is very skilled but soft. A lot of guys weren't too impressed this past camp. But still labeled the trade weird.

- this from Higgins's brother.
Speaking of Higgy, if we end up moving Hansen and Burr (TDD or offseason), I won't mind bringing Higgy back to Vancouver. We can't have all young guys on the roster, need some vet experience. He the "glue" guy and only has 1 more year on his contract. If anything, see if he can find his game again, up his value and move him for something @ next year's TDD. :P

User avatar
Rayxor
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Tiger country

Re: Shinkaruk to Flames for Granlund

Post by Rayxor » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:17 am

I just have this to say about the trade: Why are we trading AWAY a former Medicine Hat Tiger? This was NOT part of the plan!

We should have been trading for Tyler Ennis and Kris Russel.

Benning has lost his mind and needs to be STOPPED!!! :mad:

Post Reply