Genius/Absurd for Canucks to make trades right now?

[Farhan Lalji]

Hey guys, great site! Glad to be on board.

In your opinion, would it be genius or absurd for Dave Nonis to be considering serious trades right now? Here are my two trains of thought:

Absurd: Although the Canucks have lost all 3 pre-season games so far, they mainly had rookies in the line-up! It would be absolutely absurd for Nonis to consider serious trades based on these 3 games. It's still way too early.

Genius: Canucks should be looking to make changes NOW. Period!
If the Canucks struggle and EVERYONE (opponents and the Canucks themselves) realizes that changes need to be made......it's too late. Why? Because - when teams are struggling, all or most of their players have lower trade values than normal. Getting Luongo was great, but the Canucks still have numerous holes in their line-up. Furthermore, the Canucks still don't have many real strengths......while at the same time, not having any real depth.

It's better to be proactive in situations like this.

What are your thoughts?

As far as I'm concerned, I lean more towards the latter scenario.

[MarkMM]

I wouldn't call it absurd, but I definitely wouldn't do it. Yes, it's good to be proactive, and Nonis has done that already, keeping things the same is in itself a move, and we need to allow the team to gell before we evaluate things. Even if we struggle and have to make moves, other teams will still be able to be convinced that some of our attractive assets would work well in their system, and just didn't fit into our program here.

Also, most teams themselves are wanting to see what they have before they make moves, so we're not going to find many/any? willing dance partners.

[Fred]

I suspect there are going to be a number of teams wanting to or having to move players before the season starts, the Canucks for instance might have to unload some Cap space So I would think it's a good time to be patient and wait & see

[Hercules_Rockefeller]

If we see any trades early in the season, I don't think the reason willl be because the team is struggling so much as completing an incomplete team. We're still short a top 4 dman, top 6 forward and a backup goalie. Those will stay on the wishlist until we aquire them. Holes won't go away just because the team is strong out of the gate.

[*CanucksForLife*]

I think it's too early for trades. We havnt' had all of our key players geting dressed at the same time and seeing what they can do. Pre-season means absolutely nothing to me. They are just normal games with rookies taking over.

[Farhan Lalji]

I think it's too early for trades. We havnt' had all of our key players geting dressed at the same time and seeing what they can do. Pre-season means absolutely nothing to me. They are just normal games with rookies taking over.

First off, thanks to all in advance for the responses.

For me, it's not really just these 3 games that have me concerned. What concerns me about the Canucks, is that they don't really have any major strengths.

If I remember correctly, the Canucks are only one of TWO teams (Devils being the other?) that have over 6 players making atleast 3 million. That right there, is an indication that the Canucks MIGHT have depth issues.

Having depth issue isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that the strengths on the team (i.e. the big money you've invested elsewhere) clearly outweigh it.

With the Canucks, I'm not sure if I see that. I just get the feeling that Nonis/Veenyo are relying way too much on the kids to step up.

-Can Kraijeck and/or Bourdon step up so that the Canucks have a decent 4th defenseman?
-Can Kesler play on the top two lines?
-Can Naslund and Morrison (sans Bertuzzi) get back to their old selves?

All of this can happen, but it's not guaranteed. Furthermore - having a lack of depth, means that a team like the Canucks can be EXTREMELY susceptible if they have a major injury. Given that no team ever is 100% healthy, the Canucks are at high risk.

Personally - I would rather have seen Nonis focusing on building STRENGTHS, instead of trying to cover up weaknesses. There is a difference.

Now that the NHL has a salary cap, almost ALL teams will have a weakness of sorts. Teams like Detroit and Philadelphia can no longer spend $80 million dollars. What teams in the CAP era have to do, is ask themselves:

"What weaknesses/risks am I willing to have/take?"

As it relates to the Canucks, I would much rather have seen us go after another high quality defenseman (perhaps one either on the level of...or even superior to Ohlund/Mitchell......even if the opportunity cost of doing this, would be not being able to sign a guy like Bulis...or match Kesler).

With Luongo in net and with a solid defensive core, it would be a NIGHTMARE for other teams to try and score. Even with an injury on defense, the Canucks defense would still be pretty deep (can we say that right now with our current line-up?).

The risk/weakness that I'd be willing to take, would be up front. I wouldn't mind having more kids play up front, because they'd be comforted knowing that a deep defense and superstar goalie is backing them up.

For instance - perhaps a guy like Jesse Schultz would be willing to take more risks, etc. because he knew that Luongo was in net, while Ohlund/Lidstrom (hehe) were backing him up. Perhaps Jesse Schultz in a situation like this, would be more efficient/comfortable than another superior forward on another team that has less skilled defenseman/goalie.

In other words, the Canucks could get more out of their (weak) forwards due to the level of comfort that they will have created. I would not use an ultra-defensive system like Calgary/Minnesota. Like Nonis, I would also encourage solid two-way play. The only difference, is that I would've focused on acquiring high-end quality defenseman......even if it meant less key signings up front and/or trading Naslund.

Anyway I'm rambling a bit, but that's sort of my view on things.

[*CanucksForLife*]

Yeah I guess that's true.

PS How long did it take yuo to type out that post?

[Farhan Lalji]

Yeah I guess that's true.

PS How long did it take yuo to type out that post?

Longer than I thought it would.

You got me all excited about Canuck talk, and I lost track of time.

Now I'm missing the 3rd quarter of the Lions game.

[*CanucksForLife*]

Yeah I guess that's true.

PS How long did it take yuo to type out that post?

Longer than I thought it would.

You got me all excited about Canuck talk, and I lost track of time.

Now I'm missing the 3rd quarter of the Lions game.

Lol, How could you foget about the Lions?
Tsk, tsk tsk.

[MarkMM]

I think it's too early for trades. We havnt' had all of our key players geting dressed at the same time and seeing what they can do. Pre-season means absolutely nothing to me. They are just normal games with rookies taking over.

First off, thanks to all in advance for the responses.

For me, it's not really just these 3 games that have me concerned. What concerns me about the Canucks, is that they don't really have any major strengths.

If I remember correctly, the Canucks are only one of TWO teams (Devils being the other?) that have over 6 players making atleast 3 million. That right there, is an indication that the Canucks MIGHT have depth issues.

Having depth issue isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that the strengths on the team (i.e. the big money you've invested elsewhere) clearly outweigh it.

With the Canucks, I'm not sure if I see that. I just get the feeling that Nonis/Veenyo are relying way too much on the kids to step up.

-Can Kraijeck and/or Bourdon step up so that the Canucks have a decent 4th defenseman?
-Can Kesler play on the top two lines?
-Can Naslund and Morrison (sans Bertuzzi) get back to their old selves?

All of this can happen, but it's not guaranteed. Furthermore - having a lack of depth, means that a team like the Canucks can be EXTREMELY susceptible if they have a major injury. Given that no team ever is 100% healthy, the Canucks are at high risk.

Personally - I would rather have seen Nonis focusing on building STRENGTHS, instead of trying to cover up weaknesses. There is a difference.

Now that the NHL has a salary cap, almost ALL teams will have a weakness of sorts. Teams like Detroit and Philadelphia can no longer spend $80 million dollars. What teams in the CAP era have to do, is ask themselves:

"What weaknesses/risks am I willing to have/take?"

As it relates to the Canucks, I would much rather have seen us go after another high quality defenseman (perhaps one either on the level of...or even superior to Ohlund/Mitchell......even if the opportunity cost of doing this, would be not being able to sign a guy like Bulis...or match Kesler).

With Luongo in net and with a solid defensive core, it would be a NIGHTMARE for other teams to try and score. Even with an injury on defense, the Canucks defense would still be pretty deep (can we say that right now with our current line-up?).

The risk/weakness that I'd be willing to take, would be up front. I wouldn't mind having more kids play up front, because they'd be comforted knowing that a deep defense and superstar goalie is backing them up.

For instance - perhaps a guy like Jesse Schultz would be willing to take more risks, etc. because he knew that Luongo was in net, while Ohlund/Lidstrom (hehe) were backing him up. Perhaps Jesse Schultz in a situation like this, would be more efficient/comfortable than another superior forward on another team that has less skilled defenseman/goalie.

In other words, the Canucks could get more out of their (weak) forwards due to the level of comfort that they will have created. I would not use an ultra-defensive system like Calgary/Minnesota. Like Nonis, I would also encourage solid two-way play. The only difference, is that I would've focused on acquiring high-end quality defenseman......even if it meant less key signings up front and/or trading Naslund.

Anyway I'm rambling a bit, but that's sort of my view on things.

Good points.

On the flip side, we might be able to take some extra risks with our defense because Nonis has gone out and signed guys like Chouinard, kept Kesler and gotten Vigneault as a coach, our defense will be greatly helped by defensively responsible forwards and a system that stresses back-checking.

I do think we have holes, which is why I think Nonis wanted to protect our cap space (thanks a lot, Clarke), and he would have tried to add a piece further in the season once we've accumulated some cap space so that it's not a half-assed attempt to add a top four guy d-man and top-six forward, that might still be the plan but they just have to be extra creative to open up cap room or find a bargain during the season. Or, we might find that Kesler (or Bulis or Cooke) is top-six material and that Bourdon/Krajicek is top-four material, in which case we don't need to add anything. I think that's what Nonis is thinking, watch to see if what we have is good enough for a while, if not, add later on in the season once we've saved some money mucking through with what we have.

I do think we'll see a trade soon, but it'll be to unload one or more of our one-way contracts, so nothing major.

[Madcombinepilot]

Not sure that its ever too early for Trades. Nonis strikes me as the kind of GM that will always evaluate a trade whenever the situatuion presents itself. If the trade makes sense, for the good of the team, Nonis pulls the rigger. I think the only grey area there is would be what vision does Nonis have for the team in the future. We as fans have a nasty habit of seeing short term, and owners restrictions on GM's (read: profit) sometimes have them looking too far into the future. When either of these events happen, the best you cana hope for is a cinderella run to the cup. The book is still out on Dave as to which type he is, but from what I saw at the calgary game, Big Al and Dave are simply evaluating the rookies. I would put no stock into any of the first games....

If we get lucky as fans, Dave ends up 'walking the wire' if you will and builds us an entertaining team that can get deep into the playoffs. Personally, with the assets he had, and the hand he was dealt in the offseason, he has appeared to have done the best job he could. His only mistake is the extra million for Kesler, but if a million bucks in wasted salary is the excuse that causes us to fail, we have other problems. I think that injuries across the league will decide which team does what, and who goes deep.

[Sid Dithers]

Not because of the three losses, but I don't think its ever too early to make trades. If another team sees a big hole in their lineup, they may make a panic trade to shore it up. You may be able to get a steal. These days with precious little cap money available, a GM always needs to keep his ear to the tracks. GM is a 365-day job now; you've got to make improvements where and when you can. And as far as the Canucks are concerned, even a true optimist can see potential shortcomings in the current lineup.

[*CanucksForLife*]

How can you start trading right now if you have yet to seen the final Canucks lineup?
The earliest time to trade for me would probably bee 1 or 2 weeks into the regular season.

[rikster]

I read that the average payroll across the league is around $40 million...

I don't think a bad start is what would depreciate the Nuck players trade value..

Not having a market for those players would and unless your thinking of moving Salo and his cheap contract I can't imagine Nonis would have a hope in heck of generating a market at this time of the season for his bigger contract players....

I think Nonis plays the season with the group of players he has in camp and if the season is another failure he looks to move one or two of his bigger contract players, ie Naslund and Morrison at the deadline when the cap hit is reduced and the ability to generate a "hot" market for his players is better...

And if he does move one or two of his bigger contract players, I'd like to see a return along the lines of what the Oilers got in the Pronger deal...

Take care...

[Grizzly]

MadC wrote:

Not sure that its ever too early for Trades. Nonis strikes me as the kind of GM that will always evaluate a trade whenever the situatuion presents itself. If the trade makes sense, for the good of the team, Nonis pulls the rigger

I think as a GM you are always looking to improve the team so I don't ever think that you should be in a mode of "not trading" or "not upgrading". Successful companies/teams/businesses are always on the move to improve ... That of course doesn't mean you go out and make a move just for the sake of it ... It does take some time to evaluate your team and players ... and I would especially say that now in the Nucks case as there already has been a few changes.

So here we are in pre-season ... and it is just only that .... pre-season ... a time of evaluating everyone. For now I would be patient ... have my ear to the ground for any propositions etc.and maybe do a little poking around ... but not necessarily going for anything unless it really made alot of sense. Cap room though certainly appears to be an issue that might have to be addressed.

One thing I have liked so far with DN is that he does seem to pull the trigger when he feels he needs to ... I don't see any reason now either why he wouldn't if felt he a deal came up that would improve the team or help it long term. We'll see.

Grizz