Mo on the move to Ottawa?

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Postby tantalum » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:16 pm

the Cunning Linguist wrote:Anyway, trading Mo would leave us very weak up the middle and I can't recall of any team going far in the postseason without a strong lineup at center (then again, the Flyers are the postergirls of having lots of good centers and not going anywhere with them so far this year). But I do like the idea of acquiring a Volchenkov and some cap space; I just don't know if Kesler would be up to the challenge of 2nd line time (he's yet to meet the challenge on the 3rd line).


Undoubtedly, such a move would have to be followed up with a move to replace Morrison and in essence create a 2-for-1 deal. Trade Mo to get one of those 2 and use the cap space created to get the second player.

In the end, I just don't see Ottawa making such a deal. Like the canucks, they are pressed up against the cap so can't really take on much more salary. The deal would have to be more complicated or Ottawa would have to dump some further salary in another deal.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Kowch » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:53 pm

cerios wrote:We aren't close to a cup, so we should go with the better players. Mo won't win a cup with this team, Ohlund, Salo, Linden, Mitchell, and most likely naslund simply won't be here when our next good shot comes. So why pretend? accept the fact that we aren't competitive and simply do what it takes to turn the ship as fast as possible.

And this time when we do begin to get close for god sakes don't trade away the future for a shot now, it never works.


I disagree. I think we're closer than some people would care to admit. Is it going to happen this year? No... but to write off the likes of Ohlund, Salo and Mitchell for a potential cup wrong is just wrong. If that's the case, we might as well trade Luongo now because he's around the same age. :roll:

Look, if we're already planing for long term prospects, we don't need defenceman... we need forward who can score. Looking at our top 20 prospects _8_ of them are defensmen and 3 of them are goalies. Getting yet another defensman isn't the answer (IMO).

As for trading Cooke, well he makes less then half of what Morrison makes, while at least providing what hes supposed to provide which is energy. Cooke gets less ice time, no power-play time (Morrison has 2 goals on the PP), and inferior line-mates (most of the time). While neither of these players is exactly off to a flying start Cooke is most certainly a better bargain at this point then Mo. Not that I would be devastated if we traded Cooke regardless...


I don't care if he's cheaper, it's a question (right now) of talent. And Cooke is getting way overpaid just to bring "energy". He (and his linemates) need to start getting the odd goal. In this kind of system everyone needs to contribute... not just the top two lines.
Kowch
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Postby tantalum » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:10 am

Kowch wrote:Look, if we're already planing for long term prospects, we don't need defenceman... we need forward who can score. Looking at our top 20 prospects _8_ of them are defensmen and 3 of them are goalies. Getting yet another defensman isn't the answer (IMO).


Anything that makes the team better is a good trade. If Morrison can be traded for (or the money used for) a D-man and a guy to replace him it's a good trade. Sure the team doesn't need D-men but having another guy who will likely be a top 4 in the near future isn't a bad thing. Especially when Salo is a pending UFA. It would also provide Nonis with flexibility. With Vochenkov in the mix he can look at signing Salo and perhaps moving Ohlund. Or a myriad of other options.

Such a move coupled with the acquisition of Morrisons replacement makes the team deeper all around and that is never a bad thing.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Kowch » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:24 am

tantalum wrote:Anything that makes the team better is a good trade. If Morrison can be traded for (or the money used for) a D-man and a guy to replace him it's a good trade. Sure the team doesn't need D-men but having another guy who will likely be a top 4 in the near future isn't a bad thing.


I understand this line of reasoning and I respect your opinion, but I still disagree. This kind of trade fails to address the need the team has. Now if we get Volchenkov and the flip him to another team for a forward, fine (or work a 3 way trade). But shoring up on a position we already have a dirth of prospects for doesn't make sense to me personally.

Such a move coupled with the acquisition of Morrisons replacement makes the team deeper all around and that is never a bad thing.


I agree in principle.
Kowch
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Postby tantalum » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:50 am

Kowch wrote:
tantalum wrote:Anything that makes the team better is a good trade. If Morrison can be traded for (or the money used for) a D-man and a guy to replace him it's a good trade. Sure the team doesn't need D-men but having another guy who will likely be a top 4 in the near future isn't a bad thing.


I understand this line of reasoning and I respect your opinion, but I still disagree. This kind of trade fails to address the need the team has. Now if we get Volchenkov and the flip him to another team for a forward, fine (or work a 3 way trade). But shoring up on a position we already have a dirth of prospects for doesn't make sense to me personally.

Such a move coupled with the acquisition of Morrisons replacement makes the team deeper all around and that is never a bad thing.


I agree in principle.


I think we just view things differently. I look at the move as a move for the future loss of Salo or Ohlund. A move to shore up the blueline not just this year but for a few years. I don't see the move as a deal to help the team a bunch now which is what you want to see. Though I wouldn't rule out having another good D-man as not helping the team. Especially a young guy who had good offensive numbers in the AHL (50+ point pace).

I think you want to see a deal that addresses a current obvious weakness of the depth up front. And that I understand. But I do think moving Morrison could in the end address the need of depth both up front and on the back end. Or atleast it will help.

It still comes down to a $10+ mil dollar second line with two players not doing much and a thrid player past his priime trying to carry them. Nonis has to look at that. Can that $10 mil be better spent to create a deeper team...not just upfront but everywhere.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Kowch » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:05 am

I think we just view things differently. I look at the move as a move for the future loss of Salo or Ohlund. A move to shore up the blueline not just this year but for a few years. I don't see the move as a deal to help the team a bunch now which is what you want to see. Though I wouldn't rule out having another good D-man as not helping the team. Especially a young guy who had good offensive numbers in the AHL (50+ point pace).

I think you want to see a deal that addresses a current obvious weakness of the depth up front. And that I understand. But I do think moving Morrison could in the end address the need of depth both up front and on the back end. Or atleast it will help.

It still comes down to a $10+ mil dollar second line with two players not doing much and a thrid player past his priime trying to carry them. Nonis has to look at that. Can that $10 mil be better spent to create a deeper team...not just upfront but everywhere.


Okay, I'll buy that. Getting Volchenkov will allow Nonis to (say) trade Ohlund (and/or) Salo for help up front. Didn't think of it that way. (Assuming we can get what we need going that route).
Kowch
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Postby Grizzly » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:54 am

Look, if we're already planing for long term prospects, we don't need defenceman... we need forward who can score. Looking at our top 20 prospects _8_ of them are defensmen and 3 of them are goalies. Getting yet another defensman isn't the answer (IMO).


I think you are right Kowch ... long term anyways ... Edler, Bourdon, Krajicek will be good down the road ... scoring looks bleak. Not sure then whether DN wants to address the current issue with of a lack of depth with D because of the injuries or maybe a longer term solution - Forwards. In the games I have seen recently, we've had chances ... just not burying them.

Okay, I'll buy that. Getting Volchenkov will allow Nonis to (say) trade Ohlund (and/or) Salo for help up front. Didn't think of it that way. (Assuming we can get what we need going that route).


... not sure when I would trade Ohlund or Salo though (or even if I would right now) ... they are both in their prime and are our stabilizing factors back on the blueline ... but ... If I understand you guys correctly then ... if we were to get Volchenkov and use one of them for help up front we could potentionally address two problems.

Mo for Volchenkov - strenghtens blueline & increases youth
Salo or Ohlund - younger forward - scoring woes

Interesting ...

Grizz
User avatar
Grizzly
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Dawson Creek

Postby tantalum » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:24 am

Grizzly wrote:... not sure when I would trade Ohlund or Salo though (or even if I would right now) ... they are both in their prime and are our stabilizing factors back on the blueline ... but ... If I understand you guys correctly then ... if we were to get Volchenkov and use one of them for help up front we could potentionally address two problems.

Mo for Volchenkov - strenghtens blueline & increases youth
Salo or Ohlund - younger forward - scoring woes

Interesting ...

Grizz


I approach this year as year one of a rebuild. I think they can make the playoffs but most likely not. Next year I expect them to make the playoffs and do some damage. Now if they are close to the playoffs near the deadline I think Nonis has to make a move or two.

But really I was thinking that Salo has been our best D-man thus far (atleast IMO). If Nonis can get him signed to an extension or resigns him as a UFA for less than what Ohlund makes, get Volchenkov into the mix and even have Koltsov come over he may be able to move Ohlund for some help up front. (things also depend of course on the cap). Salo, Mitchell, BIeksa, Volchenkov, Krajicek, Koltsov is a pretty good blueline on paper even without Ohlund. If you sub out Salo for Ohlund, then he would have to to look at moving Salo this year. You have to think Salo would generate a healthy return at the deadline...a hard shooting very good two-way D-man. It pretty much all depends on the extension negotiations, where the canucks are in the standings and to move someone this season also how the farm is doing.

Right now upfront I'd love to see Hansen come out. He's played well thus far on the farm and is adjusting to the pro game. He has the game to contribute anywhere in the lineup so why not give him a shot to see if he can promote some inspired play and scoring from the bottom two lines?

Sometimes you have to create depth at one position to strengthen the one of most concern.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Fred » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:37 am

They were talking last night on the post game show about Cap room and the Canucks just don't have any. Even moving players back and forth is going to be difficult, So they can't have Salo sign a new and improved contract until the end of the season. If they move Mo they don't have here or on the farm another centre to play alongside Naslund.

One more point about Salo as much as I like him in the years he's played in the NHL he has averaged I believe 60+ game in any one season, so again in the days of a hrad Cap you have to basically have the expense of carrying another players to play 20+ game in his spot and not loose in quality. He's a tougher call than I think we all realize
cheers
Fred
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Postby Island Nucklehead » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:26 pm

That cap came in at the worst possible time for us, really screwed us with big deals to Naslund, Morrison and Cooke. However, if management thought this was a year of rebuilding, I'm sure they would have dumped guys that make more money for future players already. Seeing as the Sedins have been our top line for a season already, DN had all off-season to move dead weight.
That's the beauty of parity, there should be a very small rebuilding time. Besides, everyone watched lower seeds in Calgary and Edmonton go right to the finals. We just have to get in, and hope that our goalie freaks out. I don't buy the rebuilding argument, it's just not an option in this system or this market.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Postby tantalum » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:17 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:That cap came in at the worst possible time for us, really screwed us with big deals to Naslund, Morrison and Cooke. However, if management thought this was a year of rebuilding, I'm sure they would have dumped guys that make more money for future players already. Seeing as the Sedins have been our top line for a season already, DN had all off-season to move dead weight.
That's the beauty of parity, there should be a very small rebuilding time. Besides, everyone watched lower seeds in Calgary and Edmonton go right to the finals. We just have to get in, and hope that our goalie freaks out. I don't buy the rebuilding argument, it's just not an option in this system or this market.


Except Morrison and Cooke were signed after the cap came in I believe, so Nonis screwed himself on that one.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Rising Sun Canuck » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 am

tantalum wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:That cap came in at the worst possible time for us, really screwed us with big deals to Naslund, Morrison and Cooke. However, if management thought this was a year of rebuilding, I'm sure they would have dumped guys that make more money for future players already. Seeing as the Sedins have been our top line for a season already, DN had all off-season to move dead weight.
That's the beauty of parity, there should be a very small rebuilding time. Besides, everyone watched lower seeds in Calgary and Edmonton go right to the finals. We just have to get in, and hope that our goalie freaks out. I don't buy the rebuilding argument, it's just not an option in this system or this market.


Except Morrison and Cooke were signed after the cap came in I believe, so Nonis screwed himself on that one.


Yea, but no one knew what the cap was going to be, so i would say Nonis would have screwed himself over if he signed Morrison and Cooke after he knew what the cap would be. He locked up his players who at that time had the potential to produce more.

Now Cooke and Morrison aren't earning the deals they have, which makes it that much more painful because we are right at the ceiling and their salary could be used on players that produce.

I'll say something is going to happen sooner rather then later if they both continue to struggle.
User avatar
Rising Sun Canuck
CC Rookie
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:36 am
Location: Japan

Postby tantalum » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:36 am

Rising Sun Canuck wrote:Yea, but no one knew what the cap was going to be, so i would say Nonis would have screwed himself over if he signed Morrison and Cooke after he knew what the cap would be. He locked up his players who at that time had the potential to produce more.

Now Cooke and Morrison aren't earning the deals they have, which makes it that much more painful because we are right at the ceiling and their salary could be used on players that produce.

I'll say something is going to happen sooner rather then later if they both continue to struggle.


The cap was known the day the CBA was signed. Well before Nonis signed them. The cap went up this year and they are questionable deals. There was a very slim chance it would go down. And if it did go down they would be even worse deals. He completely eliminated the 24% rollback for both players that was supposed to reset things. He made mistakes on those deals and the Cloutier one. Without a doubt. Atleast he was able to dump Cloutier.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Fred » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:26 am

I thought Mo and Cooke signed last summer ( 05) or is my memory on the bugle again ?
cheers
Fred
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Previous

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests