Would you consider trading OHLUND for offensive help?

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

Moderator: Referees

Would you consider trading OHLUND for offensive help?

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:20 pm

Would you consider trading OHLUND for offensive help?

Before I post, I just want to say that I like Mattias Ohlund. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting a 'trade and/or rumor' here and so I hope this is the appropriate board for this topic.

Here are some reasons why I'd consider trading Ohlund:

A) Trade value: In order to get something good, you have to GIVE UP something good. A lot of us have been SCREAMING for Cooke and/or Morrison to be traded, but neither guy has much trade value right now...especially when you consider their respective salaries. If we want to trade guys like this, we'd have to throw in something of value as well. Enter Mattias Ohlund.

B) Ohlund's "perceived" offensive upside: One thing that elevates Ohlund's market value from a lot of other defense men in this league (like say....Willie Mitchell), is Ohlund's perceived offensive upside.

C) With the improved play of Salo, Bieksa, and Krajieck this season, can the Canucks afford to trade Ohlund for offensive help UP FRONT?

D) The system: Although the Canucks struggle MIGHTILY on offense, Veenyo's SYSTEM has allowed the Canucks to play sound defensive hockey. In other words - I think the Canucks' current system has far more to do with the Canucks' defensive success, than it does with certain individual defenseman (although these individual defense men are important as well....I'm not trying to take anything away from them).

E) Trading Ohlund can allow us to also move Cooke and/or Morrison. This ties into one of my earlier points. In order to RECEIVE, you must GIVE. Morrison and Cooke by themselves won't fetch us much.

Let's say you trade Ohlund and Morrison.

Trade scenario #1: Package Morrison/Ohlund to a team

Ohlund --> solid 2nd line center....one that isn't dependent on Naslund, and can also jump start Naslund.

Morrison --> 5th/6th defenseman (veteran....better than Fitzpatrick)

So basically, Mitchell and Salo become our top 2 defenseman. Krajicek and Bieksa are our 3rd and 4th, while Edler and (the guy from the Morrison trade) fill out #5/#6. Fitzpatrick becomes our spare.


Trade scenario #2: Package Morrison/Ohlund to a team

Ohlund --> a slight downgrade on defense (i.e. a solid defenseman, but with less offensive upside...like a Willie Mitchell type).

Morrison --> a slight upgrade on Morrison. This "slight" upgrade hopefully, is enough to

i) ignite Naslund
ii) ignite the 2nd line even if Naslund is not on it.


So to make a long story short, I'm basically suggesting that....

a) In order to trade away Morrison and/or Cooke, we'll probably have to give up something good.

b) With the emergence of Salo, Krajieck, and Bieksa, perhaps Ohlund is more expendable now....seeing as how offensively challenged up front we are. Since Veenyo's system forces the entire TEAM to be play sound defense, perhaps losing Ohlund on defense won't hurt us as much as we think. Even if it did, you'd have to believe that the upgrade on offense would outweigh the defensive loss.

c) The asset from the Ohlund trade (and consequently, the upgrade on Morrison) could not only help "re-spark" Naslund, but perhaps this guy could also play WITHOUT Naslund. Either way, the Canucks could have some consistent 2nd line scoring.

d) Losing Ohlund would suck, but perhaps not as much as we think. Kraijeck, Salo, and Bieksa have all looked better offensively (and overall for that matter). Ohlund is a rock on defense, but the entire team plays defensively sound anyways under the system. Furthermore - we have Luongo!

The upgrade on offense could severely outweigh the downgrade on defense under these scenarios (IMO). Overall, the Canucks would have a far more balanced line-up.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby lil-scarface » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:25 pm

i disagree considering if we lose ohlund we are also losing salo next season, so couldnt you use salo instead because he has trade value also, plus hes injured half thhe time. i love both ohlund and salo but id rather see salo go.
Carlos
User avatar
lil-scarface
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C.

Postby SRsez » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:26 pm

Okay, put down the pipe, son. You simply don't trade one of the top 10 d men in the league, unless his wife hates Edmonton or something.
Real hockey fans refuse to listen to the Idiot(tm)
SRsez
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:13 pm

Postby Tukaram » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:26 pm

I wouldn't. Scoring forwards are easier to come by than quality defensemen, and a team can never have too many of those.

The Canucks already have scoring forwards; they just need to loosen the grips on their sticks a little bit. ;)
User avatar
Tukaram
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:50 pm
Location: Ontario

Postby Linden Is God » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:16 pm

this thread is garbage
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:18 pm

lil-scarface wrote:i disagree considering if we lose ohlund we are also losing salo next season, so couldnt you use salo instead because he has trade value also, plus hes injured half thhe time. i love both ohlund and salo but id rather see salo go.


In the salary cap era, losing a player isn't that big a deal. If we lose Salo, it frees up Salo's salary. We then use that freed up money to sign another defenseman (for that price).

I agree with you about Salo's injury problems, but I still don't think team defense is THAT big a problem here...under Veenyo's system. Secondary scoring however, is a MAJOR problem on this team.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:26 pm

SRsez wrote:Okay, put down the pipe, son. You simply don't trade one of the top 10 d men in the league, unless his wife hates Edmonton or something.


Edmonton got great value in return for Pronger, but that's a different topic altogether.

Ask yourself these questions::

-Given the fact that we have Luongo, combined with Veenyo's current defensive system, combined with the EMERGENCE of Bieksa, Krajicek, and Salo. Would LOSING Ohlund really hurt us as much defensively as we think?

-If the Canucks acquired a great center for Ohlund, and this "great center" ignited our 2nd line scoring (either by scoring himself, or by bringing out the best in Naslund, Bulis, etc.). Wouldn't this OUTWEIGH the loss of Ohlund on defense? Wouldn't this make the Canucks a more well balanced team?

In my opinion, it would. But who knows - maybe I truly am losing my mind. ;)

In order get good players in return, you have to give up good players in return.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:40 pm

Tukaram wrote:I wouldn't. Scoring forwards are easier to come by than quality defensemen, and a team can never have too many of those.

The Canucks already have scoring forwards; they just need to loosen the grips on their sticks a little bit. ;)


Taking a look at the Minnesota Wild line-up over the past few years, I can't recall them ever having any ELITE defensemen (Willie Mitchell was their best defenseman if I recall correctly).

However...

-Their "system" consistently allowed them to have super low GA's.
-Solid goaltending made them a tough team to beat.

Obviously - the Wild were EXTREMELY hardpressed to win games since they couldn't score goals themselves. However - by adding a few more offensive players (while keeping their current system), the Wild seem to be doing a lot better. It's still too early to say if the Wild have TRULY turned the corner, but they look a lot more dangerous so far.

Even now, the Minnesota Wild do NOT have what you'd call an "elite" blue-liner. It's their DEFENSIVE SYSTEM that continues to allow them to be a tough team to score against. Manny Fernendez is also quite good.


The Canucks have arguably the best goaltender in the league right now. On top of that, the Canucks have implemented a solid defensive system. Losing Ohlund will suck, but it's not like teams will start scoring 8 goals a game against us since he's gone.

I'd still argue that we'd be one of the best defensive teams in the league.

With another elite forward however, I think we'd have a far more balanced line up.

Guys like Bulis, Kesler, Naslund, and even Cooke, know how to put the puck in the net. With an elite center coming our way, why couldn't he be the 'spark' that gets these guys going?
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:45 pm

Linden Is God wrote:this thread is garbage


And I personally think its "garbage" to...

a) Ignore the obvious weaknesses on this team

b) Not be proactive

c) Assume that Morrison and/or Cooke can fetch us something (of signficant value) via trade...

d) Assume that the Canucks would completely fall apart defensively if Mattias Ohlund was traded. We arguably have the best goalie in the league. We arguably have the tightest defensive SYSTEM in the game. On top of this, Krajicek and Bieksa look like they have elevated their games.

e) Under-estimate the value of a solid center......one of which I think we can get for Ohlund. A center is often a player that can make the average look good.....or can make the good look great. If we get a center that can 'ignite' Naslund and Bulis to play like they did when they were at their best, then that could be one helluva 2nd line...or 1st line.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:11 pm

Minnesota's Defense.

Here are the defensemen on the Minnesota Wild (as far as I know).

Johnsson - Carney

Schultz - Burns

Nummelin -Foster

Skoula

Now to me - that looks pretty unimpressive. However, they STILL have the fewest GA this season (or pretty close to it) due to exceptional goaltending and a strong defensive system. The Wild don't seem to have too much trouble scoring goals as well.

Gone are the days, where a team can ONLY win with great goaltending and a great defense (but sub-par scoring). The Calgary Flames were living proof of that last year.....as they ultimately became a victim of their own system.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby magnum44 » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:49 pm

never say never, but if ohlund were to be traded it better be one hell of a package coming back. i'd rather hang on for awhile and trade salo for some picks and prospects since we can't afford to put more money into our D.
You're only young once, but you can be immature forever
User avatar
magnum44
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:20 pm
Location: saskatchewan

Postby levelheaded » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:49 pm

Yes, because it makes tons of sense trading our best defender who makes considerably less then market value for short term offensive help... :roll:

Salo is injury prone and inconsistent, Mitchell is good, but not a #1 guy, and we aren't going to get anyone else to take Ohlund's job for $3.5 mill. A good offense is easier to establish then a good defense. Give it time, it may take a season or two, but the scoring will come.
User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:18 pm

levelheaded wrote:Yes, because it makes tons of sense trading our best defender who makes considerably less then market value for short term offensive help... :roll:

.


Are there no good centers out there (who make considerably less than market value) on teams that are PRAYING for defensive help?

Again - Take a look at a team like Minnesota. Do they have a superstar defensemen?

Our TEAM defense, without Ohlund, (and an injury prone Salo, etc.,etc.) is still quite good.

-We have Luongo
-We have a tight defensive system in-tact.

Now, am I suggesting that we trade Ohlund for a 36 year old center that makes 6 mill a year? Absolutely not.

I am however, suggesting that IF the Canucks could acquire an excellent center (of similar age, salary/market value, etc.) for Ohlund.....then I'd strongly consider doing it.

Even if this center was worth 5.5 million, we could counter it by unloading Morrison's salary in this package (we get a guy who makes 1-1.5 mill).

End of the day - our salary stays close to what it is.

The best teams in today's NHL, are ones that are well balanced. Period.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:22 pm

magnum44 wrote:i'd rather hang on for awhile and trade salo for some picks and prospects since we can't afford to put more money into our D.


That's actually a pretty good idea IMO. We get picks/prospects, and it frees up salary space.

With this freed up salary space, the Canucks can get a solid 2nd line center.....or if not that, an established goal scorer of sorts.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby magnum44 » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:45 pm

Salo only makes 1.5 so it won't be freeing up much space but his next contract should be around 3mill at the minimum and we can't afford that. I think we have to be willing to sacrifice this season for the future. Go with what we have, or if the right trade comes along take it, and if we make the PO's great- but any trades should be geared more for the future than for this year and best time to get maximum return is if we are sellers towards the deadline. Salo, Mo, Cooke and even Naslund could shed cap space and go along way towards strenghtening our pathetic farm system for the next few years.
You're only young once, but you can be immature forever
User avatar
magnum44
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:20 pm
Location: saskatchewan

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], herb, isle_nuck, Lloyd Braun and 3 guests