Uncle dans leg wrote:
Lecavalier appears to be what they want to give up but we definitely shouldn't want that contract on our books for however many more years he has left. I like VL and feel he would definitely help but would he waive his NTC to leave the sunny beaches of Florida for 200+ days of rain per year? I highly doubt it. He's also exercised his NTC before this so I highly doubt he'll be moving.
Agreed that his contract is not what we should be looking for, but I'd take it if it helped us get rid of Luongo's and Raymond's.
Lecavlier's presence would allow the Canucks to have very formidable depth at center for a number of years, while also allowing our younger promising guys (i.e. Kassian and Schroeder) to play with an established playmaker as opposed to a shutdown grinder plummer like Lapierre of Pahlsson. A little thing like that could not only turn a 'non-factors' into a decent goal scorers (compare how Kassian and Schroeder would play with Lecavlier as opposed to Pahlsson or Lapierre), but would also drastically decrease the learning/developmental curve.
I know people lament the fact that Lecavlier is washed up and can only produce 45-50 points a year now, but that type of production in a 3rd line setting would be pretty damn good.......and he'd be exactly the type of guy that could dominate an opposing teams' 3rd or 4th line.
In this past LA series for instance - while guys like Kesler and the twins had their hands full with the likes of Richards, Doughty, Carter, Brown, and Kopitar,, who did LA have on their 3rd line?.......and what would a guy like Lecavlier do against an LA 3rd or 4th line when compared to Pahlsson, Malhottra, etc.?
Canucks lost a lot of close games to the Kings. Think Lecavlier's 2 or 3 extra goals in the series would have made a difference? Think a guy like Lecavlier would've been able to make better use of a winger like Higgins as opposed to a guy like Pahlsson or Malhottra would have?
Think Lecavlier's big body presence on the power play would've made a bit of a difference?