The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

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

Moderator: Referees

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Zamboni Driver » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:04 pm

donlever wrote:
vic wrote:Did Schneider get a NTC?

If not, has his value increased even more now that he's signed to a contract for the foreseeable future?


Having a similar thought process I tried to look this up after he signed and could find no evidence that there was a NTC/NMC at all.
Cap Geek indicates none.
Having said that I think it's clear they have elected to go with Cory as their #1 and did so some time ago.

As I am sure you already know.


If I understood correctly on the other thread as an RFA his NTC (if he had one) doesn't go into effect until he becomes UFA age

CaptainTrev wrote:
My mildly ridiculous (possibly brain-damaged) proposal:

To MTL: Ballard, Raymond
To VAN: Gomez, Yannick Weber, Jarred Tinordi

Monteal is desperate to offload Gomez. Gillis uses that leverage to turn two of our spare parts into a decent young right-shooting defenceman (Weber) and the player he always wanted instead of Ballard (Tinordi).


Gomez's caphit of 7.3 mil is a killer, even if the $$ amount isn't bad.
Worse yet it goes for two years, which is a big problem as we try to re-up Edler & Burrows next summer.
User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby wienerdog » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:00 pm

surreal78 wrote:Before you crap all over this one (and I know Hemsky is nearly as injury prone as Sami Salo), here's the basic thinking:

- Oil needs defensive help badly


Aaaaand the trade idea dies right there.

It would be a mistake to help our division rivals improve the area they are weak in. Especially after they signed Schultz.

Double especially when the return isn't involving one of their vaunted young stars, but an older injury-riddled re-tread.

Doubt MG would entertain that idea at all.
Last edited by wienerdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby wienerdog » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:06 pm

RoyalDude wrote:I would dearly love to see Booth traded as you all know, but there is no market for him. Ugly contract, amount and term and too flakey, one dimensional and lackluster and passionless.


Yeah, I guess you're right.

There's just no teams that are looking for a productive second-liner that's signed to a market-value contract right now. I mean the Free Agent pool is fucking littered with players like that.

I must've been fooling myself before, but I now realize we'd never be able to trade a guy like that - it's a real buyer's market. I guess we really are stuck with the boring piece of pastry puff David Booth.

What do we do now, dude?

:but:
wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby RoyalDude » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:22 pm

wienerdog wrote:
There's just no teams that are looking for a productive second-liner that's signed to a market-value contract right now.


Can't agree with ya there Schnitzel, Booth is dumber than a sack of hammers, it's common knowledge. You'd have to be as dumb as he is not to be aware of his shortcomings. I'd rather the team take a hit on that 4.5 million he is making and park his dumb ass down in Chicago. Can't stand the ditzy space cadet.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby wienerdog » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:00 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
wienerdog wrote:
There's just no teams that are looking for a productive second-liner that's signed to a market-value contract right now.


Can't agree with ya there Schnitzel, Booth is dumber than a sack of hammers, it's common knowledge. You'd have to be as dumb as he is not to be aware of his shortcomings. I'd rather the team take a hit on that 4.5 million he is making and park his dumb ass down in Chicago. Can't stand the ditzy space cadet.


Here's the thing, my stubborn friend: the bolded part you're entitled to. You can wish that MG gets rid of him all you want. That's both reasonable and a defensible argument. Hell, I'd even prefer an upgrade on the guy if it were possible.

What you're just plain fucking wrong on though, is that the guy is untradable. Booth is a 27 year old player that makes market value on a reasonable term contract while putting up the valuable points that he is expected to produce. He doesn't under-achieve: he's bang on target of what a $4.25M cap hit should buy you today.

You can also bray all you want that he's a bible-thumping bear-killer, but by all accounts, he's a decent teammate and isn't a cancer in the room, so you can't throw that shit out there either. He shows up, does his job, smiles and laughs and high-fives his teammates when he or his linemates score. The average fan has no fucking clue about church or archery or any other issue about David Booth. They think he's a good-looking kid that goes to the net, and if they're more in tune than the average suit at Roger's Arena, they might just know that he's an American, along with the other kids on that there AMEX line.

You and I both know damn well that if Booth were shopped tomorrow, MG would get a fair return for him. Likely even much more than the equivalent of Sturm and Samuelsson, especially in this meagre market.

So bitch him out all you want, but you just look plain fucking stupid when you keep insisting he's untradeable. What a dumb, stubborn, bullshit nut to keep chewing on.
wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:07 pm

I am not a Booth or Ballard fan but anyone who has a fucking clue about anything knows the contracts can be moved.

Blind leading the Balltard crew around it seems. People not used to the heat are bored and stirring up up shit. Problem is they aren't very good at it.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Madcombinepilot » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:06 pm

that he's a bible-thumping bear-killer
,

isnt that what makes him kinda cool???


cant you just imaging him, sighting down that arrow at Smokey or Yogi, thinkin... "inhale full, exhale half... And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger ....."

damn.. thats rock and roll cool.
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with untill you understand I am in charge.
User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby surreal78 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:11 pm

wienerdog wrote:Here's the thing, my stubborn friend: the bolded part you're entitled to. You can wish that MG gets rid of him all you want. That's both reasonable and a defensible argument. Hell, I'd even prefer an upgrade on the guy if it were possible.

What you're just plain fucking wrong on though, is that the guy is untradable. Booth is a 27 year old player that makes market value on a reasonable term contract while putting up the valuable points that he is expected to produce. He doesn't under-achieve: he's bang on target of what a $4.25M cap hit should buy you today.

You can also bray all you want that he's a bible-thumping bear-killer, but by all accounts, he's a decent teammate and isn't a cancer in the room, so you can't throw that shit out there either. He shows up, does his job, smiles and laughs and high-fives his teammates when he or his linemates score. The average fan has no fucking clue about church or archery or any other issue about David Booth. They think he's a good-looking kid that goes to the net, and if they're more in tune than the average suit at Roger's Arena, they might just know that he's an American, along with the other kids on that there AMEX line.

You and I both know damn well that if Booth were shopped tomorrow, MG would get a fair return for him. Likely even much more than the equivalent of Sturm and Samuelsson, especially in this meagre market.

So bitch him out all you want, but you just look plain fucking stupid when you keep insisting he's untradeable. What a dumb, stubborn, bullshit nut to keep chewing on.


+1 for absolute truthiness.
surreal78
 

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Meds » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:22 pm

wienerdog wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:
wienerdog wrote:
There's just no teams that are looking for a productive second-liner that's signed to a market-value contract right now.


Can't agree with ya there Schnitzel, Booth is dumber than a sack of hammers, it's common knowledge. You'd have to be as dumb as he is not to be aware of his shortcomings. I'd rather the team take a hit on that 4.5 million he is making and park his dumb ass down in Chicago. Can't stand the ditzy space cadet.


Here's the thing, my stubborn friend: the bolded part you're entitled to. You can wish that MG gets rid of him all you want. That's both reasonable and a defensible argument. Hell, I'd even prefer an upgrade on the guy if it were possible.

What you're just plain fucking wrong on though, is that the guy is untradable. Booth is a 27 year old player that makes market value on a reasonable term contract while putting up the valuable points that he is expected to produce. He doesn't under-achieve: he's bang on target of what a $4.25M cap hit should buy you today.

You can also bray all you want that he's a bible-thumping bear-killer, but by all accounts, he's a decent teammate and isn't a cancer in the room, so you can't throw that shit out there either. He shows up, does his job, smiles and laughs and high-fives his teammates when he or his linemates score. The average fan has no fucking clue about church or archery or any other issue about David Booth. They think he's a good-looking kid that goes to the net, and if they're more in tune than the average suit at Roger's Arena, they might just know that he's an American, along with the other kids on that there AMEX line.

You and I both know damn well that if Booth were shopped tomorrow, MG would get a fair return for him. Likely even much more than the equivalent of Sturm and Samuelsson, especially in this meagre market.

So bitch him out all you want, but you just look plain fucking stupid when you keep insisting he's untradeable. What a dumb, stubborn, bullshit nut to keep chewing on.


Where's the damned "Like" button? :scowl:

:look:
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Callicles » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:17 pm

I would be saddened to see a trade involving Edler, when the Canucks would be much better off trading Bieksa. Now, I know Bieksa has his legions of adoring fans (apparently AV is one of them), but you don't have to hate to think it might be a good deal.

If you want to pry a top flight player out of another team, you have to give something in return. So, any trade involving Raymond is a non-starter. Ballard, I think, has worth and would probably do fairly well on another team (one that is not coached by AV), but given his recent history his value is quite low. Bieksa, on the other hand, has a fairly decent cap hit of 4.6m, is under contract until the 2016-2017 season, and is coming off a good season. So, why trade him you say? First, he's got value. Second, the only thing consistent about Bieksa is his inconsistency. Ok, ok, Bieksa isn't necessarily one these game to game inconsistent players, but when he pees the proverbial bed it lasts for months or an entire season. He's had exactly two good seasons. Admitedly, those were pretty good seasons, but when he's bad, he's really, really bad. Couple that poor performance with AV's irrational determination to play him 25 minutes a game regardless of how badly he plays, and you've got a problem on the blue line - a problem that good teams have exposed on numerous occasions.

Add in to the mix Bieksa's near-mythical toughness, which shows a mere handful of times a season - rarely when it matters - and you've got a hugely over-valued player. The good news is that AV and Gillis aren't the only ones to over-value him, so he's got a lot of trade value. Bieksa is about as good as he's going to get, and, if you take the average, that's about average, whereas Edler has plenty of upside left and if handled correctly will turn out to be a much better d-man than Bieksa. Trade Bieksa and some prospects for Weber (Raymond! -- oh wait...). Nashville gets a d-man under an affordable contract for multiple years, and Vancouver gets the big stud on the blue line. Of course, Weber's new contract will be ridiculous, so you might as well throw in Luongo and Ballard, just to make a little space. ;)
Callicles
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:35 pm

Callicles wrote:I would be saddened to see a trade involving Edler, when the Canucks would be much better off trading Bieksa. Now, I know Bieksa has his legions of adoring fans (apparently AV is one of them), but you don't have to hate to think it might be a good deal.

If you want to pry a top flight player out of another team, you have to give something in return. So, any trade involving Raymond is a non-starter. Ballard, I think, has worth and would probably do fairly well on another team (one that is not coached by AV), but given his recent history his value is quite low. Bieksa, on the other hand, has a fairly decent cap hit of 4.6m, is under contract until the 2016-2017 season, and is coming off a good season. So, why trade him you say? First, he's got value. Second, the only thing consistent about Bieksa is his inconsistency. Ok, ok, Bieksa isn't necessarily one these game to game inconsistent players, but when he pees the proverbial bed it lasts for months or an entire season. He's had exactly two good seasons. Admitedly, those were pretty good seasons, but when he's bad, he's really, really bad. Couple that poor performance with AV's irrational determination to play him 25 minutes a game regardless of how badly he plays, and you've got a problem on the blue line - a problem that good teams have exposed on numerous occasions.

Add in to the mix Bieksa's near-mythical toughness, which shows a mere handful of times a season - rarely when it matters - and you've got a hugely over-valued player. The good news is that AV and Gillis aren't the only ones to over-value him, so he's got a lot of trade value. Bieksa is about as good as he's going to get, and, if you take the average, that's about average, whereas Edler has plenty of upside left and if handled correctly will turn out to be a much better d-man than Bieksa. Trade Bieksa and some prospects for Weber (Raymond! -- oh wait...). Nashville gets a d-man under an affordable contract for multiple years, and Vancouver gets the big stud on the blue line. Of course, Weber's new contract will be ridiculous, so you might as well throw in Luongo and Ballard, just to make a little space. ;)


I might be wrong about you, Callicles, brilliant post, you went against popular opinion and like myself see better value in keeping Edler over Bieksa. You won't find many if any at all here other than myself who would agree with this but don't let that deter you, stand tall my friend and don't let these Bieksa/Booth/Malhotra loving homo's bring ya down, stay the course, you are on the right track. Great post, love it
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby dbr » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:05 pm

Bieksa just signed a long term contract with a movement clause. It's not about people thinking he is untouchable for some reason; it's just about Alex Edler being eminently tradeable and probably more valuable too.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Callicles » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:18 pm

dbr wrote:Bieksa just signed a long term contract with a movement clause. It's not about people thinking he is untouchable for some reason; it's just about Alex Edler being eminently tradeable and probably more valuable too.


It's true that Bieksa has a no movement clause. I neglected to mention that, but having such a clause doesn't make one untradeable. And, if he'll waive it for a trade, the contract at the numbers and term he's got would make him more attractive. I'm not saying that the Canucks have any intention of trading him -- I think they intend to keep him. Rather, I am wishing, hoping...er proposing, in the mildly ridiculous category, that he be traded. IMHO, he should have been traded long ago, but that's unlikely. I think it is much more likely that neither Edler or Bieksa is traded, but of the two, I would expect the Canucks to make the obvious error of trading away Edler. Maybe they can package Ballard, Raymond and a 3rd for Nash? :thumbs:
Callicles
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:44 pm

Guys, Bieksa has a full no-trade clause: no way would he waive to go to Nashville.

(this is the “MILDLY Ridiculous Trade Proposals Thread”)

Plus Bieksa is a major asshole and my opinion is like an asshole

.... love a major asshole! :wink:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: The mildly ridiculous trade proposals thread

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:28 pm

Doesn't everyone have a No Movement/No Trade Clause? Everyone is trade-able.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron