Roster Questions

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

Moderator: Referees

If an overhaul of this team is needed, which of the following players who should MG shop around...

Hank and Danny
12
7%
Edler
44
25%
Booth
45
26%
Higgins
8
5%
Bieksa
15
9%
Ballard
45
26%
Hamhuis
2
1%
None of the above
2
1%
 
Total votes : 173

Re: Roster Questions

Postby tantalum » Fri May 17, 2013 1:02 pm

No problems breaking up the twins IMO. They are both fantastic players who have shown they don't need to be together. I agree that Burrows is the least contributing to the line and you are correct that is at times an issue. I imagine a line that has, say, Lucic on that wing and wonder how much more room they'd get and how much more effective the entire line could be. But Burrows is all try and is fairly effective in the playoffs so unless the return is a good one I find it hard to look at moving him.

I have no issues with Hansen or Higgins on the third line but the line overall needs size in the middle if that is the case. It can't be Schroeder as much as I think his development has caught back up. 4th line we agree needs a complete reboot. They have to be able to contribute 10-11 minutes a night in the playoffs. Right now LaPierre got under 10 and the rest about 5. Hard to go deep on a team that needs a good bit of secondary scoring if the 4th line can't contribute at all.

Blueline...I think the coaching staff messed up the blueline so much I'm not sure what to think. I understand the temptation to put Garrison with Hamhuis as the two best guys but it left Edler with Bieksa which has been a disaster each and every game it has been tried. yet they stuck with it. I think Bieksa either needs to be a third pairing guy playing nasty or off the team. Edler, despite the steps back has time to improve and I wonder what a different coaching staff can bring out of him. The brilliance is there...the consistency is not. Playing with Bieksa does not help as he seems to be a guy that if his partner is taking chances he feels he needs to take more chances.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Roster Questions

Postby herb » Fri May 17, 2013 2:00 pm

On the back end, Tanev and Corrado will stick around for no other reason than we need every decent, cheap players we can get our hands on. The luxury of having a couple of $1M spare parts like Alberts and Rome around is long gone.

We need help up front, and right now our trading chips are Luongo, Bieksa, Edler, Burrows, Booth, Schroeder, Hansen and futures. Booth, Schroeder and Hansen are not worth enough to bring back the kind of top 6 help and big third line centre we need.

That leaves the other four guys. Luongo's value is a complete unknown at this point, although it sounds like Philly will be buying out Bryzgalov, so that opens up another trading partner. Bieksa, Burrows and Edler would all bring back significant return, which is why their names are floated often. Bieksa and Burrows are two guys I think most Canucks fans like, but they are both on the wrong side of 30 and together cost about $9M. I would try to keep Edler, unless the return is deadly.

A trade with Philly involving some combination of Luongo, Bieksa, Edler, Schroeder, Booth and Burrows for Couturier, Simmonds and Voracek is the kind of thing I dream about in days like this where LA, Chicago and Boston all look fucking great out there in the second round...
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Roster Questions

Postby sagebrush » Fri May 17, 2013 2:57 pm

Iain MacIntyre @imacVanSun May09 11:34am:
Burrows believes NTC clause already in effect. Usually starts w extension, July 1. Seeking clarity. Suddenly seems important.

Iain MacIntyre @imacVanSun May09 11:48am:
Clarity comes: Burrows NTC kicks in w new deal, July 1. Same applies to Edler, Higgins extensions.


Not to pick on anyone in particular, but the wheels are turning. :drink:
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby tantalum » Fri May 17, 2013 5:48 pm

Yep the NTCs for Burrows and Edler kick in on July 1 so it does allow them to be moved at the draft for instance. Also note that if they are traded the new team has the option to honor the NTC or not. If they decide not they have 24 hours to provide notice to the player after the trade is complete. It's why Jeff Carter no longer has a NTC. The Blue Jackets declined to honor that clause. Same with Ricjards (LA declined to honor it).That little bit of info makes Burrows or Edler a touch more valuable as the new team would be able to move them wherever and whenever if the fit isn't there.

Higgins NTC clause is limited but I don't know the details.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Reefer2 » Fri May 17, 2013 6:00 pm

tantalum wrote:Yep the NTCs for Burrows and Edler kick in on July 1 so it does allow them to be moved at the draft for instance. Also note that if they are traded the new team has the option to honor the NTC or not. If they decide not they have 24 hours to provide notice to the player after the trade is complete. It's why Jeff Carter no longer has a NTC. The Blue Jackets declined to honor that clause. Same with Ricjards (LA declined to honor it).That little bit of info makes Burrows or Edler a touch more valuable as the new team would be able to move them wherever and whenever if the fit isn't there.

Higgins NTC clause is limited but I don't know the details.


wow - serious the team picking the player up does not need to honour the NTC?
User avatar
Reefer2
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Orcasfan » Fri May 17, 2013 6:21 pm

I second just about everything that Tant said! So, according to some of you guys, you wouldn't be interested in players like Datsyuk or Zetterberg because they are not 6'3" and 220 lbs? Really? :look:
User avatar
Orcasfan
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:28 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Lancer » Fri May 17, 2013 7:14 pm

tantalum wrote:Yep the NTCs for Burrows and Edler kick in on July 1 so it does allow them to be moved at the draft for instance. Also note that if they are traded the new team has the option to honor the NTC or not. If they decide not they have 24 hours to provide notice to the player after the trade is complete. It's why Jeff Carter no longer has a NTC. The Blue Jackets declined to honor that clause. Same with Ricjards (LA declined to honor it).That little bit of info makes Burrows or Edler a touch more valuable as the new team would be able to move them wherever and whenever if the fit isn't there.

Higgins NTC clause is limited but I don't know the details.


Of those three, I think only Edler has to worry.

I don't think the reasons for trading Burrows (removing bad ref karma, removing salary) trump the reasons for keeping him (chemistry with the Sedins, intense player who can play anywhere in the lineup). Besides, I don't think his trade value is wuite what some may think it is.

Same thing for Higgins. He's a decent 3rd-liner but Gillis won't get much for him so trading him would be more of a salary dump thany anything and for what he brings the price isn't bad.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.
User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Arnprior, Ontario

Re: Roster Questions

Postby tantalum » Fri May 17, 2013 7:21 pm

Reefer2 wrote:wow - serious the team picking the player up does not need to honour the NTC?


That was the way it was under the old CBA. I haven't heard anything different with this CBA. If the trade clause is already active, however, then the trade clause always remains. So, when Luongo gets moved he will retain his NTC no matter what.


Lancer...don't disagree with anything you said. Edler holds the most value. Of course the reason he holds the most value is why I have reluctance moving him.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Meds » Fri May 17, 2013 8:04 pm

tantalum wrote:
Reefer2 wrote:wow - serious the team picking the player up does not need to honour the NTC?


That was the way it was under the old CBA. I haven't heard anything different with this CBA. If the trade clause is already active, however, then the trade clause always remains. So, when Luongo gets moved he will retain his NTC no matter what.


Lancer...don't disagree with anything you said. Edler holds the most value. Of course the reason he holds the most value is why I have reluctance moving him.


I thought that if a player waived his active trade clause the receiving team could opt out of it.....
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby dbr » Sat May 18, 2013 6:26 am

Meds wrote:
tantalum wrote:
Reefer2 wrote:wow - serious the team picking the player up does not need to honour the NTC?


That was the way it was under the old CBA. I haven't heard anything different with this CBA. If the trade clause is already active, however, then the trade clause always remains. So, when Luongo gets moved he will retain his NTC no matter what.


Lancer...don't disagree with anything you said. Edler holds the most value. Of course the reason he holds the most value is why I have reluctance moving him.


I thought that if a player waived his active trade clause the receiving team could opt out of it.....


It's exactly the opposite of that.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Orcasfan » Sat May 18, 2013 3:38 pm

Over at CDC, there's a minor discussion sparked by an article by Jeff Angus where he mentions that Lapierre will not be re-signed. Not a big loss, by the way. So that got me thinking about our 3rd and 4th C's (again). And, once again, my eyes are drawn to Detroit. :hmmm: Look at who they have playing as their 3rd and 4th line C's. It seems Andersson and Nyquist fill both roles, play about the same TOI, both Euros, and both have proven themselves as scorers in the minors! Why wouldn't the Canucks want to go in that direction?

I thought Gillis was supposed to be fashioning this team on the Detroit model? If he has, then he has failed miserably! I think everyone knows that the Detroit system starts with scouting, then drafting, then player development. They never rush anyone. They certainly are not worried about the Swedes! But, most importantly, they emphasize skill, while at the same time balancing with size - but not sacrificing skill for size per se. The point, both tactically and strategically, is that every line can contribute to scoring! Their bottom six is filled with young studs, role players (Tootoo) and wily, battle-proven vets. Most of whom have come through their system. So who do we have in comparison? Really, who would you put up to match in quality? Hansen and Higgins are it! Pathetic, isn't?

Instead of signing plugs like Sestito, etc, we should be bringing more guys up from the minors (like Volpatti, who Washington just reupped!) Unfortunately, it looks like Gillis is going to take another wrong turn, now, and emphasize size over skill. So we'll be swaying from one strategy to the next, depending on how our near-sighted GM sees which way the current "wind" is blowing! If he really had confidence in his own vision, he would stick with what works over the long haul.

As you can see, I am becoming more and more disenchanted with GMMG. So much so, that I would not be opposed to a replacement! Of course, the danger with that, is that we could end up with someone even worse!
User avatar
Orcasfan
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:28 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Meds » Sat May 25, 2013 12:42 pm

Reefer2 wrote:Kevin does not think a change is needed.

He wants the same type of coach who lets the players lead.

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/hockey/canucks-hockey/need+someone+crack+whip+Bieksa/8427437/story.html

Yea Kevin and we saw what came out of that.

This country club atmosphere is what is causing part of the problem (IMO), get rid of that shit and make the players play and hold the accountable.


While reading that link I was rocked with disbelief. I've always liked KB3, but when I hear that I think the time has come for him to be moved out. That mentality is what needs to go. Any of these guys who are content with the country club atmosphere should be given the option to suck it up or waive their NTCs. Kesler's locker clean out interview was the response I want from the players on this team, "I just want to win, and I want to win now."

I'm now a proponent of asking Bieksa if he'll waive his NTC.

Edler
Bieksa
Lou
Ballard
Booth

That is a list of names that should be able to fetch some good pieces if shopped around in various combinations or individually.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Mondi » Sat May 25, 2013 1:04 pm

Anyone who thinks the Canucks will move out 4-6 guys making $4+ million is dreaming. Think about the environment. Does anyone want expensive underachieving players now that the cap is going down?

This team will move Luongo and one of Booth, and Edler. They will probably buy out Ballard and not re-sign Raymond and that's it.

They have no cap space and a GM, who refuses to admit he's ever made a mistake.

Look for an extremely similar team with a few young pieces, and only because they cannot spend their way out of putting those guys in the lineup.

Also, if I was a GM in the NHL I wouldn't want Booth, Ballard or Luongo at their current contracts, and I certainly wouldn't part with anything good to get them. Those guys will be bought out or traded for a flier or brought back. Addition by subtraction is how the Canucks could improve this summer.
User avatar
Mondi
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Strangelove » Sat May 25, 2013 8:31 pm

Orcasfan wrote:So, according to some of you guys, you wouldn't be interested in players like Datsyuk or Zetterberg because they are not 6'3" and 220 lbs? Really? :look:


6'3" and 220 lb makes a nice fantasy one supposes.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Orcasfan » Mon May 27, 2013 6:01 pm

Given the choice, I'd rather move Bieksa rather than Edler. Bieksa, in my view, has already peaked and is heading downhill. Edler...who knows? The problem, of course, is that Bieksa is that much - sought - after right hand D. So, it ain't gonna happen!

Actually, one of the big holes in the long-term is the 1st C, once Hank ages enough. I have absolutely no confidence in Kesler filling that position adequately! :look: He is not a playmaker; he does not make line-mates better. He is a very good 2nd C, and is essential on special teams. But, in the next couple of years, the Canucks need to either draft or acquire a young player who can develop (in 2-3 years) into the #1 C.

I don't think Gaunce projects to that, but I could be wrong. If Gaunce can develop into a good 2nd C, then I can see the team rolling Kesler as the #1, and really having 1a and 1b lines (given the other parts. of course! ;) ).
User avatar
Orcasfan
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

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