Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

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

Moderator: Referees

Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:58 am

I was wondering what you guys thought about the idea of moving one of our Top 4 defensemen for a legitimate Top 6 Forward?

Not really sure if I have anything specific in mind, but was wondering if you agreed with this overall line of thought.

Moving one of Bieksa, Edler, Garrison, or Hamhuis, for a legit Top 6 Forward (a guy like Thomas Vaneck perhaps? If the Sabres decide to shop him later in the year). In any of these examples, lets say that said defenseman agrees to waive NTC/NMC.

Obviously - losing a Top 4 defenseman would be risky, but having a playmate for Kesler would arguably turn out to be a net gain overall.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby Uncle dans leg » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:42 am

Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO
nobody forks with...the jesus
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby rats19 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:54 am

He would..but a top 4 d-man is too dear a price methinks
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4815
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:57 am

Uncle dans leg wrote:Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO


Ott would be a great pick-up, but I see him as more of a shut down guy than a guy that can prolifically put pucks in the net.

Since we're talking Buffalo, I do wonder if the Sabres would be willing to move both Ott and Vaneck at some point this year. As it pertains to the Canucks, Ott would be the perfect replacement for Manny Malhottra. Vaneck could be what Mikael Samuelson was for us in 2010.

An idea I had in mind was.....

To Buffalo: Alex Edler, Chris Higgins, Jannik Hansen
To Vancouver: Steve Ott, Thomas Vaneck.

From a cap hit perpsective, it's almost the exact same (give or take, $500,000-$600,000 that we'd have to take if we made a deal like this).

Sabres get a top 4 defenseman and depth up front, while the Canucks get a legit top 6 winger and a shut down center.

At some point in the future, if Kassian further develops his game and becomes a legit top 6 calibre player, you can then move a guy like Alex Burrows for a top 4 defenseman.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby Jovocop » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:01 am

The Brown Knight wrote:I was wondering what you guys thought about the idea of moving one of our Top 4 defensemen for a legitimate Top 6 Forward?

Not really sure if I have anything specific in mind, but was wondering if you agreed with this overall line of thought.

Moving one of Bieksa, Edler, Garrison, or Hamhuis, for a legit Top 6 Forward (a guy like Thomas Vaneck perhaps? If the Sabres decide to shop him later in the year). In any of these examples, lets say that said defenseman agrees to waive NTC/NMC.

Obviously - losing a Top 4 defenseman would be risky, but having a playmate for Kesler would arguably turn out to be a net gain overall.


The Canucks top-six forwards (when healthy) are:

D. Sedin / H. Sedin / Burrows (Kassian)
Booth (Burrows) / Kesler / Higgins (Hansen)

They might not be the best top-six in the league but, when healthy, individually they are all capable to produce at or more than 20 goals. Health is the main issue more than the ability to score with the existing top-six. Personally, I would rather MG focuses more on the bottom six than the top-six.

Bottom-six forwards:

Higgins (Booth) / Santorelli (Richardson or Schroeder) / Hansen (Kassian)
Sestito / Richardson (Dalpe) / Weise

If Santorelli can keep up his work, he is deserved to be the 3rd line centre. If not, MG should trade for one.

As good as Sestito has been, he should be the 13th forward at best.

As for the top-four defensemen, MG should leave them alone. He needs at least 8 NHL defensemen.
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby Jovocop » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:04 am

The Brown Knight wrote:
Uncle dans leg wrote:Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO


Ott would be a great pick-up, but I see him as more of a shut down guy than a guy that can prolifically put pucks in the net.

Since we're talking Buffalo, I do wonder if the Sabres would be willing to move both Ott and Vaneck at some point this year. As it pertains to the Canucks, Ott would be the perfect replacement for Manny Malhottra. Vaneck could be what Mikael Samuelson was for us in 2010.

An idea I had in mind was.....

To Buffalo: Alex Edler, Chris Higgins, Jannik Hansen
To Vancouver: Steve Ott, Thomas Vaneck.

From a cap hit perpsective, it's almost the exact same (give or take, $500,000-$600,000 that we'd have to take if we made a deal like this).

Sabres get a top 4 defenseman and depth up front, while the Canucks get a legit top 6 winger and a shut down center.

At some point in the future, if Kassian further develops his game and becomes a legit top 6 calibre player, you can then move a guy like Alex Burrows for a top 4 defenseman.


As bad as Edler has been, there will be a big hole at the backend with him traded. Besides, Higgins and Hansen are signed to a cap-friendly deal to stay here. Why would MG turn around and trade them to a rebuilding team?
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby ESQ » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:14 am

The Brown Knight wrote:
Uncle dans leg wrote:Steve Ott. He would be ideal to compliment Kesler IMO


Ott would be a great pick-up, but I see him as more of a shut down guy than a guy that can prolifically put pucks in the net.

Since we're talking Buffalo, I do wonder if the Sabres would be willing to move both Ott and Vaneck at some point this year. As it pertains to the Canucks, Ott would be the perfect replacement for Manny Malhottra. Vaneck could be what Mikael Samuelson was for us in 2010.

An idea I had in mind was.....

To Buffalo: Alex Edler, Chris Higgins, Jannik Hansen
To Vancouver: Steve Ott, Thomas Vaneck.

I wouldn't do that trade. Steve Ott, as you say, is a Manny replacement. I'd sooner spend fewer assets to acquire a great 3rd line center that can pick up 30-35 points than give up so much for an Eastern Conference scorer like Vanek. Especially when both Ott and Vanek only have 1 year left on their deals. Higgins, Hansen and Edler are all signed to cap-friendly long-term deals that take up a few of their prime years.

They reason Samuellson and Malhotra were so valuable was due to their awesome cap hits. They gave MG so much flexibility to do things like grab Ehrhoff on a salary dump.

With the (relative) depth of top6 forwards (when healthy and not suspended), I think the more pressing need is a Malhotra clone than a sniper.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby BladesofSteel » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:46 am

No need for a top six right now

Certainly no need to ask one or more if the core guys to waive his NTC.

A 3rd line centre of Ott's ability would be a welcomed addition come deadline
The grass is always greener
BladesofSteel
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: Lower left-hand corner

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby dbr » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:29 am

Bure for Tkachuk and Tverdovsky
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:17 pm

I think there is a good chance one or both of Horvat and Shinky make the team next year. If so we will have the makings of 4 solid lines with that added scoring. No need to move out a top 4 for one year of a fix.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:24 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:I think there is a good chance one or both of Horvat and Shinky make the team next year. If so we will have the makings of 4 solid lines with that added scoring. No need to move out a top 4 for one year of a fix.


I like this line of thinking a lot.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby herb » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:39 pm

Right now, we have a mobile, versatile, two-way top four. Right now, we could survive if one of those four goes down to injury. If we only had three of these guys, that luxury would be gone. We’d also have to lean a lot more on Tanev, Stanton and Corrado, which would not be an ideal situation for any of these guys from a development perspective.

The only way I consider moving one of our top four is if a deal comes in that absolutely blows our socks off (unlikely), or if the team completely falls apart, Torts is an absolute failure, the Sedins walk and it’s clearly time for a total rebuild and house cleaning (also unlikely).

Could we use top six help? Yes and the same could be said for 20+ other teams. I’m willing to be a bit patient and see if we have something in Booth, Hansen, Kassian and Schroeder. Some good seasons from these guys and a lot of our problems solve themselves. Three of these guys clearly were not AV guys, and the change in coaching could have a big effect.

Oh, and also, only Edler would really get us the kind of top six help that would “put us over the top” so to speak. A 27 year old big bodied, two-way defenseman on a cap friendly deal would be a huge loss and not something we could fill via free agency.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:50 pm

herb wrote:Right now, we have a mobile, versatile, two-way top four. Right now, we could survive if one of those four goes down to injury. If we only had three of these guys, that luxury would be gone.


Great post and I pretty much agree with what you said.

My original line of thought was that we do make a trade for Vaneck and Ott (while giving them Edler, Higgins,and Hansen in return), and then moving a guy like Burrows for a Top 4 d-man if someone like Kassian shows growth.

If not Burrows, you could maybe move Booth for an over-priced defenseman in a 'crap for crap' type deal where the other team accepts a bad contract because having a bad contract up front suits their needs slightly better than having a bad contract on the back-end. (not sure if this meets the criteria.......but maybe a David Booth for John Michael Liles type deal). Ultimately - you then still have 4 defensemen that could play reasonably well in a Top 4 role.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby dbr » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:53 pm

This team isn't going to ask a bunch of guys to start waiving NTCs (that they just signed for in Burrows and Edler's case) in order to shuffle the deck around.

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Higgins-Kesler-Hansen
Booth-Schroeder-Kassian
Richardson-Santorelli-Wiese
Dalpe/Sestito

Unless that "top six forward" is a center, I don't see the need. As it stands between Sedin, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Booth and Kassian we have six guys who can at least moonlight in one of four spots and if you take the "by definition there are 180 'top six' forwards in the league" view I'd say we've got five wingers that fit the description for sure and Kassian will likely show flashes too.

Yeah it'd be great to add a dynamic scorer to this group but the major problem I in our division/conference/thing is that Joe Pavelski's line and Jarred Stoll's line are going to feast on a pretty bad mismatch down the middle, unless Jordan Schroeder is leaps and bounds better than last year or Mike Santorelli can play 78 games plus the playoffs like he's played the last four.

Hell even Detroit has Helm, St Louis has Steen or Berglund, etc..

We need to be able to roll three lines that can contribute at both ends of the ice without relying on mismatches to do so, right now the main obstacle to that is having three healthy centers.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward

Postby The Brown Knight » Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:05 pm

dbr wrote:This team isn't going to ask a bunch of guys to start waiving NTCs (that they just signed for in Burrows and Edler's case) in order to shuffle the deck around.

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Higgins-Kesler-Hansen
Booth-Schroeder-Kassian
Richardson-Santorelli-Wiese
Dalpe/Sestito

Unless that "top six forward" is a center, I don't see the need.


I think Henrik and Kesler are excellent for top 6 centers.......unless I'm missing your point?

Hence, why I like the idea of trading for both a top notch Top 6 winger ( to play with Kesler to give us two legit scoring lines), AND a legit shut down center........one that is of the calibre of a Jarret Stoll or a Joe Pavelski from the examples you gave.

Since Buffalo might be exploring different options moving forward, I figured that perhaps Thomas Vaneck and Steve Ott would fit our needs.

Ott could be our answer to Stoll/Pavelski, while Vaneck would definitely gives us two legit lines. His presence alone would make Kesler's job easier, and in effect, make the Sedins' job easier.


Now don't get me wrong - I definitely understand the danger in moving one of our top 6 defensemen for a deal like this (in this example, let us say that Buffalo accepts a deal involving Edler, Hansen, and Higgins). However - if a guy like Kassian develops over the course of the year into a legit top 6 player, you could move Burrows for a Top 4 calibre defenseman.

If Kassian doesn't develop as hoped however, you could try and move David Booth for an overpaid (yet reasonably decent) defenseman that wouldn't look too far out of place playing top 4. A "crap for crap" deal where two bad contracts are exhanged (I.e. Booth for a guy like John Michael Liles).


Given how the Canucks have performed in their last 3 playoff series', I think it's safe to say that this team needs scoring.....and more specifically, needs secondary scoring in order to take enormous pressure off of the twins.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest