Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGIT?

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: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby Meds » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:47 pm

The Brown Knight wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:It amazes me how many still dream up trades involving the bottom 6 rotation. IF THIS TEAM PLANS ON BEING A IN THE STANLEY CUP MIX THIS TEAM NEEDS TOP 6 TALENT. It's pretty fucking pointless otherwise - the constant Gillis tickerings of the bottom 6. He still, in his 6 years has yet to add a significant player to the top 6, still riding on previous mgmt's top 6 talent, and so because of that, our scoring prowess dwindles each and every year, but hey, keep making those pointless bottom 6 Matthias type trades.

To get top 6 young talent like Evander Kane, you got to give up something. Every prospect on my list, except Horvat is available (Gaunce, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Jensen, Schroeder), the 2014 1st pick is available, as well as bottom 3rd pairing d-man - Tanev and bottom 6 players Hansen and Kassian. I think a package involving any of that could and should land us young top 6 talent like Kane. But we all know, Bold Moves Gillis will not boldly go where Mike has never gone before.


Almost fully agree with the above, but I'm not sure I make Shinkaruk available for Kane.

For me, Horvat and Shinkaruk are untouchables.........unless a guy like Claude Giroux actually is available (and again, there are conflicting reports here).

But yes - other than that, I pretty much agree you. For Evander Kane, I'd give up pretty much any prospect and/or first rounder outside of Horvat and Shinkaruk.


How very strange this is for me to find that I am agreeing with the Dude.....

But nonetheless, the need on this team is definitely in the top 6, and I don't know that I would be willing to sell the farm, in fact I think I'd be careful there. However, I would be willing to part with one of our top 4 defensemen and maybe a prospect like Schroeder and a pick. Top 6 forwards don't come cheap.

Here's the downside to my above paragraph, Gillis made an asshat out of himself again when he handed out yet another NTC to Edler.....who I would part with right now if it brought back a legitimate top 6 forward with a nose for scoring. It would hurt the defensive corps depth, but we see a lot of teams with a solid top 3, a solid 5-6 in the 4 spot, and then a young talent and a stay home plug who can play physical defense. So when I consider the way that the Canucks have dominated their opponents the last few games, and we've seen much of the play down in the offensive zone, I would be happy to upgrade that offense at the expense of the blueline.....

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Garrison-Tanev
Stanton-Corrado
Alberts
Andersson

Or balance the youth with some experience except when shortening the bench and go with....

Hamhuis-Tanev
Garrison-Corrado
Stanton-Bieksa
Alberts
Andersson


That's not a terrible looking blueline, and it's better than what we had when Luongo was at his best with a defense that was a paper thin slice of swiss cheese back in 2006-07, might as well gamble that he can do that again.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby Hockey Widow » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:28 pm

Bobby Ryan went for 2 top prospects/young roster players and a 1st.

Seguin went in a 7 player swap.

If MG wants that type of talent he has to be willing to let go of something in return.

One of Tanev, Stanton or Corrado + one of our top forward prospects(pick one) plus a 1st would do it for Kane, Giroux or Eberle. He could sweeten the pot a bit if need be, but he needs to clear cap, in addition, to land any of those players.

Edmonton and Philly need defensive help and will probably be out of the playoffs so young inexpensive players plus picks works. I don't think MG has to sell the farm but he would need to let go of some good young pieces and a 1st. For the right top six I would be all for it. Teams who are selling a top six won't want expensive term players back, they will want young, inexpensive quality.

I don't think Eberle will be traded but Yakupov might. I love the idea of Yakupov, a pure goal scorer but his reputation scares me.

If it were my choice , Evander Kane or Giroux would be the two I would target. I just don't know if either are realistically available.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby dbr » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:01 pm

Vader wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:Yes they are a thirty goal guy who plays with testicles dangling between his legs away from being a contender . What do they have to get said player ?


Chris Stewart would appear to be in the doghouse in St. Louis again - playing just 13Mins per game.

Don't know if that means he would be available, and really can't see what Gillis could offer to entice St. Louis to let him go, but he would fit the mold of what Gillis should want.

If St.Louis is about freeing up cap space would Kassian + good prospect (Shinkaruk? Gaunce?) get this done?


Last year was a good year for Stewart but he's not going to shoot 18% again.

I guess the rationale here is trading Kassian for a guy four years older (who has of course panned out as an NHL player over that time) at the cost of a good prospect but Stewart makes probably more than we can accomodate right now so either we need to dump another player or this happens after the year in which case we've acquired one year of a player for a good (IMO) young NHLer and a pretty damn good prospect too.

When I see people proposing we give up assets worth that much I think back to what a guy like Chris Pronger got in a trade (two first round picks, a good young NHLer in Sbisa and a middling top six forward with a fairly big contract in Joffrey Lupul who had bounced around and didn't have much lustre on him at that point) and wonder why not just try to swing for the fences - if there's a trade to be made anyways.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby ClamRussel » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:50 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:Nevermind Art, Clam..., he's an idiot.


If I'm an idiot you two are crackheads. The fact you think the Devils were going to hand over their best forward who is 23 and a top ten pick for a guy who has NEVER played 40 games in an NHL season is fucking asinine.


At least we are getting high, albeit, kind of an evil drug that we have a little problem with, but you are, well...an idiot.


Now, now Dude. Lets be fair, he can't help being born that way - us, well apparently we have our vices.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3844
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:41 am

ClamRussel wrote:Face it, we're in the problem we're in because Gillis blew it on the goalie front. Landing a decent 1st round pick was great....but it should have come w/ a top 9 forward as well. Even if he had to throw a little something back the other way. Bottom line is, Gillis just solved New Jersey's problem w/ Brodeur's inevitable retirement. The price should have been more. Adam Henrique + 1st would have been fair. Goalies like Cory Schneider don't grow on trees. You could see the look on Lamoriello's face at the draft; he couldn't believe he pulled it off and was trying to look cool about it. Horvat's an awesome prospect but there is certainly a gap on our forward lines thats been there since Manny took that puck to the eye.


Nobody was exactly pounding on the door to get Luongo. Sure they probably could have moved him for scraps at the 2012 draft and probably should have as CS is younger and is the better goalie, but not by a huge margin.

You can't be serious in thinking that Henrique + a 1st would have been a fair return. It would have been an ass ramming of epic proportions. Another piece to go along with the 1st would have been nice but there's no fucking way the devils were going to part with their # 1 center.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:35 am

Hockey Widow wrote:If MG wants that type of talent he has to be willing to let go of something in return.

One of Tanev, Stanton or Corrado + one of our top forward prospects(pick one) plus a 1st would do it for Kane, Giroux or Eberle. He could sweeten the pot a bit if need be, but he needs to clear cap, in addition, to land any of those players.


Just looking at the players you're listing makes me shake my head (did we not get Stanton for free??). There is no possibility a deal gets done with those players. If MG wants a Seguin type return he's giving up Burrows, Hansen and a first. Minimum. It's that simple. Everyone knows Burr's numbers are inflated from the Sedin factor. Everyone knows Hansen is the ideal 3rd line guy that can move up the lineup if required. We're not deep enough to make a trade like that. Although... this would be the year to do it. I don't see any problem in tanking this year, getting a good draft pick, and coming back guns blazing next year.

This ain't the East. You don't magically become a playoff team. The Canucks have a window open, and it was extended with the Sedins signing, now they have to sell the fan-base on patience while they re-jig back to "elite status".
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby RoyalDude » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:04 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:
This ain't the East. You don't magically become a playoff team. The Canucks have a window open, and it was extended with the Sedins signing, now they have to sell the fan-base on patience while they re-jig back to "elite status".



Exactly. Just do not have the confidence in Mikey Gillis to re-jig us back. I have complete confidence in him continuing with his useless tinkerings in the mean nothing bottom 6 category that will not re-jig us back to elite-ville. He needs to make like Dougie Wilson and make that Brent Burns trade, have a few successful draft picks, like Hertl, Nieto, Wingels. Otherwise he will not be able to make like Dougie Wilson and re-jig us back to where Dougie returned to.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby Lancer » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:07 am

Gillis is going to have to convince somebody to give up their NTC to get that piece the team needs in order to beat out the best of the Western Conference. Booth has no value, and it makes little sense to mortgage whatever he has on the Farm unless guarantees to fill a void on the team - and if the other team is giving that up you have to wonder why. There's no room to take on contracts, so this has to be a hockey move. This is where NTCs really hamper you. Nowadays, though, it's almost like if an offer doesn't include a NTC the player almost takes it like he's going to be traded.

Trades ain't as simple as they used to be... :|
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.
User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Arnprior, Ontario

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby damonberryman » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:39 pm

RyanGinger wrote:IMO, with the Sedins/Kes doing well together, we're a Top 6 winger and a 2C from going deep into the playoffs. Higgins is great, but should be our 3LW, not our 2LW. Santorelli has been playing well as our 2C, but would heavily improve our Bottom 6 as our 3C. That leaves van with this forward lineup heading into 2014-15 (face it, there's a small chance we go too deep this year):
1. Sedin-Sedin-Kesler
2. ?????-?????-Burrows
3. Higgins/Shink-Santorelli-Hansen
4. Richardson-Horvat-Kassian
(If we don't acquire a 2LW, Shink/Higgins could play 2LW but hopefully there'll be room for them in our Bottom 6)
--
Trade 1 (2C)
-> To VAN: Ryan Johansen - From Van, big upside, young, big
-> To CLB: Weise, Alberts/Tommernes, Gaunce, Schroeder, 2015 1st

Trade 2a (2LW)
-> To VAN: Evander Kane - From Van, big, young, gritty, goal-scorer, not happy in WPG
-> To WPG: Edler/Hamhuis, Higgins/Hansen, Booth (retain 25% for cap compliance, if WPG even wants him), Jensen, 2nd, 3rd

Trade 2b (2LW)
-> To VAN - Wayne Simmonds - pretty young, strong, solid Top 6 gritty power forward
-> To PHI - Higgins/Hansen, Tanev, Jensen, 2nd
--
For the "Player/Player" situations in the proposals, comment which of the two players traded you think would help the deal go through and/or help us.
--FINAL 2014-15 LINEUP--
forwards:
1. Sedin - Sedin - Kesler
2. Kane/Simmonds - Johansen - Burrows
3. Shinkaruk - Santorelli - Higgins/Hansen
4. Richardson - Horvat - Kassian
defensemen:
1. Edler/Hamhuis - Garrison
2. Stanton - Bieksa
3. Weber - Tanev
(Corrado as our 7th Dman)
--
NTC's to consider: Edler, Hamhuis, Hansen (starts in 2014-15)(modified NTC), Higgins (Limited NTC), Simmonds (modified NTC)
--
-> I checked on Capgeek and all trades, recalls (Horvat, Shinkaruk, Corrado), and resigns (Santo-1.25m, Kassian-1m, resign Johansen in 2014 offseason for 1.6m, Tanev-1.6m if not traded, Weber-0.66m) would work. Also, I'm pretty sure the caps only going up :mrgreen:
-> If an injury occurs, Dalpe, Welsh, and Archibald have all proven themselves to be able to fill in a bottom 6 role
-> Comment whether you'd go with Trade 2a (Kane) or 2b (Simmonds) or neither
-> Please leave feedback

This is well thought out and of all of the guys you mentioned it is the big kid Johansen I would go after. Too many warning signs on Kane and if he is having club trouble in the Peg, imagine him in Van? Grat thread and great contribution.
damonberryman
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:07 am

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby RoyalDude » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:02 pm

Is Columbus willing to let go of Johanson? And what are their needs? I like the kid too, but...
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4604
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby The Brown Knight » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:13 pm

I'm going to put on my Brian Burke hat on here for a second:

Keep in mind, I am NOT a 100% advocate of what I am about to suggest, but am merely thinking outloud.

What if you moved both Shinkaurk and Horvat in separate deals (packaged with other prospects/picks) for TWO immediate impact players? (Either two prolific top 6 forwards or one prolific top 6 winger and one prolific top 4 d-man).

Deal #1: Shinkaruk, Booth, 1st for ???

Deal #2: Horvat, Burrows, etc., for ???

A full blown "bare the cupboards" approach for immediate gratification over the next few years.

We go right after the cup with the risk of being utter shite like Edmonton and Calgary have been for so many years.
"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: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby RyanGinger » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:32 pm

The Brown Knight wrote:I'm going to put on my Brian Burke hat on here for a second:

Keep in mind, I am NOT a 100% advocate of what I am about to suggest, but am merely thinking outloud.

What if you moved both Shinkaurk and Horvat in separate deals (packaged with other prospects/picks) for TWO immediate impact players? (Either two prolific top 6 forwards or one prolific top 6 winger and one prolific top 4 d-man).

Deal #1: Shinkaruk, Booth, 1st for ???

Deal #2: Horvat, Burrows, etc., for ???

A full blown "bare the cupboards" approach for immediate gratification over the next few years.

We go right after the cup with the risk of being utter shite like Edmonton and Calgary have been for so many years.
Keep in mind Booth brings small value. Also, I would never trade Bo, Shink, or Burr, and I highly doubt they will be traded buuuuuut.. Im kinda bored :)

#1a: Shinkaruk, Booth, 1st, FOR Ryan Johansen, a 1st (CLBs 1st would be top 15 probably) and a Conditional 2nd if Johansen doesn't resign.

#1b: Shinkaruk, Booth, 1st, FOR Wayne Simmonds and a 1st (Phillys 1st would be top 10 probably)

#2: Horvat, Burrows, Tanev FOR Evander Kane and a Conditional 3rd if Kane doesn't pot 25+ goals
22-33-17
User avatar
RyanGinger
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:20 pm

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby ClamRussel » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:23 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:Face it, we're in the problem we're in because Gillis blew it on the goalie front. Landing a decent 1st round pick was great....but it should have come w/ a top 9 forward as well. Even if he had to throw a little something back the other way. Bottom line is, Gillis just solved New Jersey's problem w/ Brodeur's inevitable retirement. The price should have been more. Adam Henrique + 1st would have been fair. Goalies like Cory Schneider don't grow on trees. You could see the look on Lamoriello's face at the draft; he couldn't believe he pulled it off and was trying to look cool about it. Horvat's an awesome prospect but there is certainly a gap on our forward lines thats been there since Manny took that puck to the eye.


Nobody was exactly pounding on the door to get Luongo. Sure they probably could have moved him for scraps at the 2012 draft and probably should have as CS is younger and is the better goalie, but not by a huge margin.

You can't be serious in thinking that Henrique + a 1st would have been a fair return. It would have been an ass ramming of epic proportions. Another piece to go along with the 1st would have been nice but there's no fucking way the devils were going to part with their # 1 center.


You'll notice I said, "even if he had to throw a little something back the other way" to sweeten the pot if necessary.
Henrique is hardly their no.1 center. Guy is actaully playing LW and on the 3rd line. Zajac is no.1 and Elias is 2. It didn't have to be Henrique but he's far from a no. 1 center. A legit no.3 pivot would have made the deal fair. A 1st alone was not a great return.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3844
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby Meds » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:15 pm

[quote="ryanginger"]

-> To VAN - Wayne Simmonds - [i]pretty young, strong, solid Top 6 gritty power forward[/i]
-> To PHI - [i]Higgins/Hansen[/i], Tanev, Jensen, 2nd
[/quote]

Are you kidding? Simmons?

He might be top 6 in Philly, but he's a third line winger on 15 other teams in the league.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Are the Canucks an "impact" forward away from being LEGI

Postby ClamRussel » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:13 am

Before people give up on Jensen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdInVhNlfvY

I realize he appears to have taken a step back, hopefully thats due to his preseason injury and he'll pull it together this year on the farm.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3844
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ClamRussel, Google [Bot], Gurkha, okcanuck, rats19, Rayxor and 4 guests