Canucks News and Notes

[Topper]

The leaves are at least a year behind the Vancouver process.

The the top end of their lineup was full of over inflated contracts. Personnel have been moved, but some of those contracts are still on the books. They are void of character vets to guide their youth.

First they tried to buy their way to being competitive because unlike Edmonton, FA's will go to TO. That didn't wok.

They tried to go through the season with junk castoffs and that didn't wok.

Now they have kids, and more coming, but no leadership.

[Mickey107]

O.K. But has anyone thought of what to do with Alex Burrows. It's tough because I doubt, even if he waived his no trade, that we would get much.
Would you take a late second or third rounder?
Would you keep him around to help mentor the youngsters?
I don't know. What I would not do is just swap bad contracts.

[Blob Mckenzie]

O.K. But has anyone thought of what to do with Alex Burrows. It's tough because I doubt, even if he waived his no trade, that we would get much.
Would you take a late second or third rounder?
Would you keep him around to help mentor the youngsters?
I don't know. What I would not do is just swap bad contracts.

The team is stuck with Burrows for one more year after this one. You won't be seeing any teams trading a second or third round pick to Elmer for the biter. Just let him walk next July 1 , the same as Miller.

[Mickey107]

Would like to see what JB could do throughout next year if we could manage to be 4 or 5 mill under the cap.
Been many years since we've had that.
At least he'd be able to talk turkey with other GMs on a more equal playing field.

[DonCherry4PM]

O.K. But has anyone thought of what to do with Alex Burrows. It's tough because I doubt, even if he waived his no trade, that we would get much.
Would you take a late second or third rounder?
Would you keep him around to help mentor the youngsters?
I don't know. What I would not do is just swap bad contracts.

The team is stuck with Burrows for one more year after this one. You won't be seeing any teams trading a second or third round pick to Elmer for the biter. Just let him walk next July 1 , the same as Miller.

You could try to flog him next TDD as a playoff run acquisition, but without him having at least some resurgence from this terrible year, it might be difficult to get anything (assuming you had management that wanted to sell UFA's for assets).

[Island Nucklehead]

O.K. But has anyone thought of what to do with Alex Burrows. It's tough because I doubt, even if he waived his no trade, that we would get much.
Would you take a late second or third rounder?
Would you keep him around to help mentor the youngsters?
I don't know. What I would not do is just swap bad contracts.

The team is stuck with Burrows for one more year after this one. You won't be seeing any teams trading a second or third round pick to Elmer for the biter. Just let him walk next July 1 , the same as Miller.

Yeah I don't think you're going to get anyone to bite on Burrows especially with his trade protection, tough sell unless we want to bring a bad contract back.

[Meds]

O.K. But has anyone thought of what to do with Alex Burrows. It's tough because I doubt, even if he waived his no trade, that we would get much.
Would you take a late second or third rounder?
Would you keep him around to help mentor the youngsters?
I don't know. What I would not do is just swap bad contracts.

The team is stuck with Burrows for one more year after this one. You won't be seeing any teams trading a second or third round pick to Elmer for the biter. Just let him walk next July 1 , the same as Miller.

Yeah I don't think you're going to get anyone to bite on Burrows especially with his trade protection, tough sell unless we want to bring a bad contract back.

If it's cap space we're looking for and also want a decent asset/pick coming back in return, you trade Hansen at the draft. His $2.5M is easily moved without retaining, and his value at that sticker price is worth a good return. Take a pick or two back, and have that extra cap, smart asset management because Hansen is soon to become a diminishing asset. His real value is to a team that is close to contender status, he brings leadership, experience, and the ability to move up and down the line-up and reliably play in most situations. He's also one of the better checking wingers in the league.

Moving Burrows is going to require retaining salary or taking a contract back in return. My guess is that the most you gain in cap space if you trade Burrows is $3M, and the return you get for him is likely significantly less than you get for Hansen. I figure if Hansen is worth a 2nd and a prospect, or a 2nd and a 3rd, Burrows gets you a 3rd and nothing else.....and best. Burrows can still move up and down our line-up, and his value is greater to the Canucks than another team because he can still play effectively with the Sedins, but he is also a team guy who won't gripe about 4th line duty. He's also still a very smart defensive forward, I would say he's smarter than Hansen, but has lost a step and a half.

Anyways, if it's a toss-up between those guys, I think you max out your return on a guy for a change and move on.

[Strangelove]

The Leaves are rebuilding through the draft and have 12 picks in the 2016 draft, and 8 in 2017.

You are premature... this is always a very fluid situation.

We actually don't know how many selections the Leaves (or Canucks) will make in those drafts.

But yeah, so far the Leaves have traded away all their proven stars ('cept Rielly, JVR?) for magic beans

... and this ain't no fairy tale.

They have traded away their big contracts stars and acquired Pittsburgh's 2014 1st round pick Kasperi Kappanen.

OMG Kapanen sucks!

I wonder if your Leaves tried to trade him for Granlund and the Flames said "FUCK OFF".

[Leaves] had 5 top-90 picks last year.

[Canucks] had 3 top-90 picks last year.

And in the previous 2 drafts:

Leaves had 4 total top-90 picks.

Canucks had 7 total top-90 picks.

Toronto brought in a pile of mediocre UFA's as real placeholders while the kids stayed under the radar and out of the pressure cooker in the minors. Once the deadline was over, kids come up and get their 20+ games in to prep for next year.

The most "kids" that could fall into your "20+ games post-DL" fairy tale category is 4 at this point.

(and your buddy Kapanen is not one of them)

But once again you're premature, perhaps it ends up being zero...

Another dose of perspective, the leaves, with all their aggressive tanking, have won 3 fewer games than us. They also have more cap space heading into UFA season.

Ummm... "they know they suck" and they want to continue sucking.... so they're going to splurge on UFAs?

[ESQ]

Would like to see what JB could do throughout next year if we could manage to be 4 or 5 mill under the cap.
Been many years since we've had that.
At least he'd be able to talk turkey with other GMs on a more equal playing field.

With the number of players on ELCs that I could see making the team next season, I would expect quite a bit of cap space.

The last times the Canucks went into a season with an abundance of cap space, they wound up with Mats Sundin and Ehrhoff while only giving up two failed prospects, so it would be great to have that flexibility again.

RFAs to be signed are Etem, Vey, Granlund and Baertschi. I could all of them returning, but I don't see huge raises for any of them.

[Leaves] had 5 top-90 picks last year.

[Canucks] had 3 top-90 picks last year.

And in the previous 2 drafts:

Leaves had 4 total top-90 picks.

Canucks had 7 total top-90 picks.

The leaves are at least a year behind the Vancouver process.

As the Topper has said.

I like the Canucks prospect pool more than Toronto's, mostly because the kids who made the team earned it, and forced out vets like Prust, Higgins, and Weber. Toronto's kids couldn't earn a spot out of camp, and instead are getting time because everybody got shipped out at the deadline.

[Island Nucklehead]

Ummm... "they know they suck" and they want to continue sucking.... so they're going to splurge on UFAs?

Isn't that what we plan on doing, despite being neck and neck with the Laughs for fewest wins in the NHL? That's been a big part of the farcical defense of our putrid deadline people have made 'round these parts lately: letting guys like Hamhuis walk for no return is actually a good thing because we get cap space and 20 games of invaluable mentorship.

[Mickey107]

Question: Where is really the best place to develop your prospects.
Junior (if still eligible) ?
U.S. college (they would already have to be there) ?
Europe ?
A.H.L. (20 or older) ?
I would assume most would say A.H.L. I'm not one.
Back in my younger days, I got stuck in the old I.H.L. a couple of years and those dressing rooms are tough. You have way different age groups and major different agendas. The farm is rough. Really hard for young guys except that all they want to do is get the hell out and maybe that's good initiative.
Opinions?

[ESQ]

Question: Where is really the best place to develop your prospects.
Junior (if still eligible) ?
U.S. college (they would already have to be there) ?
Europe ?
A.H.L. (20 or older) ?
I would assume most would say A.H.L. I'm not one.
Back in my younger days, I got stuck in the old I.H.L. a couple of years and those dressing rooms are tough.
Opinions?

Did you play with Link Gaetz?

Or ARE you Link Gaetz??!



I love that story of Link leaving the locker room in between periods to grab a cheeseburger from the concession

[Strangelove]

Another dose of perspective, the leaves, with all their aggressive tanking, have won 3 fewer games than us. They also have more cap space heading into UFA season.

Ummm... "they know they suck" and they want to continue sucking.... so they're going to splurge on UFAs?

Isn't that what we plan on doing, despite being neck and neck with the Laughs for fewest wins in the NHL?

Ummm you were contrasting your Leaves with my Canucks.

Ummm you were saying how much better a plan your Leaves have.

Ummm you were implying my Canucks should "aggressively tank" like your Leaves.

So it was a tad bizarre when you suggested an "aggressively tank" includes "splurging on UFAs".

Anyhoo, that "aggressive tank" seems more about trading away non-UFAs (Kessel/Phaneuf/Winnik)

... than it does about trading away UFAs.

And when it does involve UFA trades that "aggressive tank" also seems to be about bringing back cap dumps.

(read: rejects)

Well there is a lot more to rebuilding a team than just acquiring picks by any-and-every means bucko!

Hamhuis/Vrbata didn't get dealt, big whoop, I suggest you stop your blubbering and move on.

At least those two players are said to be good mentors for the kids my Canucks have been playing all year.

(and please try not to be so premature, Hamhuis might be re-signed)

Your Leaves had to suffer all season with pending UFAs Grabner/Boyes/PAP... and got nothing for them at the DL.

[Island Nucklehead]

You're being premature. Nothing says the leaves will be aggressively tanking next season.

[Strangelove]