well i would srgue age is still pretty important thing. bear was traded for foegele. i dont think his value changed much (unlike foegele....) . foegele was seen kind of the same way as hoglander is, decent foward with potential, foegele was killing it in the ahl. the main difference is foegele was traded at 24 years old and hoglander is 21. he has much more time to grow and become better.

A trade for Hoglander would make sense as he can be moved to the AHL if need be. But, yes I think the Canes would need to add. Haven't seen any serious offers as to what Vancouver would want on top of Bear to make it happen. If Hoglander is a non-starter, I completely understand. But likewise, please take names like Dermott, Pearson, and Dickinson off the table. They wouldn't be targets for the Canes.

Tanner Pearson who was .5 ppg is a 4th liner? What a league

I want to like this 51847 times

Yeah, this is fair. The only real trade I see between them is Bear for a third and that’s about it

Age is important, I get that. The Foegele trade for Bear is actually a very smart comparable. Foegele is 3 years older than Hoglander, but Foegele also arguably had more to offer. He'd hit the 30 point mark, would have done it again in the 56 game year, and he's got that extra gear of speed Hoglander doesn't. Not to say Hoglander isn't a fast skater, but the one thing Foegele can undoubtedly do is kick it into overdrive. The only real difference as you said is the age. Foegele was further along in his development, I get that, but that's actually a really good comparison

Hoglander and Foegele are two different types of players, if Hoglander is still producing like Foegele is now by age 26, he's going to be out of the League. I don't know many teams who want a 5'9 offensive forward who can't produce much as a depth piece. You're ignoring Hoglander's potential which is based off his skill and talent rather than having a great first year.

Necas for Holl+ isn't a perfect example since Necas is a C, and Holl is 30 but the point is that you don't think Holl is going to carry a whole ton of value in your eyes, so even Holl+ a 1st for Necas isn't something you would accept probably. Holl is far more established than Bear. Yes, defensemen take longer to develop but you are acting like Bear is established just because he outproduced Hoglander. He's going to be on his 3rd team by age 24 if he gets traded, and he was on his ELC the first time and only 2.2m now, so that tells you he's getting traded because he's expendable. If he was a young reliable 6th D-man with top 4 potential, he's not going to be traded that often. He might have top 4 potential but he's not reliable, he has taken great strides last year but he's still developing just like Hoglander. Hoglander isn't the first to have a sophomore slump and he probably won't be the last, selling low on him would be a great error. Trading Hall for Larsson was and Larsson was and is a solid defender still, Hall has since fallen off so that trade would probably be more even now, but Bear isn't there.

As for Bear's contract, he was allowed to shop himself well before he signed that contract and before Burns was added, and there was no excess D. You know very well how Waddell operates, so it's pretty obvious that they didn't think he was worth his ask, and just because they settled with him, doesn't mean they think he was worth it. Most cases that get filed get settled before arbitration. That's not to say that Bear isn't worth 2.2m (to other teams), my point is that Bear's value to CAR is less than Hoglander's to VAN as one guy is considered expendable, and the other a highly touted prospect (or at least was). Even if Hoglander has fallen out of favor in VAN, they would be better off packaging him off for a better D-man than Bear.

Might have missed a few things, but this is my 3rd time writing a reply, what I wrote the first two times was lost.

I'm going to go backwards here.

Burns addition was to replace DeAngelo, not Bear. They're irrelevant. The acquisition to replace Bear was Coghlan because Waddell decided to rob Vegas.

Bear at 2.2 isn't bad. I'd be more than happy with keeping him. However, the rumor is that Allvin wants him to fill in some of the holes that have opened up on the Vancouver roster, which makes sense. This may not make sense from a financial standpoint because of the cap hit. That's a fair statement.

You site Hoglanders potential. He's got potential. 100%, he looked promising coming in. But that doesn't atone for the poor showing this last year. You mention Hoglanders age, you ignore Bear playing a more valuable position. Whether you want to admit it or not, Bear is an established NHLer at this point, he's 10 games short of being NHL pension eligible. That's an established player at this level. Hoglander is an established NHLer. He's proven he belongs in the league. The difference is that Bear has proven he can play top 4 minutes if he has to (he did it in Edmonton) and even top pairing minutes (played next to Slavin). Hoglander hasn't proven he can play top line minutes. That's not his fault per se, but it is still an unknown.

You site Bear being on his 3rd team. That matters why? Bear is one of the most beloved guys in the sport. Only reason he was dealt from Edmonton was to address a position of need. Only reason he would be dealt from Carolina is for a package the Canes can't turn down. There's no evidence to say there's any issue with him fitting in, and he is one of the nicest people in the sport. Completely irrelevant to this discussion, but still worth talking about, there was a story about him buying equipment for kids that couldn't afford it after his trade just because he could. That's Ethan Bear. Don't get that wrong, absolutely fantastic human being.

You site Hoglander having a sophomore slump. However, given the unique circumstances of his rookie year and it being in the all-Canadian division, combined with his unnaturally high shooting percentage, it's difficult to say that the sophomore year was the odd year here. It might be. I hope it is. But I can't say this with overwhelming certainty, which is why I'd argue his value isn't as high as you're making it out to be.

The difference between this and Larsson for Hall is that Hall was an established top line winger with a fantastic scoring record. Hoglander doesn't have that.

Foegele isn't going to be out of the league either. He's overpaid now but his speed alone will make him almost the new Mikhail Grabovski. Everyone will take the chance on a cheap deal. He can kill penalties, he's f**king rapid, and he's a good bottom-six guy. Plus he has a history of showing up in the playoffs. Someone will take that chance

I was saying Hoglander would be out of the League if he's producing like Foegele by that age because he's small unless he finds a niche like Pking. As for Foegele he's fine as he is, he'll just be a bottom 6 player.

If Bear is established in the NHL and replaceable by Coghlan that just means he's a depth defender. Which is akin to saying Hoglander can play in the bottom 6. So Bear doesn't have a whole ton of value is what I'm saying, and trading a young prospect when his value has taken a hit is never a good idea. Had Bear been closer in age, maybe a prospect swap would be worth it but then Bear would have a whole lot more value.

Hoglander might not live up to the potential but Bear might regress or not live up to his either. Playing with Hughes is going to be different than with Slavin, there will be more defensive responsibility on Bear.

Hoglander isn't Hall and Bear isn't Larsson either but at least the Oilers got a solid Dman, Vancouver might not. They are better off giving draft picks for Bear.

Bear is a solid D man. Stop. Regardless of whatever he is traded for, he's a solid defenseman.

Hoglander regressing, or staying as he was last year at just 18 points in 60 games, is more likely than a guy who's okay defensively and quite silky with the puck who has put up good analytical numbers throughout his career taking a step back. It's like saying Jarvis is more likely to regress than Pesce. That's just a fact. Smaller sample sizes aren't great and the player is still proving himself.

Bear isn't replaceable by Coghlan, let's get that clear. Bear to Coghlan is a clear downgrade. However, Coghlan is an above replacement level defenseman. If there is then the right package for Bear, Carolina do not lose much by making this deal. It's like saying Hoglander will never play in the top 6 in Vancouver due to Boeser, Podkolzin, Kuzmenko, Garland, Miller etc. So he's a bottom six guy. It's rash and inaccurate. You site had their age been closer, Bear would have a whole lot more value. I think this is a disagreement about how essential the age development curve. Bear is older, but he's only about a season ahead of where Hoglander is in his development.

This is what I was trying to get at when I said he's not established or a solid defender. He's not going to be thrown out there in big moments because he's still in early stages of development. I wouldn't be surprised if Bear takes the next step this year but a trade like this is one that I would expect Vancouver to regret.

Yet there's no certainty of that. Everyone thought Foegele would take that next step with his speed on McDavid's line when he was dealt for Bear and he's been... fine. Nothing special. For Hoglander, is it harsh to say I wouldn't expect him to be more than a 3rd liner until he's around Bear's age and Carolina's contending window is starting to shut?

*Ahem* Hoglander's value isn't THAT diminished

Pearson is not overpaid, nor is he a cap dump, he's more valuable than Bear

I don't understand why so many people fail to recognize how much offense Pearson actually has in his game. I guess it's the fact that his game isn't skill-based, so other fanbases don't naturally associate offensive production with his name when they think of him

This again?

In a the context of Pearson being the return for Bear, where CAR is trying to shed cap, he’s a cap dump.

You could also call Bear a camp dump as well I suppose, but it’s the Canucks evidently wanting to add Bear as he fulfills a need for them whereby an acquisition of Pearson by CAR does zilch for them except decrease their cap space.

0.5 PPG isn't 3rd line production lol

30 points is 3rd line production

So Tanner Pearson is a 3rd liner?

For Hoglander though, he has the skill and talent, he just needs to figure out how to put things together and overcome his size disadvantage. It's easier said than done, so perhaps he doesn't turn out. Giving up on him now would be too early for Vancouver.

We don't know HOW the Canucks view Bear. For all we DO know, maybe he's just viewed as another good depth piece. Why wouldn't the Canucks call the Canes on Bear? Since the Canes already have Burns, Pesce, and Coghlan on the right side, not to mention Chatfield can step up in a pinch

0.5 PPG equates to 41 points, not 30