The trade was fair for the Canucks. If not a total win. Dickinson is a cap dump. The fact they got stillman in return with a 2nd was solid for the Canucks.

Vancouver did not get Stillman in return with a 2nd.


Vancouver spent a 2nd to swap Dickinson for Stillman.


This trade was a total loss for the Canucks.

Hawks would've never accepted this.

you're crazy if you think Chicago would have accepted that.... Dickinson is a cap dump and Vancouver is lucky they got what they got

I'm not implying that Chicago accepts Dickinson at the cost of a 3rd round pick.


I'm implying a scenario that is more fair for Vancouver, given that they spent a 3rd to acquire Dickinson in the first place.

Why would that be "fair"? So they should just get a 3rd back just because that is what they originally spent on him? Past trades do not dictate player values. The players play on the ice dictates their value, and Dickinson has underperformed his contract, therefore he is a cap dump. They are lucky they got Stillman out of that trade.

Canes spend a young top 4 dman, a prime middle 6 center, and the 8OA pick to acquire Jordan Staal 10 years ago. Based on your reasoning, Carolina should expect to get a young top 4 dman, prime middle 6 center, and a top 10 pick for Staal now, correct?

Just a bit of an example, but you don’t always get a return that is equal for what you gave up for a player. That’s why cap dumps are a thing.

1. The only reason Vancouver did this trade was to get Stillman.

2. The only reason Chicago did this trade was to GET a pick.

Your trade is refused by both sides.

I said fair for Vancouver.

I didn't say fair for everybody involved.

1. The Dickinson trade between Dallas and Vancouver is much more recent than the Staal trade between Pittsburgh and Carolina.

So, it would have more relevance to the present day.



2. Staal has a NMC and would veto any trade out of Carolina, so there's no sense in speculating over his trade value.



3. Vancouver got less than what they paid for Dickinson.

Therefore, last night's trade for Dickinson wasn't fair for Vancouver.

Imo making it fair would’ve been adding a 6th or 7th round pick coming back from the Blackhawks.

I think it was a dumb move from Van though. Easily could’ve kept him till next offseason

1. Stillman is nothing more than a depth defenceman.

The only reason for Vancouver to make this trade is to create cap space.



2. The actual reason for Chicago to make this trade is to come out of it as winners.

If I were Chicago's GM, I would have made this trade too.



My trade is refused by Chicago and accepted without hesitation by Vancouver.

You should study Vancouver Dcore. Stillman was the main piece of the transaction. Myers is out for a month + btw.

Also a rebuilding team doesn't "win" anything by sacrificing futures for UFAs. That's basic stuff right here.

Stillman is a LD and Myers is a RD.

The Canucks already have Hughes + OEL + Dermott + Rathbone for the left side.

They need help more on the right side than on the left when their best available RD are Luke Schenn and Tucker Poolman.




I've already studied Vancouver's Dcore.

What about you?

"Nice" for Vancouver is probably a better way to put it, then. The word "fair" implies that something should be even for both sides and not lopsided in any direction. Fair does not mean that you get back what you put in, simply because that is what you put in. And "fair", in this situation, would be pretty much exactly what happened, since that trade was quite literally a neutral and fair value for all parties involved.

As a hypothetical, does "fair" mean that Seth Jones should be worth what CHI gave up for him last summer?

Rathbone has been sent down because he isn't NHL level and Dermott is injured too.... keep up buddy.

Seth Jones has a NMC and would veto any trade, especially if his brother Caleb didn't go with him in the same trade.

Not point in speculating.

They also have Wolanin.

Stillman is nothing more than a replaceable depth defenceman.

If Vancouver wanted one, they can claim one off waivers instead of needlessly spending Dickinson and a 2nd.

You keep up.

That is completely beside the point. It isn't about whether he "would or wouldn't" or whether or not CHI would want to trade him. The point is, IF Jones were to be traded today, would it be "fair" for CHI to get something equal to what they gave up for him last summer simply because "they should get back what they put in"? The answer is no.

If a team like Vancouver gets less value for a player than what they paid for him a year beforehand, then it's poor asset management on their part and it should have never happened.

Either way, Chicago is just going to ride out Jones' contract until it expires.

You missed the part where they didn't have capspace to claim your hypothetical player. Thus dumping Dickinson...

Not your day, eh?

You missed the part where teams can claim a player that is making league minimum off waivers.

And then send someone to the minors that is either waivers exempt or would clear waivers.

Actually, it is my day and I'm having a good one.

How about you?

What an absolutely stupid trade. Why not just buy Dickinson out? What a waste of an asset.

Why is it that as soon as smart hockey people get hired by the Canucks, they suddenly turn into morons?

That's BS because Vancouver needs to put on a 20 players roster minimum and they cant send down anyone because of all the injured players.

At this point, we established that you have no clue about Vancouver injuries, cap situation or roster in general. And that you love schoolyards comebacks: "you keep up" LOL

You can just keep throwing justifications in the air hoping one sticks. But they don't.

I can't teach a pig to sing; it a waste time and it annoys the pig.

That's BS because Vancouver has sent down 13 different players since the first day of October.

And they can claim as many players as they want off waivers, as long as they have no more than 50 SPCs.



At this point, we established that you have no clue that the same rules apply to every team and that Vancouver had options before making this trade with Chicago.

And that you get all sentimental and defensive when faced with constructive criticism.

If you can't handle any of my justifications, then too bad.

No sense in beating a dead horse.