Avatar

MikeyG420

NotJimBenning
Member Since
Nov. 22, 2016
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
Forum Posts
300
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMOct. 25, 2022 at 4:36 p.m.
Thread: I would go all in
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>McRanteskog</b></div><div>I think the biggest trade chip ARI is looking for is that coveted 2023 1st (which you haven’t made part of this deal). That being said, any other team offering that piece probably leapfrogs this offer</div></div>

Look at the conditions for the trade.. I don't think any of those conditions happen, but it's nice to have dreams. IF Toronto swapped 2024 for 2023 and included the same conditions for 2024. I think the Yotes would consider it. Only thing I'd change is tacking on another pick if neither one of the conditions is met. Possibly adding a 3rd.

It's worth noting that once Bill Armstrong establishes value for his assets, he won't move them for less. We've seen this in cap dump deals and some trades here and there. At this point, I wouldn't doubt it if the Coyotes held onto Chychrun until the deadline where the return would skyrocket
Forum: NHL TradesOct. 8, 2022 at 1:23 p.m.
Thread: (VAN/CHI) - Dickinson and 2024 2nd for Stillman
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Bluetomorrow83</b></div><div>Kassian makes more then Dickinson and Oilers didn't take cap back? They also basically only paid a 3rd more as the swapping of firsts didn't matter cause they still selected the prospect they wanted.</div></div>

Moving up in the 1st round is expensive business. The difference between pick 29 and pick 32 is essentially viewed the same as a late 1st and an early 2nd (which usually requires a 3rd/4th to slide up).

To move Kassian, Edmonton gave up a 2nd, 3rd, a 3rd/4th(for sliding down in the draft) + only to select a player they could’ve had in the 2nd round. Meanwhile, had they kept pick 29, they could’ve drafted Brad Lambert or taken a flyer on a rare prospect such as Lamoureux. The asset management in Edmonton’s case was far more destructive to the future of their team than Vancouver’s
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 21, 2022 at 3:46 p.m.
Thread: TDL trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldManRutherford</b></div><div>Fair value for Bear. I don't think it will happen as Canucks will go with what they have now but the offer was proper.</div></div>

If we can find a way to make it work (i.e., Poolman on LTIR for the foreseeable future) - I think we pull the trigger on such a deal any day of the week. Bear's acquisition cost is simply far too low for us not to make a move for him. If he has a great season and we cannot afford him - we have the luxury of having his rights, which would secure a return for us. This move could be made without taking a piece away from our forward group, which makes it all the more enticing.

OEL has been rumoured to be paired with Hughes to start the season, If so, this move is less likely to happen. However, if we managed to bring in Bear, I think we'd secure a wildcard berth.
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 21, 2022 at 3:40 p.m.
Thread: Which forward-for-a-Dman trade do you prefer Canucks fans
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>alwaysnextyear</b></div><div>I didn't explicitly say it, but the extension with Severson is implied. No way the Canucks should entertain trading Garland unless there's at least the knowledge that Severson would be willing to extend with VAN and what the contract ask would be.</div></div>

I understand that it was implied. But when dealing away one of the most efficient deals your team has on the books, you need to be certain you are receiving similar value, if not more. Given that Severson has averaged close to .5PPG his past 3 seasons, and the inflation in AAV for defensemen, especially those who produce at such a level - it would be difficult to see Severson get anything less than 6.5M x 6-8 years on the open market (with a .5M decrease/increase depending on the desirability of the destination).

Given that Garland has 3 more years after this one at a hair under 5M, after an extension, we'd be paying Severson a minimum of 1M more (in an ideal world) - this too, in the midst of having to offer major extensions to our core, such as that which we are currently negotiating with Horvat. We cannot fix one issue by causing another, this deal unfortunately would do exactly that. Ultimately, Severson is a fantastic piece to bring in when we see his nationality, pedigree, and production. However, the Canucks will find it quite difficult to retain Severson without moving out a piece such as Myers first. Which is why I don't believe this deal makes sense for the Canucks. Ethan Bear has a much lower acquisition cost and is an RFA, which means we can move him for future assets if we cannot re-sign him, rather than lose him to FA like we potentially would with Severson.
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 20, 2022 at 4:28 p.m.
Thread: Ethan bear and Horvat trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>UpsideDownQue</b></div><div>Yea positionally Olausson and Behrens dont really fit for VAN. Maybe another team with C or RD prospects to move would be interested in Horvat</div></div>

It's very interesting because I would personally like Olausson in Vancouver. The only question is the "fit" given our roster construction. Keep in mind, Trader Jim &amp; Allvin haven't yet put their stamp on this roster via trade. They're being patient, my guess is due to them believing they could obtain a top 4 RD via trade - and maintain a semi-competitive window, rather than rebuild/retool (the owners would rather burn the arena down than allow another 2-8 years of mediocre hockey).

Horvat is the identity of our team. He bridges the past and the future together. He will most likely remain a Canuck. Aside from sentimental value, the guy can play defensive hockey &amp; also show flashes of excellence in the offensive zone. Horvat would command a lot on the trade market if an extension were negotiated in advance to the move (which is the only way Vancouver would consider moving him)