Rumor: Canucks going after Barrie. (+ Hudler)

[CherryToke]

Botchford Talking about how Hutton struggled at the end of last season because teams were keying in on him but failed to mention that Edler and Tanev were both injured and he was forced into a top pairing role... terrible analysis.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

I don't get the 'take the pressure of Baertschi' angle. He basically spent most of the second half of last year on the second line. Natural progression would be to earn that spot out of camp and build on it.

 

[RandV]

It was a jumping off point

I thought it also fit for fans in this discussion. Is there a point in a discussion board to going lets wait and see? What does that ad? Versus others choosing a side use the 300 plus games we see. There have been on both sides using these games for Grud (who I use only as he was one of the last guys talked about in this thread about another dman).

Some people just need to be smarter with the wait and see approach. Gudbranson, after 4 years of disappointment from a 4th overall pick, finally had a decent #4/5 dman year last season. So it's reasonable to think he could be a Willie Mitchell like player for us.

A guy like Sbisa though, never showed anything with Anaheim. It would have been a miracle if he suddenly 'got good' for us. Same thing with Bartkowski, for all the talk of how useful his speed would be for us at this time last year, if he was able to use said speed to be an effective blueliner for Boston then he wouldn't have been a frequent healthy scratch.

But if there's one thing that can be said for certain, Benning's moniker as a "talent evaluator" - his key selling point when we hired him, is pretty much worthless when it comes to pro players.

 

[CanaFan]

I will suggest a lot of the aggressiveness reaction to this trade is because people fall in love with prospects. At this point in time we are clear winners until McCann, or the other pick actually prove they are even NHL players. Yet so many here go to extravagant lengths to cut down the actually more proven player on our roster.

Fallacious reasoning. Picks and prospects have value long before they "prove anything". Don't believe me? Try offering Olli Juolevi - a prospect who hasn't proven anything - to any team for their "proven" 3rd line winger or 4th Dman. You'll get a lot of teams willing to given up their "proven" for "unproven", and few in Vancouver would see us as "winners" in the deal.

 

[racerjoe]

Some people just need to be smarter with the wait and see approach. Gudbranson, after 4 years of disappointment from a 4th overall pick, finally had a decent #4/5 dman year last season. So it's reasonable to think he could be a Willie Mitchell like player for us.

A guy like Sbisa though, never showed anything with Anaheim. It would have been a miracle if he suddenly 'got good' for us. Same thing with Bartkowski, for all the talk of how useful his speed would be for us at this time last year, if he was able to use said speed to be an effective blueliner for Boston then he wouldn't have been a frequent healthy scratch.

But if there's one thing that can be said for certain, Benning's moniker as a "talent evaluator" - his key selling point when we hired him, is pretty much worthless when it comes to pro players.

I remember those conversations, and those most frustrating part of them was trying to explain to people what made a fast team, and that skating wasn't the key part, but moving the puck. While people went on about how fast we were going to be with Sutter and Bart.

 

[TomWillander1RD]

But if there's one thing that can be said for certain, Benning's moniker as a "talent evaluator" - his key selling point when we hired him, is pretty much worthless when it comes to pro players.

Maybe Benning thinks young pro players still have same room for development as prospects.

 

[tantalum]

Botchford Talking about how Hutton struggled at the end of last season because teams were keying in on him but failed to mention that Edler and Tanev were both injured and he was forced into a top pairing role... terrible analysis.

The reasons why he was put in that role aren't really relevant though. The argument that Botchford is making is that against higher end competition he struggled. Might indeed be the case (I don't have numbers in front of me). And if so then I'm sure competition was keying on him. I expect the same thing this upcoming season for anyone who is in the #4 spot to be honest. Whether is is Hutton or Sbisa or Larsen or tryamkin the opposition is likely to try to exploit that D-man.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I will suggest a lot of the aggressiveness reaction to this trade is because people fall in love with prospects. At this point in time we are clear winners until McCann, or the other pick actually prove they are even NHL players. Yet so many here go to extravagant lengths to cut down the actually more proven player on our roster.

That's just wrong. It completely ignores the player values the day the trade was made. It also assigns 0 value to potential.

Based on your comments here if we traded Alex Burrows for Austin Matthews we would be losing the trade. Toronto would be the clear winners until Matthews proves he's an NHL player.

 

[denkiteki]

This is the problem I was talking about. Smart business people see the big picture. Prime example is on Dragons Den when they have kids on. You often see the Dragons invest in kids knowing this current idea is a failure, but the kid is going to be good. It's smart business.

Remember thats a TV show and for rating purposes, its good to support kids even if the ideas are not as good. Its not as much smart business as it is smart rating. Even if they lose money, they'll end up making it back from the good press/good will. That makes it no risk/high reward so its smart business but not really related to hockey business.

I do agree that if you sell hope, you'll still be better off than we are right now... seemingly having no direction. We are trying to retool when realistically we should be rebuilding (tho like i said, the business part is the reason we probably aren't doing a full rebuild yet).

There is no guarantee of anything. I mean we are far far from a sure shot at the playoffs this year. I would guess we are closer to last then the playoffs.

There isn't a guarantee of anything, you're right but the moves... like you said, will get us a better chance of the playoffs next year. That means a more competitive team and likely better revenue next year. Where as with a full rebuild, you can forecast lesser revenue now with a chance of better revenue later on but you can't forecast it nor how much later it will be before that revenue comes in. There's even the question of rather or not you still own the business when that revenue comes. Making the books better now would actually mean you can get more for the company now if you decide to sale (since now is tangible while future isn't as much... at least not if you're trying to sell). Not saying we'll be suddenly getting new owners but that gives Aquilini more flexibility if he suddenly needs money.

I hate when people use the oilers to try and point to anything other than bad management, and the islanders look fine, they are getting better and better. Again under bad management and ownership before. The Jets are an interesting case, I think they had bad management in Atl, so there is that. Really you look at most bottom teams that stay down at the bottom, and it is bad management. It's teams not committing or being run so bad that it takes a long time to accumulate good assets.

And what exactly do we have? I think majority of fans think Benning and co = bad management. We might not have the worst management group in the league but not far off and its debatable that we don't have the worst. Looking at Bennings moves, its hard to have any faith.

Basically pointing out we are more or less where the Oilers/Leafs were a few years ago when they had bad management (i think their groups are better now tho Oilers Hall trade is one of the reasons Boston has a new GM...).

Actually MG said he wanted to rebuild. I do think he would have gone more a Chi route, of selling valuable players for more youth (see Saad, or Buff, Ladd, Sharp).

Chicago and Pits had terrible ownership that lead to both instances you speak of. I mean the Chicago one is super well known that they wouldn't air hockey games on TV, and stuff. Pits was so poorly run that's how Mario ended up owning the team.

He wanted to build like the Wings, that was stated multiple times. He tried to get a competitive advantage with sleep research, etc while improving scouting and over developing players in the minors. He has been on the record multiple times saying that. Of course things started changing after we lost to the Bruins and aquilini probably demanding we started using that model (not something that fits MG's strength). The result afterwards more or less spoke for themselves and MG was the wrong person to try and turn our team into the Bruins (so we hire the Bruins AGM to turn us into the Bruins...).

There is no question you need luck to be a championship team, but to be a good hockey team is not nearly as hard as many teams turn it out to be. It is good management, something we clearly don't have anymore. Having said that, the clear best way to build is to do it correctly unlike what we are doing now.

Agree the best way to build is actually a full rebuild where we go through a few years of losing while gaining assets then use those assets to build up. Problem is that model means a few years of much lower revenue and of course most owners are more shortsighted than that.

As far as being a good hockey team goes... if you're willing to spend to the cap, you'll have a competitive advantage over 1/2 the league so if you have decent management, you could realistically make the playoffs more often than not. Once you're in... honestly everyteam has a chance assuming you get hot at the right time. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future... teams just try to stack the odds in their favor by having the best possible team but as Detroit has proven, as long as you make the playoffs and get hot at the right time you can win even if you weren't the favorite going in. LA did it the first time they won too (which is why no one underestimated them regardless of their regular season). They key really is just getting into the playoffs and having players get hot at the right time (luck).

Look at teams with young solid cores and tell me how the Jerse sales are doing.

Jersey sale depends on the name of the players not really the young core. I.e. McDavid is 3rd among forwards right now despite the Oilers being bad but McDavid is basically a 1 in 10 year or so talent. The rest of the list are basically from Hawks/Kings/Bruins/Rangers + sid/Ovechkin (same reason as McDavid) as you'll expect.

It can, have an impact, but you can generally look at numbers, and games and have an idea if they are going to fit. This is also looking at trajectory, ie is a player still improving vs is he stagnant. Sometimes players do just need a change, but they generally have proven something first.

Sometime you go with a unique or elite skill and hope the rest improves the way it could. For example, thats what we hoped Raymond would do (everything catches up with his speed). Sbisa had speed and physical traits thats ideal in a tpo 4 dmen... it was the mental side that you hope your coach could fix (sometime it happens, most of the time it failed). If he lived up to his potential, then you got a huge steal... if he doesn't then its a lost. The problem is Benning compounded his lost by signing the extension when it was clear WD wasn't going to get anything more out of Sbisa.

One recent 'nuck example of that was AV getting much more out of maxim lapierre that his previous teams got. Teams will always go after players like this hoping they are right. Benning just tries it way more often than other GMs.

There is way too many moves that I have not liked for me to like going after Barrie. He is a very good player but would be a bad fit mainly with where this team is, not with what we need. I too would be scared with what we give up.

Exactly, its hard to have faith in Benning's moves now given how most of his other moves turned out and how he more or less made our situation much worst since he has taken over. Every big move he makes seems to be a negative...

True, but left side D are generally easier to come by, or so I am told.

Although thats what everyone says, the problem is we have no depth in our system so any addition we make has to be outside of the organization... and that's generally expensive regardless. Not like there are many good LHD UFA right now nor like we'll have cap to sign one next off season. That leaves yet another trade and i think we both know how much faith everyone has with Benning + making a trade...

I guess we couyld just throw Olli Juolevi into the NHL and put him 2nd on our LHD depth chart... Actually given Bennings history, that might be a possibility despite Juolevi likely being not physically ready yet.

Just a short summary of our D depth

LHD
Edler (need protection)
Hutton (doesn't need protection)
Sbisa (need protection)
Tryamkin (doesn't need protection but has KHL out)
Pedan (waiver/need protection aka might not be hear if LV decides to draft him or waived)

Olli Juolevi (Jr. if he doesn't make the team so non-depth after season starts)
Brisebois (Jr.)

Sautner (Utica)
Cederholm (Utica)
Ballin (Utica)
McEneny (Utica/Alaska)

RHD
Tanev (need protection)
Gudbranson (need protection)
Larsen (need protection)
Biega (need protection)

Stecher (Utica)
Subban (Utica)

Out of the Utica D, the 2 most "ready" likely will be RHD. It might even be 3 since it makes the most sense to waiver Biega as the #9 D due to Pedan being younger and we can't keep 9 D on the team (or at least it wouldn't be smart to carry 9D and no extra forward).

Also right now our 4 D is perfect in that 2 are LHD and 2 are RHD. After that is really anyone's guess what the depth chart looks like but it'll likely include the same list in the NHL mix and Utica mix with Juolevi being a long shot but given the roster situation he shouldn't even be given 9 games... (since odds are we lose someone to give him those games... of course injuries could change this).

the worst part is, I don't know how much we are looking at that. I know the quote was old before the rules came out, but that quote about not looking at anything until we know the rules is scary when we also look at the other f-ups this team has had with the CBA.

What rules? I thought the expansion draft rules were released weeks ago... Is there other CBA related changes this off season?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Trading for Barrie wouldn't justify the cost

Trading for Barrie wouldn't justify the cost:

Is Tyson Barrie a better overall defenseman than Chris Tanev. Yes. However - by how much? While everyone outside the 604 area code would lead you to believe that Barrie is much better than Tanev, we all know the truth........the truth being, that Tanev is one of the best kept secrets in the NHL. For better or for worse, Tanev's steady and non-flashy game doesn't get him the respect that he deserves.

What does all this mean?

Tyson Barrie is a better defenseman than Chris Tanev, but not by much. However - since the rest of the NHL world disagrees with this, Colorado's asking price would be far too much. The Canucks would have to give up one too many picks and prospects and given where the team is at this stage, this might not be a wise move.

The other thing to consider is this: Tanev's steady defensive game prevents Edler from going full Corky Thatcher from Life Goes On. In other words, if you move Tanev for Barrie, you might actually be hurting Edler's value to the team as well.

Connor McHindu's opinion - Keep Tanev, forget about Barrie. If you're looking to 'buy low' on anyone right now, kick the tires on Evander Kane. While Kane's character isn't very high (i.e. detrimental to young impressionable players and prospects), there's a good chance that Kane is wise enough to realize that this could be his last kick at the can........and that anymore screw-ups and he's done.

 

[tantalum]

I'm not sure a guy who got an worlds invite can truly be called a secret anymore. Sure it's not the olympics or anything but it tells you the value outside vancouver hockey people are putting on him.

 

[JanBulisPiggyBack]

Trading for Barrie wouldn't justify the cost:

Is Tyson Barrie a better overall defenseman than Chris Tanev. Yes. However - by how much? While everyone outside the 604 area code would lead you to believe that Barrie is much better than Tanev, we all know the truth........the truth being, that Tanev is one of the best kept secrets in the NHL. For better or for worse, Tanev's steady and non-flashy game doesn't get him the respect that he deserves.

What does all this mean?

Tyson Barrie is a better defenseman than Chris Tanev, but not by much. However - since the rest of the NHL world disagrees with this, Colorado's asking price would be far too much. The Canucks would have to give up one too many picks and prospects and given where the team is at this stage, this might not be a wise move.

The other thing to consider is this: Tanev's steady defensive game prevents Edler from going full Corky Thatcher from Life Goes On. In other words, if you move Tanev for Barrie, you might actually be hurting Edler's value to the team as well.

Connor McHindu's opinion - Keep Tanev, forget about Barrie. If you're looking to 'buy low' on anyone right now, kick the tires on Evander Kane. While Kane's character isn't very high (i.e. detrimental to young impressionable players and prospects), there's a good chance that Kane is wise enough to realize that this could be his last kick at the can........and that anymore screw-ups and he's done.

What's Kane's price?

Kassian got us somebody that I've actually forgotten his name he was so underwhelming, and it cost us our 5th.

Is Kane going to take away from the team or can we offload burrows and throw in a meaningless pick, ( 4th ) or are we stupid enough to gamble something like a 2nd or a middling prospect like brisebois

 

[Huggy]

That's just wrong. It completely ignores the player values the day the trade was made. It also assigns 0 value to potential.

Based on your comments here if we traded Alex Burrows for Austin Matthews we would be losing the trade. Toronto would be the clear winners until Matthews proves he's an NHL player.

u think matthews is equal to mccann for comparrison sake.

try something like nylander for barrie

good god no wonder u never lose an argument.

 

[CanaFan]

u think matthews is equal to mccann for comparrison sake.

try something like nylander for barrie

good god no wonder u never lose an argument.

McCann doesn't need to be "worth" Matthews for his point to hold. If you only judge a trade on what you get today and not include the future value of players then you will make some very bad trades.

Ignore Matthews as he'll play next season. Let's use Juolevi instead, as he is 99% returning to London. Would you trade him for a #4 defenseman who can help us *immediately*? Is that a good reason to make the trade?

 

[Huggy]

McCann doesn't need to be "worth" Matthews for his point to hold. If you only judge a trade on what you get today and not include the future value of players then you will make some very bad trades.

Ignore Matthews as he'll play next season. Let's use Juolevi instead, as he is 99% returning to London. Would you trade him for a #4 defenseman who can help us *immediately*? Is that a good reason to make the trade?

i dont buy hes 99% returning to london. he made ppl look peewee at prospects camp.

as for this team and what we need. i believe ryan johansen is signing here and mccann for gudbranson was a dirty trade to swallow because of mccanns potential in the top 6. he was expendable.

donno why u mention olli. hes a player u cant trade for. mccann and gudbranson are.

just becuase mccann is younger doesnt mean a rebuilding team should keep all the youth in a terrivle defense.

i do not want to be edmonton. lets be LA

 

[xtra]

u think matthews is equal to mccann for comparrison sake.

try something like nylander for barrie

good god no wonder u never lose an argument.

way to cherry pick his post.

his point was 'It completely ignores the player values the day the trade was made. It also assigns 0 value to potential"

Matthews and McCann both have potential hence you assign a value for that

 

[Huggy]

way to cherry pick his post.

his point was 'It completely ignores the player values the day the trade was made. It also assigns 0 value to potential"

Matthews and McCann both have potential hence you assign a value for that

they arnt even close.

guarenteed nhler and maybe nhler arnt both having "potential"

also burrows compared to gudbranson smh

 

[Shareefruck]

Maybe NHLer doesn't qualify for "potential"? What do you think potential means?

Still ignoring his central point.

 

[Jyrki21]

It is a law of HFBoards that a good number of people don't understand analogies, juxtapositions or a fortiori statements. I'm actually surprised that the entire rest of this thread wasn't "Oh, so you're saying X and Y are the same????"

 

[CanaFan]

i dont buy hes 99% returning to london. he made ppl look peewee at prospects camp.

as for this team and what we need. i believe ryan johansen is signing here and mccann for gudbranson was a dirty trade to swallow because of mccanns potential in the top 6. he was expendable.

donno why u mention olli. hes a player u cant trade for. mccann and gudbranson are.

just becuase mccann is younger doesnt mean a rebuilding team should keep all the youth in a terrivle defense.

i do not want to be edmonton. lets be LA

lol

bolded is ridiculous considering almost no one at PROSPECTS camp will be in the NHL next year.

As for why I mentioned Juolevi in my post, I'll let you figure it out. I'll even give a clue. It's because he won't help us *immediately* and the earlier poster said that we won the Gud-McCann deal simply because Gud helps us next year and McCann doesn't. I'll let you connect the dots the rest of the way.

Oh and we aren't going to be either Edmonton or LA next year. Maybe New Jersey if we're lucky I guess.

 

[DS7]

lol


Oh and we aren't going to be either Edmonton or LA next year. Maybe New Jersey if we're lucky I guess.

2012 Flames more like it, Jersey has elite goaltending at least

 

[CanaFan]

2012 Flames more like it, Jersey has elite goaltending at least

Plus an elite young forward in Hall. I was just trying to find a team with an equally odd mix of older journeymen players and a few decent but not-yet-ready-for-prime time kids.

 

[y2kcanucks]

they arnt even close.

guarenteed nhler and maybe nhler arnt both having "potential"

also burrows compared to gudbranson smh

You clearly don't understand the point (or don't want to understand the point).

If all that matters is what a player has done today (as stated by the guy I quoted) then Austin Matthews is essentially worthless. Dylan Strome and Mitch Marner are worthless too. We should be able to get both of them for Burrows and Dorsett, but I'm not sure if we should because they haven't done anything while those other two have played in the NHL. At least according to the guy I quoted.

 

[Shareefruck]

It is a law of HFBoards that a good number of people don't understand analogies, juxtapositions or a fortiori statements. I'm actually surprised that the entire rest of this thread wasn't "Oh, so you're saying X and Y are the same????"

Absolutely. We need to sticky a thread that explains how analogies work, and how the subjects of analogies aren't necessarily supposed to be similar quantities.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

That's just wrong. It completely ignores the player values the day the trade was made. It also assigns 0 value to potential.

Based on your comments here if we traded Alex Burrows for Austin Matthews we would be losing the trade. Toronto would be the clear winners until Matthews proves he's an NHL player.

I think what he is saying is Gudbranson is the best player in the trade right now and we win that trade until McCann or draft pick become better than Gudbranson.
Your example does not work as Matthews is already a better player than Burrows so Toronto would lose that trade day one.