Roster and Fantasy GM Thread: Pre-Draft Silly Season

[Melvin]

Good god man. I don't mean to be a dick. But this is just another asinine suggestion. The Canucks need to get rid of these types of players, not acquire them. ****.

Franson is quite easily better than YDD and a perfect example of why you take these guys off waivers rather than trading picks for them.

 

[member 290103]

Franson is quite easily better than YDD and a perfect example of why you take these guys off waivers rather than trading picks for them.

They should pick Franson up off waivers to prevent Toronto from taking him. That would take away a place for them to get rid of Gudbranson.

Franson is fine - he's on a what? $1M 1 year deal? What's Phaneuf? $7M per? No thanks.

 

[timw33]

I mean if they're thinking of trading a D-man and want some warm body plug the gap for the rest of the season for cheap, Franson would be perfect.

 

[me2]

I mean if they're thinking of trading a D-man and want some warm body plug the gap for the rest of the season for cheap, Franson would be perfect.

That would work, if we trade for picks/non-NHL prospects and need a filler. A better option might be to eat a bad contract back and increase the value we get back from trading a dman.

 

[m9]

I don't know how to fix the Canucks blueline, but I'm sure the answer doesn't involve Cody Franson. Acquiring a fringe veteran defenseman doesn't seem necessary.

 

[Kryten]

I don't know how to fix the Canucks blueline, but I'm sure the answer doesn't involve Cody Franson. Acquiring a fringe veteran defenseman doesn't seem necessary.

Free asset. He plays well and he might be tradable at the TDL. He shelters/mentors young D and they develop better, could even send Stecher to Utica to smarten up. He flops and gets put on waivers/not re signed-no loss

 

[me2]

I don't know how to fix the Canucks blueline, but I'm sure the answer doesn't involve Cody Franson. Acquiring a fringe veteran defenseman doesn't seem necessary.

It would be to plug a hole when Gudbranson is traded. Last year of his contract, warm body for a few months.

 

[m9]

I would rather give that spot to someone who may have a future with the team, like Holm.

 

[passive voice]

I get the arguments for WHY we shouldn't take on Carey Price.

Since 2003, and more definitively, the cap era, cup winning teams no longer pay a premium for elite goalies.

Teams try and ice a dominant team in front of them, and get a "very good" goalie at a good cap hit that is capable of heating up when it matters most. It's no coincidence that guys like Lundquist, Price, etc, have not won cups. Trust me........I GET THAT.

But what if.......

1) Given how brutal the Carey Price contract appears to be, the Canucks could 'bite the bullet' and take on Price's contract by getting rid of some brutal contracts of their own (i.e. Eriksson, Sutter, etc.......likely have to throw in a high end pick.....preferrably 2019).

So basically - the Canucks take on a terrible contract, but atleast said terrible contract is a pretty damned good player (unlike Eriksson).

Some people may say that Price is trending downwards and that his body is breaking down, but lets face it: ALL goalies have 'off years'. Players are the same way. How many times have we seen this movie before? Back in 2012, people kept talking about how Ovechkin was washed up and trending downwards. Not too long ago, Pekka Rinne was thought to be considered going the way of the Dodo bird. What happened?

Price is having an off-year, but the guy is an alpha.........and he's been the best goalie for many years. It's far more likely that he bounces back and plays like himself. So what if he becomes a back-up calibre goalie a la Luongo in his final year? Ryan Miller was pretty damned good for us last year. That one guy named Tim Thomas played pretty well in 2011 during his late 30's. I say Carey Price does the same.

Back in 2006, the Canucks traded for Luongo which helped jumpstart an organisation that was headed towards a nosedive. Maybe the Canucks acquiring Price would have a similar effect.

To Montreal: Eriksson, Sutter, other crap contracts, 2019 1st round pick
To Vancouver: Carey Price.

Thing 1: Montreal wouldn't do that.
Thing 2: Those crap contracts, as bad as they are, are coterminous roughly with the Trump Presidency. Carey's locked up until the sun explodes. It's a flexibility thing.
Thing 3: Goalies are dark magic and I'd be scared of that contract even if Price didn't have a mysterious injury and a .911 this year.

 

[Nuckles]

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Benning needs to get in on Duclair. Ideally you could flip Gudbranson and the assets used could go towards acquiring Duclair.

Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[clunk]

We had nothing to lose claiming him. Not surprised our incompetent front office passed. Could have got a 2nd or 3rd from a dumb team for Gudbranson and picked up Franson.

 

[Black Noise]

This + Vegas' success = GMs are all idiots

 

[Wo Yorfat]

We had nothing to lose claiming him. Not surprised our incompetent front office passed. Could have got a 2nd or 3rd from a dumb team for Gudbranson and picked up Franson.

Choosing not to claim Franson doesn't make it any less likely that we move Gudbranson.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I'll also go on record wondering as to why Management passed up on Franson?

I wonder if a bigger deal is in the works to acquire a more long term solution to our RHD?

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Been perusing the Hawks board... apparently he's slower than molasses now.

 

[sting101]

Trying to start some converstaion regarding strategy and targets for now to the draft.

I would like to see a deal with St Louis for RD Jordan Schmaltz. Probably could be had for a 2nd but the key is either trading them the Gudbranson 2nd or the Vanek 2nd (if we can pull one for Vanek.) St.Louis would move him because he's locked behind Parayko and Pietrangelo and him and his agent will be pushing the team soon for advancement.

Another i would be hugely interested in is Ryan Pulock NYI. Probably would have to pay heavily for Pulock but a Tanev deal would be something i would entertain and they may take the bait with them being a contender potentially this year and lots of expiring contracts. Maybe Tanev for Pulock and value equalization.(pick/s?? Nelson??) Thoughts on Pulock?

Gudbranson i would probably try to package with any of Goldobin Granlund or Sutter depending on who is looking for what. I would much rather a quantity for quality hockey trade than a late 2nd for Gudbranson at this point. Codi Ceci is another player i would go after

Our forward group is starting to take shape especially if we can pull 2 good top6 players out of Pettersson Lind Gaudette Dahlen. The goaltending with Demko and DiPietro is also aligned nicely for internal advancement.

the defense neds to be the focus. We absolutely need 3 legit studs. If Juolevi can be 1 that's a start but this season has seen Hutton and Stecher take steps back which makes it highly unlikely either will be. I hold out some hope for Hutton if he can get back to Novembers play and then build off that. Trading him would be stupid right now IMO.

Summary:

Vanek for a 2nd which we send to STL for Jordan Schmaltz. Maybe a small add or future considerations based on performance.

Goldobin Gudbranson(pending contract extension) for Codi Ceci maybe a top 120 pick add.

At the draft you can now start the Tanev and Edler shopping for core pieces or high picks. The D depth would be

Edler Tanev/Pulock?
Hutton Ceci
Del Zotto Stecher
Juolevi Schmaltz......Utica to start
Pouliot Biega
2018 1st? Tryamkin?

Wouldn't mind finding some size and stiffness up front that can chip in and push defenders around for our btm 2 lines also.

Granlund for Girgensons maybe?

 

[Nuckles]

I would like to see a deal with St Louis for RD Jordan Schmaltz. Probably could be had for a 2nd but the key is either trading them the Gudbranson 2nd or the Vanek 2nd (if we can pull one for Vanek.) St.Louis would move him because he's locked behind Parayko and Pietrangelo and him and his agent will be pushing the team soon for advancement.

Another i would be hugely interested in is Ryan Pulock NYI. Probably would have to pay heavily for Pulock but a Tanev deal would be something i would entertain and they may take the bait with them being a contender potentially this year and lots of expiring contracts. Maybe Tanev for Pulock and value equalization.(pick/s?? Nelson??) Thoughts on Pulock?

Yikes. You're greatly overvaluing those two defensemen. Jordan Schmaltz is 24 years old and still can't crack the NHL lineup, and you want to give up a 2nd for him? As for Pulock, it's definitely not worth moving Tanev for him. He's 23, playing under 17 minutes a game, and isn't exactly playing great (especially in his own end).

 

[sting101]

Yikes. You're greatly overvaluing those two defensemen. Jordan Schmaltz is 24 years old and still can't crack the NHL lineup, and you want to give up a 2nd for him? As for Pulock, it's definitely not worth moving Tanev for him. He's 23, playing under 17 minutes a game, and isn't exactly playing great (especially in his own end).

That's cool i'm just trying to think of some progressions for our RD.

The clock is ticking with Tanev and Stecher looks to be a 3rd pairing guy who can step up when playing well. Pulock is starting to impress on the Island and he has an absolute cannon of a shot and PP qualities.

Schmaltz is a victim of circumstance more than regression IMO. But it probably is bad asset management to give up a 2nd for players not looking like top4 defenceman. I think i was looking at is as Vanek for Schmaltz.

 

[Addison Rae]

Zero interest in Schmaltz, seems like your typical Benning "age gap" junk, wouldn't trade more than a 5th for him. Cody Ceci is terrible, again don't think I'd trade anything for him.

Ryan Pulock is a decent target, but trading a top pairing dman on an excellent contract for him is absurd.

 

[ginner classic]

Zero interest in Schmaltz, seems like your typical Benning "age gap" junk, wouldn't trade more than a 5th for him. Cody Ceci is terrible, again don't think I'd trade anything for him.

Ryan Pulock is a decent target, but trading a top pairing dman on an excellent contract for him is absurd.

Pulock has not really developed well. He's a younger Franson without the Corsi. Terrible return for Tanev.

 

[Braeden]

Ok, whoever thinks Franson is a good dman has no idea what they're talking about. He was the most sheltered player in the NHL. He skates like he's always in quicksand. There's a reason he was sent to the minors. He's just not able to keep up to the speed of the game.

 

[vancityluongo]

Seabrook for Eriksson. Who says no?

 

[timw33]

Seabrook for Eriksson. Who says no?

No. You don't trade away a deal with 4 more years left on it for a deal with 6 years left (more total money, higher cap, and longer NMC).

 

[Duckhugs]

Seabrook for Eriksson. Who says no?

as a Jersey wearer, i say yes for a Canucks Seabrook, as for contracts i say no