Roster and Fantasy GM Thread: Pre-Draft Silly Season

[Pip]

I would be interested in Domi depending on the price. He's a player who has shown good NHL production and is struggling on an absolutely brutal team.

 

[Black Noise]

Yeah but the west.

Its funny cause those people can't use this argument anymore. Look at the Top 8 teams in the West right now. Vegas, Winnipeg, Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, Colorado, Calgary, San Jose. Which of those teams are "tough"? Maybe San Jose?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Its funny cause those people can't use this argument anymore. Look at the Top 8 teams in the West right now. Vegas, Winnipeg, Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, Colorado, Calgary, San Jose. Which of those teams are "tough"? Maybe San Jose?

All of those teams are tough. Just because they don’t have guys that aren’t pure knuckle staggers (although I haven’t checked), a lot of players on those teams are big and physical and won’t be pushed around.

If you think guys like Hutton, Baertschi, Stecher, Vanek, Granlund, Hank, Dan, Sutter, Goldobin, and Tanev, are comparable to guys like Myers, Buff, Trouba, Thornton, Burns, MacKinnon, Benn, Subban, etc, in terms of physical stature and strength, then you are sorely mistaken.

Look at the size and physicality of those rosters of the teams that you mentioned, and then look at Vancouver’s.

You need size and toughness on your team even if your guys don’t fight.

 

[Hansen]

Was Botch being facetious with that Tanev for Liljegren + 1st rumour tweet, it seemed like it but then he continued on about hearing about it at the beginning of the month.

To be frank I'd pull the trigger. I like Timme

 

[Nuckles]

Was Botch being facetious with that Tanev for Liljegren + 1st rumour tweet, it seemed like it but then he continued on about hearing about it at the beginning of the month.

To be frank I'd pull the trigger. I like Timme

I'm 95% sure he's making a joke.

 

[donut]

I'm 95% sure he's making a joke.

So what you’re saying here is that there’s a 5% chance?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Was Botch being facetious with that Tanev for Liljegren + 1st rumour tweet, it seemed like it but then he continued on about hearing about it at the beginning of the month.

To be frank I'd pull the trigger. I like Timme

Would Toronto actually trade us Liljegren for Tanev?

I’d be fine with making a deal like that, but then we’d better replace Tanev with a guy that temporarily play on the top pairing for us while Liljegren further develops.

Can make Mike Green adequately fill in on a top pairing? I’m not so sure.

If Liljegren isn’t ripe enough to play on the top pairing with Tanev (and let’s face it, he’d pretty much be our top pairing guy on the right side), then you aren’t doing justice to Liljegren by having him get constantly owned by top forwards on other teams.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Henrik OR Daniel at 50% retention

Often times when we talk about trading “the twins,” it’s just that.........there’s an underlying assumption of if we trade “the twins,” they have to be packaged together.

Personally, I don’t think this has to be the case......especially in the case of Henrik. Yes, Henrik is not what he was in 2009 or 2010, but Hank has proven himself to be a tremendous player even without Daniel.

Any team that could increase its depth down the middle in a significant way, will jump at the opportunity.

So here’s my suggestion:

1) We trade Henrik OR Daniel at 50% retention (preferably Hank as he would fetch more)

2) All of Henrik, Vancouver, and the other team operate under the assumption that Hank will re-sign with Vancouver in the Sunmer for one year (the twin that is NOT traded, is given a one year extension to demonstrate to the traded twin that Vancouver is serious about having both twins back for one more year at a reasonable cap hit).

3) this gives Henrik one last shot to win a cup while also allowing Henrik to “give back” to Vancouver (something that he’s always willing to do) in the form of what would likely be a 1st round pick and a good prospect.

My extension to this idea is this: If we allow San Jose to recoup some value back in giving us Hansen back (i.e. a 3rd or 4th round pick), then I suggest we move BOTH Hank and Dan in separate deals (re-acquiring Hansen will allow us to retain salary on both Hank and Dan I believe).

Hank and Dan traded as part of a package is damn near impossible. In separate deals however, or just moving ONE of the twins at 50% retention, this deal is extremely feasible. Twin(s) come back to Vancouver in the off-season.

 

[Kryten]

Pretty sure your second point is illegal in the CBA there Bovinder

 

[Horse McHindu]

Pretty sure your second point is illegal in the CBA there Bovinder

Which part? Trading a player to another team and then having said player return to his original team in the summer?

Didn’t Antoine Vermette do that recently?

UFA’s can sign wherever they want can’t they?

-Canucks trade Hank for a 1st and good prospect
-Canucks re-sign Daniel to a one year deal at a reasonably low cap hit to demonstrate to both Daniel and Henrik that the Canucks are still committed to them, and wish to honor their request of retiring as Canucks.
-In the Summer, Hank comes back to Vancouver and signs the same deal that Daniel did.

OR

-the Canucks trade back for Hansen (so that the Canucks can trade both twins at 50% retention).
-BOTH Hank and Dan are traded to separate teams (Dan gets traded for a 1st OR a good prospect, while Hank lands us both of these)
-BOTH Hank and Dan resign with us in the Summer for one year

 

[Horse McHindu]

Kesler, Garrison, Sutter, Forsling, Pedan, Vey, Gudbranson, Dorsett and Etem.

A deal is only considered “bad” when one’s own team suffers while the other team benefits immensely.

I won’t argue with you on Forsling and Kesler. Benning clearly lost those deals although in Kesler’s case, Kesler pretty much held a gun to Benning’s head. Chicago or Anaheim.....nowhere else. The flip side of not trading Kesler right away, was going into the season with another major locker room distraction. Given Luongo/Schneider saga over the previous two seasons, Linden and Benning clearly felt that having a “fresh” atmosphere for the players was crucial.

The presence of Sutter took pressure off of Horvat and gave us good depth down the middle. Sutter has had injury problems, but take a look at our record when Sutter has been in the line-up and when he’s been out of it. Sutter is one of the best shut down centers in the league.

Garrison was a slug and didn’t fit in the new NHL. The Canucks cleared cap space and received a pick. Garrison is no longer playing in the NHL. #WinForBenning

As far Pedan, Vey, Gudbranson, and Etem go, what the heck are you talking about? How did the Canucks “lose” those deals when those other teams clearly didn’t win with those deals? All of those deals are/were zero sum gains, with neither team receiving much benefit (at least a six of this writing).

Tell me - how have those other picks and/or prospects panned out for what we have up for Pedan, Vey, Guds, and Etem. I’m sure that 7th round pick we have up for Etem is going to be the next Chris Chelios, lol.

Outside of Forsling, the Kesler deal (which Benning has limited options), and the Eriksson signing (which is a closeted 4 year deal instead of a 6 year deal), Benning has either broke even or won on every single deal.

Even if we’re looking at his drafting record, even if he doesn’t appear to be winning with his selections of Virtanen and Juolevi, he flat out annihilated his opponents with his selections of Boeser, Pettersson, Demko, Tryamkin, etc.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

A deal is only considered “bad” when one’s own team suffers while the other team benefits immensely.

what???????????????????????????????

 

[Horse McHindu]

what???????????????????????????????

Fair enough.

A trade can also be considered 'bad' if two teams make a trade and BOTH teams suffer big time. It's extremely rare, but it can happen I guess. I can't think of an example where this has happened to Vancouver under Benning's tenure however.

#GoWhatYourself

 

[Snow Horvat]

Which part? Trading a player to another team and then having said player return to his original team in the summer?

Didn’t Antoine Vermette do that recently?

UFA’s can sign wherever they want can’t they?

I think the issue is that you're proposing a pre-arranged agreement for the following year. kant do dat

 

[Horse McHindu]

I think the issue is that you're proposing a pre-arranged agreement for the following year. kant do dat

No pre-arranged agreement (at least a formal one anyways).

However - if the Canucks trade Henrik and then extend Daniel to a one year deal a week later, I think it would be pretty obvious that both Hank and the Canucks would expect Hank to come back to Vancouver in the Summer.

Sorry - I worded that entire thing a little weirdly.

 

[Black Noise]

How bout don’t trade the Sedins

 

[Horse McHindu]

How bout don’t trade the Sedins

Yeah you're right man.

I mean - who needs things like "draft picks" and "prospects" right?

It's not like the twins would want to come back to Vancouver in a few months and finish out there careers here or anything.

 

[Black Noise]

Yeah you're right man.

I mean - who needs things like "draft picks" and "prospects" right?

It's not like the twins would want to come back to Vancouver in a few months and finish out there careers here or anything.

I think its been pretty clear that the Sedins don't want to move, theres no point of bringing it up.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I think its been pretty clear that the Sedins don't want to move, theres no point of bringing it up.

A large part of this reason is because there's always this operating assumption that the twins *have to* be traded together.

In prior years, trading the twins would have meant being away from Vancouver for 1+ years (which is something the twins' wouldn't have wanted).

I don't know........

Hank and/or Dan getting one last shot at a cup? (something they'd want).

Hank and/or Dan helping out the Canucks in the best way possible by being traded for a 1st and a good prospect?

Hank and/or Dan coming back to Vancouver in a few short months to finish out their careers?

Given that they'd only be away from Vancouver for a few months and are 'team guys', I'm pretty sure that they can be talked into it.

From a salary perpsective however - one or both (if we can get Hansen back) would have to play on separate teams.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Fair enough.

A trade can also be considered 'bad' if two teams make a trade and BOTH teams suffer big time. It's extremely rare, but it can happen I guess. I can't think of an example where this has happened to Vancouver under Benning's tenure however.

#GoWhatYourself

I wouldn't call it "suffering big time" but the Cody/Kassian deal turned our pretty shitty for both teams. Not exactly on Bennings tenure though... although he does have his finger prints all over Kassian leaving here.

 

[timw33]

I think its been pretty clear that the Sedins don't want to move, theres no point of bringing it up.

When two lifetime Canucks have NMCs (that they 100% deserve), it's totally their call and they don't owe us anything.

The other hitch in the plan is that we're using up one of our retention spots on Hansen and can't retain on both, essentially scuttling any deal possible for both of them.

 

[BROCK HUGHES]

How bout don’t trade the Sedins

How about we dont sign them.Why would we want to bring them back to the same gong show next season.Is it really going to make any difference?If its for there farewell tour for 1 year im fine with that.But for another 3 or more,forget it,id rather play the kids.

 

[mathonwy]

When two lifetime Canucks have NMCs (that they 100% deserve), it's totally their call and they don't owe us anything.

The other hitch in the plan is that we're using up one of our retention spots on Hansen and can't retain on both, essentially scuttling any deal possible for both of them.

Dat 500k on honey badger's 2.5m salary.

Trader Jim at his best.

 

[Horse McHindu]

The other hitch in the plan is that we're using up one of our retention spots on Hansen and can't retain on both, essentially scuttling any deal possible for both of them.

Hence - my suggestion that we trade ONE of them at 50% retention (preferably Henrik) so that it nets us a 1st rounder AND a damned good prospect. If we trade for Hansen to come back to us, it makes BOTH Hank and Dan available in terms of us retaining salary. We then trade BOTH guys in SEPARATE deals so that the accommodating teams can absorb their salary, while also giving the Canucks a chance to avoid the Law of diminishing returns (i.e. Canucks could likely get more out of a trade for Hank and Dan in SEPARATE deals).

 

[Black Noise]

Hence - my suggestion that we trade ONE of them at 50% retention (preferably Henrik) so that it nets us a 1st rounder AND a damned good prospect. If we trade for Hansen to come back to us, it makes BOTH Hank and Dan available in terms of us retaining salary. We then trade BOTH guys in SEPARATE deals so that the accommodating teams can absorb their salary, while also giving the Canucks a chance to avoid the Law of diminishing returns (i.e. Canucks could likely get more out of a trade for Hank and Dan in SEPARATE deals).

Theres no way they're going to be ok with being traded to different teams. They both have NMC. They want to play together. Furthermore, they want to play here. Its not even worth discussing.

The fact that you even think theres a chance they would waive their NMC to be traded to separate teams is absolutely ludicrous.