2018 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread

[Askel]

He cant skate.
Gaudette still doesn't have NHL caliber skating.

Just best we bring up the NHL player that can skate.

Do you think Gaudette has been skating bad during this call-up? Has he won you over or do you still think Gagner is a better than option?

To me he has looked like he still needs to learn the tempo of the NHL, and when he does that he will be a regular IMO.

 

[DL44]

Do you think Gaudette has been skating bad during this call-up? Has he won you over or do you still think Gagner is a better than option?

To me he has looked like he still needs to learn the tempo of the NHL, and when he does that he will be a regular IMO.

He's looked better than in preseason in the couple of shift highlights I've seen. Namely that first rush in his first game.
Haven't watched much of the last two games to judge on a shift-to-shift level to see how his first step has been. Skipped thru the PVR for the last couple of games.

Hence my lack of participation in these boards the last week.. I dont like yapping about things if I haven't watched first hand.

 

[Cogburn]

So some Blues fans want to trade Bouwmeester, and as a cap dump. We have the space, and I think he would be a better minute munching D then Hutton, Pouliot or Del Zotto.

 

[member 290103]

So some Blues fans want to trade Bouwmeester, and as a cap dump. We have the space, and I think he would be a better minute munching D then Hutton, Pouliot or Del Zotto.

That's a low bar, but yes, I agree.

 

[Cogburn]

That's a low bar, but yes, I agree.

And "as a cap dump" implies free, or close to it. Del Zotto?

 

[Melvin]

And "as a cap dump" implies free, or close to it. Del Zotto?

Unless they are going to give us a prospect to take him I don't see why we would bother.

 

[member 290103]

Unless they are going to give us a prospect to take him I don't see why we would bother.

We might bother as he is a upgrade on the shit pile d corp assembled here and bringing him in would be low risk. Del Zotto straight up sounds appropriate.

 

[Melvin]

We might bother as he is a upgrade on the **** pile d corp assembled here and bringing him in would be low risk. Del Zotto straight up sounds appropriate.

Who cares? So we go from 70 points to 71 points this season? How does it help us in the long term?

 

[Cogburn]

Who cares? So we go from 70 points to 71 points this season? How does it help us in the long term?

This season is still alive. If it costs is nothing to upgrade, you're stupid not to. Worst case scenario we have a better chip to sell off at the deadline, or earlier negotiating rights to a better D.

 

[racerjoe]

This season is still alive. If it costs is nothing to upgrade, you're stupid not to. Worst case scenario we have a better chip to sell off at the deadline, or earlier negotiating rights to a better D.

doing better this season hurts us long term. We are still a few guys away from anything. as But Gillis er Melvin said where is the help in the future?

It then also blocks the progress of any young dman like Joulevi.

 

[Melvin]

This season is still alive. If it costs is nothing to upgrade, you're stupid not to. Worst case scenario we have a better chip to sell off at the deadline, or earlier negotiating rights to a better D.

You think it would cost us nothing to trade for him, and yet that he would be a good chip to trade at the deadline.

Think about that for a minute.

 

[member 290103]

Who cares? So we go from 70 points to 71 points this season? How does it help us in the long term?

For sure. Great point Mel.

 

[member 290103]

This season is still alive. If it costs is nothing to upgrade, you're stupid not to. Worst case scenario we have a better chip to sell off at the deadline, or earlier negotiating rights to a better D.

I'm with you. Bringing in Bouwmeester is not going to propel the Canucks into a playoff spot. It could help solidify the blue line a bit and push out some horrid d-men like Del Zotto or Pouliot. I am all for removing terrible players.

 

[vancityluongo]

Bouwmeester was a healthy scratch last night and his game has apparently fell off a cliff. I'd take him for sure, but only with a draft pick. Or f***, imagine if they took Gudbranson...

He's basically the player we all hope that Juolevi could be, so I'd take him if for nothing else than to actually have an actual former elite defenseman as a mentor. At the deadline, this also easily allows us to trade Edler (and/or Tanev...) for an actual return without having to worry about the kids getting curb stomped.

Bouwmeester - Tanev
Juolevi - Stecher
Hutton - Biega
Hughes

Is a defense I'd be happy to go into next season with.

 

[Zombotron]

We'd take on an extra $1.4M, but the contract is only for one season.

 

[tyhee]

He's 35, not going to be in the league much longer and it isn't clear whether he has enough left ability left to help even this season. I don't see any value in trading for him just so the Canucks can sit Hutton or Pouliot on the bench.

Otoh, the Blues are up against the Cap this season. If the Canucks can get a decent pick or prospect or send the Blues a negative-value contract that is less than Bouwmeester's (so as the reduce this season's cap hit for the Blues) but lasts longer (ie MDZ, Gudbranson, Gagner) it might be worthwhile thinking about.

My nightmare scenario is to see the Canucks give up a 2nd and a 5th for Bouwmeester and a 7th, then sign him to an extension.

 

[Cogburn]

doing better this season hurts us long term. We are still a few guys away from anything. as But Gillis er Melvin said where is the help in the future?

It then also blocks the progress of any young dman like Joulevi.

Tanking has been proven, by us, not to yield the game breakers any more then trying and barely not making it in. Carolina, Philadelphia, Dallas and New Jersey have all had picks higher then us so tanking isn't a guaranteed yield, and could have negative effects on our youngsters playing now.

Juolevi is already blocked by vets. We can move one for Bouwmeester, then another when he is ready to play for green.

 

[Cogburn]

You think it would cost us nothing to trade for him, and yet that he would be a good chip to trade at the deadline.

Think about that for a minute.

Better then Del Zotto, and more likely to move then Pouliot. He's cheap (free) because St Louis is trying to contend, we wouldn't have to move him, but could if we get, say, a 4th back. Del Zotto < JBo = late pick. I mean you are pushing for us to tank right? Wouldn't the possiblity of a late pick be enough to arouse you?

 

[m9]

At the deadline his contract would be mostly paid and the Canucks could retain half. I think he would definitely have value.

 

[Melvin]

Better then Del Zotto, and more likely to move then Pouliot. He's cheap (free) because St Louis is trying to contend, we wouldn't have to move him, but could if we get, say, a 4th back. Del Zotto < JBo = late pick. I mean you are pushing for us to tank right? Wouldn't the possiblity of a late pick be enough to arouse you?

No because it's stupid. The fantasy of getting a player for free and flipping for a pick is real only in the minds of hfboards posters.

 

[Cogburn]

No because it's stupid. The fantasy of getting a player for free and flipping for a pick is real only in the minds of hfboards posters.

I still feel as though you're focusing on me saying we can flip him, after most of his contract is paid and we can retain upto half, and trying to argue against that rather then all the other points that have been presented. Should we drop Pettersson, Horvat and Boeser for picks because they could hurt out chances of getting a 13% chance of getting Hughes while we're at it? We have to start improving eventually, and that can start with a glaring weakness.

 

[Cogburn]

He's 35, not going to be in the league much longer and it isn't clear whether he has enough left ability left to help even this season. I don't see any value in trading for him just so the Canucks can sit Hutton or Pouliot on the bench.

Otoh, the Blues are up against the Cap this season. If the Canucks can get a decent pick or prospect or send the Blues a negative-value contract that is less than Bouwmeester's (so as the reduce this season's cap hit for the Blues) but lasts longer (ie MDZ, Gudbranson, Gagner) it might be worthwhile thinking about.

My nightmare scenario is to see the Canucks give up a 2nd and a 5th for Bouwmeester and a 7th, then sign him to an extension.

Picks would be out of the question. A cheaper contract expiring this year or next would be enough for some of their fans, and I'm not pushing we spend positive assets, only a weaker D.

An extension would have to be earned. Under a million for a year? Sure, but I know you're worried about a Sutteresque situation. I am not advocating a resigning of Bouwmeester right away.

 

[Melvin]

I still feel as though you're focusing on me saying we can flip him, after most of his contract is paid and we can retain upto half, and trying to argue against that rather then all the other points that have been presented. Should we drop Pettersson, Horvat and Boeser for picks because they could hurt out chances of getting a 13% chance of getting Hughes while we're at it? We have to start improving eventually, and that can start with a glaring weakness.

That's a horrible analogy. Pettersson, Horvat and Boeser are pivotal for our long term success. Trading for 4 months of Bouwmeester does nothing to help our long term success. Literally nothing.

 

[Cogburn]

That's a horrible analogy. Pettersson, Horvat and Boeser are pivotal for our long term success. Trading for 4 months of Bouwmeester does nothing to help our long term success. Literally nothing.

An analogy is a partial comparison. Strictly speaking it's fine.

You're arguing that Bouwmeester would get us from 71 points up from 70, therefore we should actively not pursue an incredibly cheap way, even free way, to improve our team for the sake of future development, which I am inferring means you're looking for a higher pick, and more picks, for the future. Boeser, Horvat and Pettersson are the biggest obstacle to ending up in last place, which if I am understanding your argument correct, is your hope, to get the best odds at number one this year.

Would winning one or two more games not help team culture and mindset? Or would you rather we try to Oiler our way out of this? I'd rather have a decent set of complimentary players around our kids, since we've kind of gone all in on that idea as a franchise already. Sutter, Beagle, Edler, Tanev, Eriksson, Roussel, Hutton, Pouliot, Schaller, Gudbranson, Markstrom, Nilsson, Granlund, Baertschi and to an extent Gagner and Del Zotto are already here. Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen, Gaudette and if I understand you correctly Juolevi are all ready to start making contributions. Why minimize those contributions when it costs us nothing?

Bouwmeester, who we agree is not a long term solution to any of our D problems and costs nothing to acquire in this scenario, isn't worth acquiring for any remote positive benefits he might give us, because not getting maximum odds of our draft pick, a strategy that is being worked against by the league, and I stress this, hasn't work at all for anyone but Toronto one time, and continuing to accept losing when we can win, is better for the team long term? Or did I miss or add something?

The draft lottery odds changed to penalize losing teams. There is no real incentive to lose any more when you don't have to. Tanking is ineffective. Teams that have tried to succeed, even if they failed, have gotten better odds then the basement dwelling Canucks.

Or should we just enjoy losing and never try to improve, because that would ruin our future?

Edit: I forgot to mention getting rid of Del Zotto, who hasn't been upto his contract, would fall under a benefit of that proposal as well.

 

[Melvin]

I don't know where you are making up all these arguments I never said. I said nothing about getting a high draft pick or about juolevi being ready (wtf?) I just said that trading for bouwmeester is stupid and pointless because it is.

We should be focused on making long term improvements to our team not randomly shuffling 35 year old deck chairs.

I would much rather be rolling the dice with more young players to see what sticks than bringing in a crappy veteran.