Proposal: 2019-2020 Canucks Armchair GM Thread

[Cogburn]

I have realised that we don't have one of these active. Last time we did we were not looking like this team would win seven games in 20, let alone 10. I mean we're looking in pretty good shape at 7-3-1 with no real break downs at a certain position, as of today (Oct 29th).

But the reason I'm trying to bring back this old traditional thread is an offer from a Leafs fan in a Matthews thread (it ended well for reasons other than 4thliner's offer). He wanted to know of we would entertain Barrie for Stecher+a third or fourth round pick, and a conditional first/second upon his resigning (emphasis on the latter).

The thread was locked before many replies got out, but my concern and reason for the thread is simple though:

Is there a piece we can acquire that would improve our line up, with creating another hole or mortgaging the future?

I think Barrie would be an improvement at that price, and would fit our team like a glove, but we have Myers, Tanev, Stecher and possibly Tryamkin later this season at right D, and Hughes has been phenominal. I can't believe I'm saying this, but at present I might even hold off if I were in charge and that was offered.

I look forward to some of your thoughts and other proposals. Cheers.

Click to read more...

 

[4Twenty]

I have realised that we don't have one of these active. Last time we did we were not looking like this team would win seven games in 20, let alone 10. I mean we're looking in pretty good shape at 7-3-1 with no real break downs at a certain position, as of today (Oct 29th).

But the reason I'm trying to bring back this old traditional thread is an offer from a Leafs fan in a Matthews thread (it ended well for reasons other than 4thliner's offer). He wanted to know of we would entertain Barrie for Stecher+a third or fourth round pick, and a conditional first/second upon his resigning (emphasis on the latter).

The thread was locked before many replies got out, but my concern and reason for the thread is simple though:

Is there a piece we can acquire that would improve our line up, with creating another hole or mortgaging the future?

I think Barrie would be an improvement at that price, and would fit our team like a glove, but we have Myers, Tanev, Stecher and possibly Tryamkin later this season at right D, and Hughes has been phenominal. I can't believe I'm saying this, but at present I might even hold off if I were in charge and that was offered.

I look forward to some of your thoughts and other proposals. Cheers.

We actually do, it's just not called this anymore. It's called Roster and Fantasy GM 2019 (which is the same as armchair) and is pinned to the top threads of the page.

 

[xtra]

The thread was locked before many replies got out, but my concern and reason for the thread is simple though:

Is there a piece we can acquire that would improve our line up, with creating another hole or mortgaging the future?

I look forward to some of your thoughts and other proposals. Cheers.

an new gm would probably be the best piece we could get to improve the lineup


But on ice and ignoring salary caps and stuff cause we can’t actually improve the team with the cap space we have - we still need wingers for BO, Miller playing with petey and Brock leaves BO without good wingers and the hodge podge we have wont work long term.

 

[4Twenty]

Here's my off topic post from the Stecher thread that should fit with this discussion.

I wonder about a player like Douggie Hamilton, but I don't trust this management group in a negotiation with Carolina's. But it's unlikely Hamilton takes up an expansion protection spot moving forward for Carolina with one year to UFA, so he could be available (likely an offseason move).

Not sure who would be "available" but I tend to just look at guys who are UFA in two years. In reality, I'd like them to save as much money as they can so they can give the keys to the blueline to Seth Jones in 3 years. I also wouldn't be opposed to targeting Adam Larsson from Edmonton. I think when fully healthy a top 4 RD and a legit 3C top my list.

Sorry that this isn't about Stecher, but I think they need to upgrade on him and I wouldn't be willing to pay him, and since they weren't willing to pay the guy I thought was better (Hutton), I think they should try and move him sooner than later, before everyone realizes he's a 3rd pair guy tops.

I don't like Tyson Barrie as a target at all and I'm definitely not interested in trading another future 1st for him. I wouldn't even want him as a free agent if he comes with the expected cap hit of $9m-ish.

I would want a more well rounded defensman.

The coming expansion draft in June 2021 should make for a lot of maneuvering next season, more than this one.

 

[Cogburn]

We actually do, it's just not called this anymore. It's called Roster and Fantasy GM 2019 (which is the same as armchair) and is pinned to the top threads of the page.

Well that explains a great deal. I suppose that means a merger, a or renaming/refocusing locking of this one. Whoops.

 

[Cogburn]

an new gm would probably be the best piece we could get to improve the lineup


But on ice and ignoring salary caps and stuff cause we can’t actually improve the team with the cap space we have - we still need wingers for BO, Miller playing with petey and Brock leaves BO without good wingers and the hodge podge we have wont work long term.

I'd argue Virtanen (so far) looks great with Bo and Pearson as a second line. Ideally I'd love to improve it, but the cap limitations are why the Barrie offer made some degree of sense, it's as close to cap neutral as it can be.

 

[4Twenty]

Well that explains a great deal. I suppose that means a merger, a or renaming/refocusing locking of this one. Whoops.

It'll get moved, I think any time someone creates a thread for a proposal they all get dumped in that thread, so there isn't 20 proposal threads all the time.

 

[Cogburn]

It'll get moved, I think any time someone creates a thread for a proposal they all get dumped in that thread, so there isn't 20 proposal threads all the time.

Absolutely makes sense. Perhaps I accidentally hit the ignore thread option or something, I definitely didn't see it.

 

[4Twenty]

I'd argue Virtanen (so far) looks great with Bo and Pearson as a second line. Ideally I'd love to improve it, but the cap limitations are why the Barrie offer made some degree of sense, it's as close to cap neutral as it can be.

Honestly, I've seen this JV story too many times. They're getting most of their production off the rush, when the games tighten up as the season moves along and it becomes more about in-zone set plays, he'll fade as usual.

I'm not opposed to keeping Virtanen, but they've already committed 3 and 4 years to guys like Ferland and Roussel who are basically similar players with a bit more polish.

I think he along with Stecher could actually upgrade a position of weakness.

 

[Cogburn]

Honestly, I've seen this JV story too many times. They're getting most of their production off the rush, when the games tighten up as the season moves along and it becomes more about in-zone set plays, he'll fade as usual.

I'm not opposed to keeping Virtanen, but they've already committed 3 and 4 years to guys like Ferland and Roussel who are basically similar players with a bit more polish.

I think he along with Stecher could actually upgrade a position of weakness.

I'll take the temporary surge with Virtanen, if we can prolong it or sustain it with input from players that aren't Sutter or Leivo for a little bit, I'm happy.

If we can upgrade a position of weakened, I guess I wouldn't be opposed, but I haven't identified a weakness with a specific target that could fix it, that wouldn't hurt us elsewhere. That's my take anyway.

 

[4Twenty]

I'll take the temporary surge with Virtanen, if we can prolong it or sustain it with input from players that aren't Sutter or Leivo for a little bit, I'm happy.

If we can upgrade a position of weakened, I guess I wouldn't be opposed, but I haven't identified a weakness with a specific target that could fix it, that wouldn't hurt us elsewhere. That's my take anyway.

Barrie? I don't think he moves the needle, especially not here with Hughes. It's the same reason Toronto fans are even contemplating moving him, they've already got Reilly, so he's a bit wasted as a soft minute PP.

I'm definitely more pleased with Virtanen than I was with Leivo there, but I don't expect Leivo back next year either. They're going to have to start getting rid of players/salary to upgrade.

3C and top 4 RD are the positions I'd target....would be lovely if they could trade Sutter, which hopefuly this early season heater makes him more sought after. Still wouldn't give it to Gaudette either.

 

[Cogburn]

Barrie? I don't think he moves the needle, especially not here with Hughes. It's the same reason Toronto fans are even contemplating moving him, they've already got Reilly, so he's a bit wasted as a soft minute PP

I agree, I don't see much of a need...where as even over the summer I'd have thought the opposite. Puck moving D are no longer a dramatic weakness of the Canucks. The offer then would have been crazy good value in our favour, even as a deadline asset to sell off later.

Now....I agree with you, we don't need Barrie, and I won't even finish my thought with an "unless".

But are there similar kinds of deals made for players that do fill a need here? That's more of where I was hoping to stimulate debate.

 

[4Twenty]

I agree, I don't see much of a need...where as even over the summer I'd have thought the opposite. Puck moving D are no longer a dramatic weakness of the Canucks. The offer then would have been crazy good value in our favour, even as a deadline asset to sell off later.

Now....I agree with you, we don't need Barrie, and I won't even finish my thought with an "unless".

But are there similar kinds of deals made for players that do fill a need here? That's more of where I was hoping to stimulate debate.

That's why I brought my Douggie Hamilton post over from the Stecher thread.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Honestly, I've seen this JV story too many times. They're getting most of their production off the rush, when the games tighten up as the season moves along and it becomes more about in-zone set plays, he'll fade as usual.

I'm not opposed to keeping Virtanen, but they've already committed 3 and 4 years to guys like Ferland and Roussel who are basically similar players with a bit more polish.

I think he along with Stecher could actually upgrade a position of weakness.

The narrative last season was that he was getting garbage goals and empty netters. Now he's scoring off the rush. How do we want him to score, exactly?

 

[Cogburn]

That's why I brought my Douggie Hamilton post over from the Stecher thread.

Not necessarily a weakness still, but Hamilton, Larsson or Jones would be fine additions, especially the latter, but I misread that more about removing cap commitment to be able to commit to these guys long term. I guess I was thinking more short term to pump the team up a little bit more then where we are now, rip the bandaid off of the Miller trade wound and all that. Not bad ideas, any of the three, but what would a trade for one of the three look like?

 

[4Twenty]

The narrative last season was that he was getting garbage goals and empty netters. Now he's scoring off the rush. How do we want him to score, exactly?

Please don't play the narrative game with me. I'll have a discussion with you with no preconceived biases, but you have to do the same.

Do you think Jake Virtanen is a good offensive zone player?

Jake has barely more than one shot a game (12 in 11 games), the production comes from the rush. His lines can never sustain offensive pressure, so if it doesn't go in off the rush, they can't maintain possession and he has shown very little ability in half court offense, both on the puck and off. Lacks puck protection skills, can't cycle, poor net-front presence.

My gripe with Jake last year had nothing to do with how his goals were scored, it had to do with people over inflating his "progress" based on 6 goals in 8 games, where the remainder of his games, he produce 9 in 60 something games.

I don't see a better or different player than he's shown since he was 19. I think this player has major limitations and always will. That doesn't mean he's not useful, it means he's limited.

Is that a fair assessment? I think it is.

 

[4Twenty]

Not necessarily a weakness still, but Hamilton, Larsson or Jones would be fine additions, especially the latter, but I misread that more about removing cap commitment to be able to commit to these guys long term. I guess I was thinking more short term to pump the team up a little bit more then where we are now, rip the bandaid off of the Miller trade wound and all that. Not bad ideas, any of the three, but what would a trade for one of the three look like?

Oh Geez, I think Hamilton would be hard, same with Jones.

I think Larsson could be had with some of the bottom 6 depth the Canucks have, plus Edmonton needs money to pay Nurse.

 

[Cogburn]

Oh Geez, I think Hamilton would be hard, same with Jones.

I think Larsson could be had with some of the bottom 6 depth the Canucks have, plus Edmonton needs money to pay Nurse.

Larsson for a bottom sixer would be a fine way to go, if Tanev isn't being reupped or we fail to keep Tryamkin or Stecher. But which bottom six players would Edmonton want? I mean if they keep winning they may wish to keep him.

 

[Bubbles]

I'll get flamed for this but I would like to see other people's opinions. I posted in the past about trading Kesler (after the 40 goal season) and trading Baertshi (right after his stellar season) and I was flamed then too...turns out I was right.

I honestly think we should look at moving Markstrom. Does he fit into the team long term? Are we going to risk giving him a $6-$7 million a year when we have Demko and DiPietro on the horizon? His value is the highest it's ever been (possibly much higher last off-season).

 

[Cogburn]

I'll get flamed for this but I would like to see other people's opinions. I posted in the past about trading Kesler (after the 40 goal season) and trading Baertshi (right after his stellar season) and I was flamed then too...turns out I was right.

I honestly think we should look at moving Markstrom. Does he fit into the team long term? Are we going to risk giving him a $6-$7 million a year when we have Demko and DiPietro on the horizon? His value is the highest it's ever been (possibly much higher last off-season).

I actually don't disagree here.

Kesler was a hard sell because we had just come off of a cup appearance. Baertschi came down to what you thought the team was capable of (he will get a chance with Ferland out too). But with Markstrom I really want to make sure Demko isn't being pushed out there too soon. To the bold go the spoils and all but with goaltenders it's so hard to tell. Look at both Luongo's decline and Schneider for New Jersey for recent examples involving player's we're familiar with here.