Speculation: Best Trade Partner?

[ugghhh]

The only way I'd be willing to buy is if its a real addition to the line up, not a rental, not someone who's done in four years.

So yeah, I agree.

I think there's a difference between a rental and a play that will play for four years.

For example, I'd trade a 1st rounder for 4 years of Cammalleri.

 

[Bure All Day]

I think there's a difference between a rental and a play that will play for four years.

For example, I'd trade a 1st rounder for 4 years of Cammalleri.

Depends what we could re-sign him for.

 

[ugghhh]

Depends what we could re-sign him for.

Of course that's a consideration, and a risk you'd have to take. But with a limited free agent market and every team likely to have a lot of cap space, I think if you can get even a slight discount by getting him here for half a season it'd be worth it.

With the Booth buyout, we're likely going to have about $6M free -- more than enough to bring in Cammalleri. Considering we should have 1-2 rookies on the roster next year, and our defense should be pretty static, I think it's a good risk to take.

 

[TheWanderer]

Cammalleri isn't even that good. What is with all of the Cammalleri love around here?

Canucks need to decide when they want to push and aim for it, rather than drifting and blindly hoping every year, and keeping the same pieces around, year after year.

Look at LA and Chicago. They made pushes, they won cups, and they stayed good. Why have the Canucks completely fallen apart after their push in 2011? The answer lies in the fact that Gillis is just hoping the same players can do it all over again, without putting any work into the team...

 

[ugghhh]

Cammalleri isn't even that good. What is with all of the Cammalleri love around here?

Canucks need to decide when they want to push and aim for it, rather than drifting and blindly hoping every year, and keeping the same pieces around, year after year.

Look at LA and Chicago. They made pushes, they won cups, and they stayed good. Why have the Canucks completely fallen apart after their push in 2011? The answer lies in the fact that Gillis is just hoping the same players can do it all over again, without putting any work into the team...

His shot is the main draw for me. He gets to the right areas, and he can score one on one against goalies. We don't have any players who are one-shot scorers -- we have a lot of guys who like to control the puck, we need a few who can find open space and score.

 

[David71]

van needs a shoot first player. They lack that 1 finisher that can snipe and pick corners. the shooters are danny/kesler to some extent

 

[TheWanderer]

His shot is the main draw for me. He gets to the right areas, and he can score one on one against goalies. We don't have any players who are one-shot scorers -- we have a lot of guys who like to control the puck, we need a few who can find open space and score.

I'll give you that, but isn't Cammalleri a total softie?

 

[Virtanen2Horvat]

New Jersey. Brunner - Kesler - Jagr could be a great line, though of course, it might take a lot to acquire both of those players.

A dream scenario for me involves Vancouver acquiring Ryder and one of Brunner and Jagr.

Ryder is a must.

EDIT: You keep the Sedins, Burrows, Kesler and Hansen. The rest needs to be changed. Richardson is a step in the right directions. But Kesler actually needs legit 2nd liners that will help him.

 

[BB6]

Ryder is a must.

EDIT: You keep the Sedins, Burrows, Kesler and Hansen. The rest needs to be changed. Richardson is a step in the right directions. But Kesler actually needs legit 2nd liners that will help him.

I do not see the point in showing Higgins the door, I think we should keep him too.

 

[oceanchild]

I do not see the point in showing Higgins the door, I think we should keep him too.

Missing Kassian. Even if he ends up being a third liner he has value in his physical play and toughness.

 

[SpaceCowboy]

Missing Kassian. Even if he ends up being a third liner he has value in his physical play and toughness.

I'm with you - however if a team has a love affair with him and wants him and will pay - well for him. I think it's time to let him go. The difference between Higgins and Kassian is thir value. Higgy has a great contract and great 2 way play. But he won't change the makeup of a line. He'll add to it. Kassian is a player that you can build a line around. He has the potential upside. Sold right he could bring in a nice talent in a package.

Obviously we want to keep him due to the Cody situation.

Sedins, Kesler, Hansen, Higgins, Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa Luongo.

If we can keep Burrows amazing. Everyone else needs to be expendable to build a legit 2nd line and team. Allowing Hansen and Higgins to fall to the 3rd line would be fantastic.

 

[Royal Canuck]

Kassian, Tanev and a 3rd for James Neal.

Jensen, Schroeder and Booth for Foligno

D.Sedin - H.Sedin - Burrows
Neal - Kesler - Foligno
Higgins - Santorelli - Hansen
Sestito - Richardson - Weise

 

[Wolfhard]

I think there's a difference between a rental and a play that will play for four years.

For example, I'd trade a 1st rounder for 4 years of Cammalleri.

You'd give up a 1st rounder for what could be 1-2 years of a soft, undersized, 1 dimensional 20 goal scorer, and 2-3 years of Ebbett 2.0? For $6m+?
Anyone who's ok with that can no longer comment on David Booth.

 

[NFITO]

Ryder is a must.

EDIT: You keep the Sedins, Burrows, Kesler and Hansen. The rest needs to be changed. Richardson is a step in the right directions. But Kesler actually needs legit 2nd liners that will help him.

There are no legit 2nd liners that will help Kesler. He's a selfish player that has blinders on when he's centering any line. The best use of Kesler at this point, IMO, is to keep him on the Sedins wing. That's where he's most productive.

The team needs to get a playmaking legit top-6 center now. Build a 2nd line around that player, because Kesler is simply not a player you build a line around. He is good with the Sedins because he can do his one-man thing out there and the Sedins are smart enough to compensate.

I think we've waited too long for Kesler the center who can compliment his linemates to show up, and that player is just not there. Use the player for what he is - a grinder with a good shot who wants to shoot all the time and does the dirty work on the boards.... that's a good fit for the Sedins, especially with his right handed shot.

Ideally, I'd like to see 2 2nd line players added to this team, which realistically won't happen this season. But a lineup of Sedin-Sedin-Kesler, followed by Burrows-Playmaking Center-legit 2nd line winger would give us the best options.

 

[Wolfhard]

There are no legit 2nd liners that will help Kesler. He's a selfish player that has blinders on when he's centering any line. The best use of Kesler at this point, IMO, is to keep him on the Sedins wing. That's where he's most productive.

The team needs to get a playmaking legit top-6 center now. Build a 2nd line around that player, because Kesler is simply not a player you build a line around. He is good with the Sedins because he can do his one-man thing out there and the Sedins are smart enough to compensate.

I think we've waited too long for Kesler the center who can compliment his linemates to show up, and that player is just not there. Use the player for what he is - a grinder with a good shot who wants to shoot all the time and does the dirty work on the boards.... that's a good fit for the Sedins, especially with his right handed shot.

Ideally, I'd like to see 2 2nd line players added to this team, which realistically won't happen this season. But a lineup of Sedin-Sedin-Kesler, followed by Burrows-Playmaking Center-legit 2nd line winger would give us the best options.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm really starting to agree with this as far as Kesler is concerned. He's been getting called out about his selfish play for years, and it doesn't look like it's going to change. He's still a beast in many ways, but running a line and helping teammates be better isn't among them.

He hasn't been a complimentary player or playmaker since he saw himself as a complimentary player, who was lucky to be getting a shot with skill players after a career on the 3rd line.

It's possible that his 40 goal season may have given him too much self confidence, and changed him back into the Kesler that he likely was before he got to high level hockey.

Take him for what he is, cuz it doesn't look like he's changing...

 

[Shorthander]

I don't think we should be trying to acquire any rentals or borderline players like Cammaleri this season. We have a great d-core now that's deep enough to prevent any more "Shane O'Brien/Andrew Alberts playing top 4 minutes because of injuries" type situations like we've seen in the past and that's our only position of strength from which to trade.

But if we keep that d-core intact, we can bring in forwards over the next couple of seasons from free agency (cap is going to shoot way up) and from within the system (I'm betting on Shinkaruk being the first of the bunch to make the team) and we'll hopefully be deep at all positions.

There are too many spare parts on this team to make a playoff run. They've played admirably for sure, but anyone who isn't a complete homer will admit that Mike Santorelli isn't taking us to the promised land -- he's never even played an NHL playoff game, by the way.

And if we miss the playoffs, yes it'll suck, but any non-playoff team can win the draft lottery now so...maybe it's time this franchise got lucky like that.

 

[NFITO]

As much as I hate to say it, I'm really starting to agree with this as far as Kesler is concerned. He's been getting called out about his selfish play for years, and it doesn't look like it's going to change. He's still a beast in many ways, but running a line and helping teammates be better isn't among them.

He hasn't been a complimentary player or playmaker since he saw himself as a complimentary player, who was lucky to be getting a shot with skill players after a career on the 3rd line.

It's possible that his 40 goal season may have given him too much self confidence, and changed him back into the Kesler that he likely was before he got to high level hockey.

Take him for what he is, cuz it doesn't look like he's changing...

yup... and that's not to say he's a bad player or can't be a key part of this team, but use him for what he is, not what we want him to be.

It'd be like surrounding Henrik with playmakers and expecting him to be a goal scoring center because he put in 26 goals one year. That's not the type of player Henrik is, and being a playmaking center who uses his linemates well isn't the type of player that Kesler is.

That's one of the big problems all around with this team. Too many players that are expected to be players and fill roles that they aren't suited for. Kesler highlights that with being expected to be that top-6 center through whom a 2nd line can be built around. But it extends past that in this lineup. Burrows, fantastic 2nd liner, but a below average 1st liner.. Hansen and Higgins, ideal 3rd liners on a top end team... expecting too much from them to be fixtures on the 2nd line longterm. Santorelli, has played great this year, but would be a much bigger asset on the 3rd line rather then the 2nd... Richardson, solid pickup this year but no more than an average 3rd liner (if that longterm), but an excellent 4th line utility guy. About the only players in our forward line who aren't miscast for their roles are the Sedins, who belong on a top line and in the positions they're in, and Kassian, who's been a fixture on the 3rd unit, though most expected him to at least challenge for a permanent spot in the top-6 by now.

That, IMO, is the biggest problem with our lineup. Too many forwards that are playing roles and positions that aren't fair expectations, not on a team that wants to be a serious contender. Add a couple of top-6 forwards (and put them in their natural positions in those roles) and we have excellent balance in our lineup. A top line of Sedin-Sedin-Kesler would be among the best in the league. A 3rd line of Higgins-Santorelli-Hansen would be among the best 3rd lines in the league.

Sadly it's too tough to fill those roles quickly and expect it to happen this season. It will likely only happen once (if) Kassian can step up into a 2nd line role, and Horvat/Shinkaruk etc can develop into those roles.

 

[Wolfhard]

yup... and that's not to say he's a bad player or can't be a key part of this team, but use him for what he is, not what we want him to be.

It'd be like surrounding Henrik with playmakers and expecting him to be a goal scoring center because he put in 26 goals one year. That's not the type of player Henrik is, and being a playmaking center who uses his linemates well isn't the type of player that Kesler is.

That's one of the big problems all around with this team. Too many players that are expected to be players and fill roles that they aren't suited for. Kesler highlights that with being expected to be that top-6 center through whom a 2nd line can be built around. But it extends past that in this lineup. Burrows, fantastic 2nd liner, but a below average 1st liner.. Hansen and Higgins, ideal 3rd liners on a top end team... expecting too much from them to be fixtures on the 2nd line longterm. Santorelli, has played great this year, but would be a much bigger asset on the 3rd line rather then the 2nd... Richardson, solid pickup this year but no more than an average 3rd liner (if that longterm), but an excellent 4th line utility guy. About the only players in our forward line who aren't miscast for their roles are the Sedins, who belong on a top line and in the positions they're in, and Kassian, who's been a fixture on the 3rd unit, though most expected him to at least challenge for a permanent spot in the top-6 by now.

That, IMO, is the biggest problem with our lineup. Too many forwards that are playing roles and positions that aren't fair expectations, not on a team that wants to be a serious contender. Add a couple of top-6 forwards (and put them in their natural positions in those roles) and we have excellent balance in our lineup. A top line of Sedin-Sedin-Kesler would be among the best in the league. A 3rd line of Higgins-Santorelli-Hansen would be among the best 3rd lines in the league.

Sadly it's too tough to fill those roles quickly and expect it to happen this season. It will likely only happen once (if) Kassian can step up into a 2nd line role, and Horvat/Shinkaruk etc can develop into those roles.

I pretty much agree with 100% of this. Seems one of the problems we have is too many very good 3rd liners to fit on the 3rd line. So the better ones are being pushed up, and asked to perform like a 2nd line. Put those guys with Kesler and he identifies that he's better than them, and tries to do it alone. He's right too. He is better than them. But going "1 man show", makes him very predictable and easy to shut down. And when he's shut down, it shuts down the whole line.

He needs linemates who's abilities he respects. Either add a scorer at least as capable as him, so he can set them up without feeling like it's a wasted pass. Or a playmaker that he's certain will give him the puck at the right time to let him be the scorer on the line.

Maybe he's had too much time with the Mason Raymond types. Or even Booth. Where a pass to them is the last you'll see of the puck. Especially in a "shoot from everywhere" system, where players don't always find the open guy. Hence his success with the Sedins. They'll find you even when you're NOT open, therefore he let's them dictate the play. His biggest flaw is simply taking too much on his own shoulders.

 

[arsmaster*]

I call BS on this notion that Kesler can't play as a center with good players. Kane sure looked good on his wing at the Olympics.

Like I've said before, I'll take the player who shoots too much, over the player who passes up shooting chances for the sake of the extra pass.

Shooting centers move the puck, Kesler moves the puck, but when there is no better option I have no issue with the shot, chipping it into the corner for someone to chase isn't that much better of an option is it?

I can agree that Kesler likes to play one on one, but I wouldn't say it makes him selfish.

 

[NFITO]

I call BS on this notion that Kesler can't play as a center with good players. Kane sure looked good on his wing at the Olympics.

Like I've said before, I'll take the player who shoots too much, over the player who passes up shooting chances for the sake of the extra pass.

Shooting centers move the puck, Kesler moves the puck, but when there is no better option I have no issue with the shot, chipping it into the corner for someone to chase isn't that much better of an option is it?

I can agree that Kesler likes to play one on one, but I wouldn't say it makes him selfish.

Kane is an elite player. If you want to put a top end talent on his wing, sure you can make that 2nd line work with Kesler as a center. But adding 2 legitimate 2nd liners as Kesler's wingers I can't see working.

I'm sure Parise would also look fantastic on his wing. But if it takes a top line talent next to him to make Kesler effective as a center, to me it means that he's not an effective 2nd line center with 2nd line players. He is however a very effective top line winger with the game he plays.

And I disagree on your last sentence. Kesler is a selfish player. That's not always a bad thing and I agree that having a shoot-first player, often with blinders on when it comes to his linemates, can be a good thing on a team, but again that's with the right players in the right role. How often do we see Kesler come into the zone down the middle with his head down and thinking shoot before he even considers the positions his linemates are in? Having a shoot-first mentality is also much more effective on the wing, then at center when you're expected to cover much more of the ice, and actually use your linemates on the attack more often.

Kelser works with the Sedins because they see the ice well and use their linemates so Kesler doesn't have to worry about that. He doesn't work with the wingers he's played with because they don't have that same kind of vision that the Sedins do. And you're not going to find many 2nd line players (not top end elite 1st line wingers) who have that kind of vision and ability to essentially take over those playmaking duties expected of the line's center.

If you want to keep Kesler at center you need to bring in a big ticket elite talent for him to play with, which essentially forces the team to build 2 top lines, rather than a 1st and 2nd line. Given that, IMO it makes more sense to use Kesler as a $5mill top line winger and bring in a couple of 2nd line talents to fill 2nd line roles, at 2nd line prices (alongside Burrows), then to try and hit a homerun bringing in a guy like Kane or Parise (won't be available) or even a Vanek or Gaborik (too expensive for 2nd line roles).

 

[earl grey]

Any team that has a multi year contract for an injury prone has-been will make a fabulous trading partner for Gillis to work with.

 

[canadianmagpie]

For me, if we could grab Callahan from NYR and Brayden Schenn from PHI without losing anyone important, then I would be happy.

Sedin - Sedin - Callahan
Burrows - Schenn - Kesler
Higgins - Santorelli - Hansen
Sesito - Richardson - Kassian

I doubt we would get Schenn or Callahan without losing anyone from our current roster. But I would be a whole lot happier if we could add those two guys.

 

[arsmaster*]

When people compare us to Chicago and LA and ask why we aren't as good as they are I want to smack them.

Our marquee players are 33. Theirs are 8-10 years younger. Duh.

 

[NFITO]

When people compare us to Chicago and LA and ask why we aren't as good as they are I want to smack them.

Our marquee players are 33. Theirs are 8-10 years younger. Duh.

sorry, but what does that have to do with why we aren't as good as them?

It could speak of a team's upside or potential, but as far as how good a team is today, why would that have anything to do with it?

The Sedins are still top players at their age. And 8-10 years younger, or at 23-25 YO, many players are still not in their prime years yet. Basing it solely on age is a silly arguement because there have been a lot of older teams in the past that have been significantly better than teams who's cores have been 8-10 years younger. Take Detroit for example, a team that was one of the oldest in the league for years and still a top end team, much better than many of their younger counterparts. The reason isn't age.

The Hawks and Kings are better than us because they have more overall organizational depth. They have this because their drafting and player development has been significantly better than the Canucks. And it's not just because of drafting higher when they were rebuilding. They find more players that can provide an impact past the 1st round than the Canucks have been able to do. These assets don't only help them on the ice, but are valuable trade chips to fill holes elsewhere in their lineup.

Kings, for example, have Quick, Voynov, Nolan, King, Tiffoli, Vey and Martinez all playing regularly in their lineup, all drafted outside the 1st round. And their 1st round picks have either all been impact players, or key trade assets to bring them impact players. Prospects they've been able to move because of the depth they've had here overall. This has been a solid organization in terms of drafting and player development.

The Hawks have Keith, Shaw, Saad, Hjarlmarsson, Kruger, Smith, Bickell, and Crawford, again all drafted outside the 1st round playing regularly.

The Canucks have Hansen, Edler, and Bieksa.

It's clear that our drafting and player development has been significantly worse than these teams. And ths is something that all top end teams always have in common. When Detroit was at the top of the league it was due to a several talented players consistently coming through their pipeline... same has been true for all other top teams during their time - the Devils, the Avs, and recently when you look at the Bruins, Blues, Sharks, etc.

The Canucks have, throughout pretty much their entire history, sucked balls when it comes to drafting and player development. Our pipeline is constantly weak leaving the organization with few assets that can jump in and contribute, and few assets that can be used as trade chips to improve the team.

This is the reason why we're worse than the Kings or Hawks, it's not the age of the top players or the core. Great organizations have ALWAYS been great organizations due to the amount and quality of the talent they can draft and develop themselves. The Canucks are among the worst in the league at this and basically always have been, and until that changes, the best we really can hope for is that one season where everything miraculously comes together and we can rely on luck. Organizations like that are the ones that go once in 10-12 years with a finals showing before years of not being close, rather than 10-12 years of having a top end contender where they can challenge for the Cup consistently.

 

[arsmaster*]

Well this is the 2nd time I've typed up a long winded reply to you only for my browser to close on me lose 20 minutes of my life.

Now I'll shorten it.


You're calling the Kings and Hawks perennial "great teams" when it wasn't but 6 years ago they were both picking in the lottery (1st overall in 07 and 3rd overall in 06, 3rd overall in 04 for the Hawks and 4th overall in 07, 2nd overall in 08, with the worst record in the league, 5th overall in 09).

Our team is beyond ripe, we got our marquee players in 1999, 8 -10 years after.

We've been pushing for cups, consistently being in the playoffs since the early 2000's. These so called great teams that are always great were dog chow for years, able to consistently roll over their mediocre rosters whilst accumulation tons of picks.

We all know the Canucks aren't so great at development or drafting, but their are factors like trading picks whilst trying to continually be competitive. We haven't been afforded the opportunity to draft the same type of players in the last decade.

The post I was reffering to was the wanderer's, here is what he said:

Look at LA and Chicago. They made pushes, they won cups, and they stayed good. Why have the Canucks completely fallen apart after their push in 2011? The answer lies in the fact that Gillis is just hoping the same players can do it all over again, without putting any work into the team...

LA and Chicago were poor for years. They didn't make pushes, Chicago had the best assembly of young talent you could possibly have in a cap era for their first cup. Not many teams can trade top pairing defensman and 1st line wingers (that were playing on their 3rd line no less on their cup run) for picks and prospects. Yes, they made some great picks along the way, but they traded from strengths. The Canucks have never had that chance.

Voynov is basically a first round pick (32nd) that is the benefit to finishing with the worst record in the league, you get top players at the top of every round.

I'm not making excuses, it's just pretty easy to see that these other "great teams" that stunk up the joint for years built up enough assets to finally make that push.

The interesting point for me is that you mention San Jose. We had our own Couture type, we traded him. Pavelski, I guess that's our Edler. Outside that their team is all UFA's or trades, like us.

Some work some don't, but I really don't see much that separates us and the Sharks in terms of drafting and talent....their AHL team stinks too. Yeah, Hertl is good, we think Bo and Hunter are going to be good too. For me the Sharks are the team that the Canucks can be most closely compared to and we've had more success (barely....but I'll take failing in the finals over never getting there).