Rumor: Canucks and Bruins Trade Talks

[Canuck86]

Lauzon plays RD so that value is better for Canucks, I'd say.

Perhaps Benning wants his Grzelcyk who is also a RFA and is willing to add a prospect to make it happen.

Pass on Grz, we have 2 D under 5'10 already with a prospect lhd in Rathbone who is a similar height.

 

[bruins4thecup65]

Yeah Ritchie doesn’t come close to fetching Jake.

Ritchie for Gaudette sounds fair instead of Vurtanen

 

[lawrence]

Might be Boston asking Vancouver if they are interested in Jake debrusk.

i really don’t think it’s carlo as dmans are a high premium right now and value is sky high. The same with Charlie mcavoy. No way they are moving those guys as we know chara will be playing forever even though he made it clear he wants another year.

2 possibilitiesz

1 Jake debrusk. Young player that will fit in with the age group of our core.

2 nick ritchie. Although the Canucks did a good job trying to match Vegas hit for hit, Vegas was still a more physical team. I’m sure benning wouldn’t mind adding more hitting to our team. Ritchies age will fit in with our young core.

 

[Riley 88]

lol. How is Boeser not enough?

You can re read what i wrote. I think i explained how he is not enough.

 

[lawrence]

DeBrusk is the better player compared to Virtanen

Debrusk
19 g, 16a, 35 pts, 65 games
35 hits
15 blocked shots
161 shots, 11.8%
26 takeaways, 21 giveaways
59.2% ozone starts
2:33 /g powerplay ice time, 7 powerplay goals
16:03 ice time/game
DeBrusk/Krejci/Kase-Kuhlman
Virtanen
18 g, 18a, 36 pts, 69 games
102 hits
28 blocked shots
150 shots, 12%
37 takeaways, 31 giveaways
47.5% ozone starts
0:52 /g powerplay ice time, 6 powerplay goals
13:05 ice time/game
Roussel Sutter-Gaudette Virtanen

we are essentially swapping a 3rd line player for a 2nd line winger however the Canucks will lost a lot of physical aspect. Virtanen on paper is one of our most physical players on on the team despite playing bottom 6 minutes. During the playoffs . But also if debrusk is seeing Alex tuch money we’re out. No way we can do that.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Debrusk
19 g, 16a, 35 pts, 65 games
35 hits
15 blocked shots
161 shots, 11.8%
26 takeaways, 21 giveaways
59.2% ozone starts
2:33 /g powerplay ice time, 7 powerplay goals
16:03 ice time/game
DeBrusk/Krejci/Kase-Kuhlman
Virtanen
18 g, 18a, 36 pts, 69 games
102 hits
28 blocked shots
150 shots, 12%
37 takeaways, 31 giveaways
47.5% ozone starts
0:52 /g powerplay ice time, 6 powerplay goals
13:05 ice time/game
Roussel Sutter-Gaudette Virtanen

we are essentially swapping a 3rd line player for a 2nd line winger however the Canucks will lost a lot of physical aspect. Virtanen on paper is one of our most physical players on on the team despite playing bottom 6 minutes. During the playoffs . But also if debrusk is seeing Alex tuch money we’re out. No way we can do that.

It simply is not a good trade for the Bruins. Using the eye test and more than one season of data the Bruins clearly need Debrusk more.

The Bruins need to upgrade scoring rather than downgrade.

The Ritchie name bouncing around is intriguing as he shouldn't have much value. He's also sadly our only tough player besides Chara these days.

 

[lawrence]

It simply is not a good trade for the Bruins. Using the eye test and more than one season of data the Bruins clearly need Debrusk more.

The Bruins need to upgrade scoring rather than downgrade.

The Ritchie name bouncing around is intriguing as he shouldn't have much value. He's also sadly our only tough player besides Chara these days.

i actually wasn’t suggesting virtanen for debrusk. I was just correcting the guy who thinks debrusk and virtanen are on a different tier.

 

[Coach Parker]

Pass on Grz, we have 2 D under 5'10 already with a prospect lhd in Rathbone who is a similar height.

That's exactly what I thought too. Brings me back to Zboril and Lauzon as NHL ready with upside and physical play.

 

[Szechwan]

Personally, I don't think Ritchie or Bjork have the same value as Virtanen and would not make that move if I'm the Canucks. Debrusk gets me thinking though, and they're both players who seem to have worn out their runway with management.

 

[Nucker42]

Can’t see the Canucks moving one of their most tradeable assets for less than a top 4 right d man

 

[Groo]

Ritchie for Gaudette sounds fair instead of Vurtanen

Woof!!
Not on this planet or any other

 

[Groo]

My nephew played with Virtanen and off the ice apparently he is the worst person possible..whatever that means.

I could see a Nick Ritchie for Jake Virtanen 1 for 1

Too funny

 

[krutovsdonut]

virtanen still presents as having possible dominant power forward upside. i am not saying he will or even likely will be that guy, but i am sure a lot of teams with good cores like the pens, knights and bruins look at him and think they can get more out of him away from his home town with a little peer pressure and a solid structured system. at the price he will fetch he's a pretty attractive gamble.

 

[Coach Parker]

Personally, I don't think Ritchie or Bjork have the same value as Virtanen and would not make that move if I'm the Canucks. Debrusk gets me thinking though, and they're both players who seem to have worn out their runway with management.

There's nothing to suggest this with DeBrusk at all. Benning's comments publicly with Virtanen are clear but we shouldn't post or suggest anything but DeBrusk being a solid teammate and well liked BUT simply the odd man out if the Bruins are signing Hall. That's the ONLY reason his name is coming up.

 

[Coach Parker]

virtanen still presents as having possible dominant power forward upside. i am not saying he will or even likely will be that guy, but i am sure a lot of teams with good cores like the pens, knights and bruins look at him and think they can get more out of him away from his home town with a little peer pressure and a solid structured system. at the price he will fetch he's a pretty attractive gamble.

Well said. Get him out of the Lower Mainland and get a guy like Ritchie and a 2nd back in return.

 

[krutovsdonut]

and i am a hard no on debrusk for virtanen or really any trade with the bruins. the last time we did a trade with boston where we gave up the more talented less complete player it did not work out so well.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Well said. Get him out of the Lower Mainland and get a guy like Ritchie and a 2nd back in return.

ritchie? i wouldn't do debrusk and a 2nd.

 

[Coach Parker]

ritchie? i wouldn't do debrusk and a 2nd.

Sorry, are you saying you wouldn't trade Virtanen for DeBrusk and a 2nd?

 

[wintersej]

and i am a hard no on debrusk for virtanen or really any trade with the bruins. the last time we did a trade with boston where we gave up the more talented less complete player it did not work out so well.

It was 35 years ago.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Sorry, are you saying you wouldn't trade Virtanen for DeBrusk and a 2nd?

yes.

debrusk is a supporting piece the bruins have pumped the tires on by playing him with very good players. the very fact he is reportedly available should tell you something. he brings energy first and skill second to the table.

virtanen made all his own offence with hardly a lick of power play time. he almost never plays with or benefits from our playmakers. we've never seen him bring energy to the table.

he's a much more talented player than debrusk.

even if virtanen has only a 33% chance of finally filling out as a hockey player, you keep him. debrusk is a middle six player now and in my estimation is going to drop a tier and flirt with replacement status.

so i'd sooner keep virtanen despite the risks. the only way i'd move him is for a tangible upgrade to our lineup. so perhaps as a trade for a good defenceman. in that context i'd move him as part of a trade even if i was objectively recovering less value than debrusk and a 2nd.

 

[FreeMcdavid]

Ritchie for Gaudette sounds fair instead of Vurtanen

Would much rather have Gaudette. Right Hand young scoring Centre over a guy like Ritchie.

We dont even really have room for Ritchie, We have someone like Zack Mackewan who is ready for full time duties.

0 interest in Ritchie for me

 

[FreeMcdavid]

Sorry, are you saying you wouldn't trade Virtanen for DeBrusk and a 2nd?

Don't know who is saying no to that but id pull that trigger from a Canucks pov

 

[LuLover96]

I don’t like your logic on Carlo and Boeser. I bet the Bruins would prefer Barzal instead of Senyshyn today even tho on draft day they didn’t. 2015 draft day is a snapshot of 17 year olds from 5 years ago. Has minimal meaning today.

That being said, I agree with your thoughts that the most likely move here is JV for prospects/cost controlled guys.

For the Barzal comparison, sure one side would accept in a millisecond, but it’d never happen. What are you telling your fan base if you trade a first rounder and proven top line winger for a second pairing defensive Dman from the second round of that very same draft? There’s a lot less marketability for a deal like that.

 

[wintersej]

Debrusk
19 g, 16a, 35 pts, 65 games
35 hits
15 blocked shots
161 shots, 11.8%
26 takeaways, 21 giveaways
59.2% ozone starts
2:33 /g powerplay ice time, 7 powerplay goals
16:03 ice time/game
DeBrusk/Krejci/Kase-Kuhlman
Virtanen
18 g, 18a, 36 pts, 69 games
102 hits
28 blocked shots
150 shots, 12%
37 takeaways, 31 giveaways
47.5% ozone starts
0:52 /g powerplay ice time, 6 powerplay goals
13:05 ice time/game
Roussel Sutter-Gaudette Virtanen

we are essentially swapping a 3rd line player for a 2nd line winger however the Canucks will lost a lot of physical aspect. Virtanen on paper is one of our most physical players on on the team despite playing bottom 6 minutes. During the playoffs . But also if debrusk is seeing Alex tuch money we’re out. No way we can do that.

I want to focus on the $$$ part rather than start a conversation on how last season was DeBrusk's worst and Jake's best and how that comparison has some issues.

The $$$ bit is more important. Why would DeBrusk for Virtanen would make sense even for the Canucks? Canucks are trying to cut salary to bring back Toffoli, etc. DeBrusk is going to cost more than Virtanen. The only thing that makes sense is Virtanen for picks/prospects/cost controlled guys.

 

[Cogburn]

Debrusk
19 g, 16a, 35 pts, 65 games
35 hits
15 blocked shots
161 shots, 11.8%
26 takeaways, 21 giveaways
59.2% ozone starts
2:33 /g powerplay ice time, 7 powerplay goals
16:03 ice time/game
DeBrusk/Krejci/Kase-Kuhlman
Virtanen
18 g, 18a, 36 pts, 69 games
102 hits
28 blocked shots
150 shots, 12%
37 takeaways, 31 giveaways
47.5% ozone starts
0:52 /g powerplay ice time, 6 powerplay goals
13:05 ice time/game
Roussel Sutter-Gaudette Virtanen

we are essentially swapping a 3rd line player for a 2nd line winger however the Canucks will lost a lot of physical aspect. Virtanen on paper is one of our most physical players on on the team despite playing bottom 6 minutes. During the playoffs . But also if debrusk is seeing Alex tuch money we’re out. No way we can do that.

I didn't expect the stats to be that lopsided. I maintain my position, simply because a scorer is a lot harder to find then a more physical, all around player, but I do agree that if Debrusk is looking for a higher salary (based on last year's stats too) I will concede we're definitely better off in that regard with Virtanen.