Speculation: Canucks interested in D Tyler Myers

[Shareefruck]

Hamhuis was working with Tanev a lot this season and it helped him take that big jump he made this season.

Oh okay, I didn't catch that reference.

 

[ace4]

Don't deal with Tim Murray. The Sabres have ripped off the Islanders and Blues recently in trades. I am not giving up anything more than Gaunce and a 2nd round pick for Myers.

 

[Verviticus]

i wouldnt give up a second round pick for myers, let alone prospects

 

[Blow It Up]

Get Erhoff Instead

Erhoff is what we need since 2011 on D.
His still young at 31.
We don't need to give up any assets to sign him as he's a UFA after Buffalo bought him out

 

[RezChi]

inb4 we're getting Hodgson back in a package

 

[IComeInPeace]

I hope there's some type of fail safe system in place where Benning needs the co-authorization of at least 20-30 Canuck employees in order trade our next years 1st rounder away.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I hope there's some type of fail safe system in place where Benning needs the co-authorization of at least 20-30 Canuck employees in order trade our next years 1st rounder away.

No team is trading a 1st in 2015 draft unless they get something remarkable.

 

[Bps21*]

Don't deal with Tim Murray. The Sabres have ripped off the Islanders and Blues recently in trades. I am not giving up anything more than Gaunce and a 2nd round pick for Myers.

Only one of those was Murray.

 

[Canucks LB]

this is a ******** rumor. Pierre was just assuming.

 

[IComeInPeace]

No team is trading a 1st in 2015 draft unless they get something remarkable.

That's exactly what I was referencing...I'd love to get Myers. Not at the expense of our 1st next yr.

It was a tongue in cheek comment. A GM would never need the coauthorization of 20-30 team employees.

My mind started to wander into Fantasy Land...
What if we created enough hatred with the Bruins, they personally groomed Benning, to mess up our organization for a long, long time.
If we trade our 1st to the B's for Chris Kelly...

I'm not serious.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think Hamhuis could really turn Myers around, like what he's done with Tanev, depending on the cost I'm down for landing Myers.. I can't see Myers returning a big package given his contract and play but if we can land him at a reasonable cost than we should try.

if they're just giving guys away, which they might be, i'll take myers for nothing and try him with hamhuis.

maybe the proper comparison is jovo. he was a reclamation project too; high pick, came out of the all gangbusters and future norris winner, then regressed and stagnated and regressed some more. we turned him around, played him with his ideal partners, never asked him to take on a true number one's workload, and he became a very good 1a. again, only if buffalo is just dumping assets to gun for the number one, i'd gamble on myers. if it costs anything of value, i don't know if it's worth our while-- especially having not seen whether our new coaching staff is any better at developing D than bones or sully (ugh).

 

[Shimoe]

....but wait there is more, if you order by noon today, we are throwing in an extra set of Ginsua Knifes and the Backpack Griller. In addition, the first 1,000 callers get free shipping.

 

[BC Ben]

I like Myers and feel he is in the change of scenery category, moreso than in the reclamation project category... The fact that we would have to give up assets to acquire him, and there isn't a certainty about how he develops in our system (or lackthereof at this time) makes me a little hesitant, especially hearing what the supposed asking price is.

That said, seeing how trades are going down lately, if Buffalo is really interested in getting rid of this guy, I'd hope Vancouver is at least sniffing around looking for a bargain and maybe sending some salary the other way (to help the Sabres reach the cap floor).

 

[Cocoa Crisp]

if they're just giving guys away, which they might be, i'll take myers for nothing and try him with hamhuis.

maybe the proper comparison is jovo. he was a reclamation project too; high pick, came out of the all gangbusters and future norris winner, then regressed and stagnated and regressed some more. we turned him around, played him with his ideal partners, never asked him to take on a true number one's workload, and he became a very good 1a. again, only if buffalo is just dumping assets to gun for the number one, i'd gamble on myers. if it costs anything of value, i don't know if it's worth our while-- especially having not seen whether our new coaching staff is any better at developing D than bones or sully (ugh).

So, trade him for a disgruntled superstar... Oops. Kesler's already been dealt. IMO, we simply don't have the pieces to acquire him and the very real risk of it not panning out precludes the cost of admission.

 

[LeftCoast]

I think Myers still has a lot of potential, but I don't want to give up the assets it would take to acquire him.

 

[TheWanderer]

Trade Burrows and some kind of crumby, redundant prospect for him.

Change of scenery for change of scenery? *shrugs*

 

[bo2shink*]

....but wait there is more, if you order by noon today, we are throwing in an extra set of Ginsua Knifes and the Backpack Griller. In addition, the first 1,000 callers get free shipping.

What is the ******* number?

 

[bo2shink*]

I'd bet against the 2% chance of that happening and go with the 98% chance he continues on as the coach-killing, team-killing, goal-bleeding liability he's been for most of the last 4 years.

 

[ohlund2.2]

myers hasn't been good since his rookie season. please stay away. far, far away.

 

[82Ninety42011]

I'm assuming Sabres would have only entertained trading Myers if Reinhart had gone 1st over all and then they would have drafted Ekblad. However now it's highly unlikely they move him unless overwhelmed. If Benning is dead set on signing a D man and ruining my top 5 hopes for next year he should go after Ehrhoff instead.

 

[Hi-wayman]

Erhoff is what we need since 2011 on D.
His still young at 31.
We don't need to give up any assets to sign him as he's a UFA after Buffalo bought him out

Erhoff is a LD. We already have 4 good LD's in Hamhuis, Edler, Sbisa and Stanton. we need a RD, maybe two RD's. Meyers is a RD, but then so is Niskanen and Bogosian (whom Winnipeg may not be shopping but are at least putting out feelers).

If Willie plans to have a mobile offensive style of play, all our players will need speed and good hockey IQ. Meyers is borderline in those departments so would have to come cheap. Niskanen would work and would only cost money. Bogosian also would fit the Canucks but I'd be more interested in Kane if we traded with Winnipeg. If only we could get both

The Canucks do have players Winnipeg would like, namely Lack and Hansen, but they are still far away from what it would take to trade with Winnipeg.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

ehrhoff? gone. vet UFAs? not a good bet to be re-signed. so myers? maybe good as gone too.

that would leave only mike weber. maybe youngsters like ristolainen and mccabe stick. but my prediction is he's going full-on 2006 playoffs to tank for mcdavid and we'll see him bringing back janik, paetsch, jilsson, and yes rory fitzpatrick to round out the d-corps.

 

[Shareefruck]

Erhoff is a LD. We already have 4 good LD's in Hamhuis, Edler, Sbisa and Stanton. we need a RD, maybe two RD's. Meyers is a RD, but then so is Niskanen and Bogosian (whom Winnipeg may not be shopping but are at least putting out feelers).

If Willie plans to have a mobile offensive style of play, all our players will need speed and good hockey IQ. Meyers is borderline in those departments so would have to come cheap. Niskanen would work and would only cost money. Bogosian also would fit the Canucks but I'd be more interested in Kane if we traded with Winnipeg. If only we could get both

The Canucks do have players Winnipeg would like, namely Lack and Hansen, but they are still far away from what it would take to trade with Winnipeg.

Ehrhoff was a perfect RD in the entire time he played for us. In fact, the few times he was played on LD during his time here, he happened to be terrible (more a case of bad fits, as Ehrhoff-Bieksa and Ehrhoff-Salo were NOT good pairings)

He was fantasic playing on Edler's right side, and I remember him being good on Hamhuis' right side as well. Ehrhoff was strictly a pure RD in Vancouver.

 

[82Ninety42011]

Edit sorry didn't see Shareefruck's post.

 

[LeftCoast]

Just to add to what Shareefruck said.

For defensemen, playing in the defensive zone it is an advantage to be on your shooting side - LH Shot on LD, RH Shot on RD. This allows you to pick up the puck on the boards on your forehand while looking up ice for forecheckers. It also mean that when skate with the puck in the D zone, your body is between the puck and your net, so if you lose the puck, you still have "inside" position on your opponent.

In the offensive zone however the advantage is to play on you non-shooting side. You have far better shooting angles, it is much easier to get "inside" position on your opponent and you only have to open your hips a bit to take a one timer.

Ehrhoff is primarily an offensive weapon. He likes to play the RH side because (much like his overall game) he gives up a little defensively to be much more dangerous offensively.