Canucks News, Rumours, & Fantasy GM | Waiver Time!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vector

Moderator
Feb 2, 2007
24,225
39,262
Junktown


-tried to get it done before the season so they wouldn't have to play with 17 on opening night
-now it's harder to predict the timeline because teams want to see what they have before making moves
-Columbus, Nashville, and Winnipeg are interested and he thinks there are more
-Canucks stated goal is to free up 1-2m in cap room after any trade and they prefer a defencemen in return
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
23,663
7,830
Alright I’m sold.
Move Garland + assets for a right shot defender, sign Bear, use assets to move Myers or just bench him

Pretty much this, hopefully Soucy/Blueger/Mikheyev are back soon. On my ideal list, I also have an upgrade at LW in the bottom six, but may not be able to afford it. Hoglander having a good game helps.
 

Petey O

I can teach you how to play gicky gackers
Feb 26, 2021
5,907
9,735
Brock Boeser
Alright I’m sold.
Move Garland + assets for a right shot defender, sign Bear, use assets to move Myers or just bench him
This is a year I'm fine moving the 1st at the deadline if these performances aren't just a mirage.

If the team plays like this on the regular, I'm fully confident in PA/Rutherford investing in it. Especially with Pettersson needing a successful team to come back here.
 

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,103
3,927
Vancouver
garland (retained) for peeke is gonna happen and it's gonna suck

Why is going to suck? I've wanted Peeke for a while and it's clear Garland isn't a fit and has no future here. I will acknowledge that Peeke hasn't been great of late but he could be a poor man's Gavrikov - ie look better once out of Columbus. I suspect it will take some time for the coaching staff to rehabilitate and rebuild his game but we could use another #4/5 RD defensive defenceman imo.
 

Vector

Moderator
Feb 2, 2007
24,225
39,262
Junktown
Why is going to suck? I've wanted Peeke for a while and it's clear Garland isn't a fit and has no future here. I will acknowledge that Peeke hasn't been great of late but he could be a poor man's Gavrikov - ie look better once out of Columbus. I suspect it will take some time for the coaching staff to rehabilitate and rebuild his game but we could use another #4/5 RD defensive defenceman imo.

credulous HATES Peeke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: credulous

DarrenX

Registered User
Apr 15, 2014
654
674
I agree. But even with the low salary I just don’t see many teams wanting to take on that high of a cap hit without a decent sweetener.
Cap space is a commodity rarer than gold right now. Arizona has $6m? They're going to want a first round pick for it, not a giraffe.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
23,663
7,830
credulous HATES Peeke.

Peeke was ... not very good last season in an expanded role. To be fair, he was better when played down the line-up, and isn't paid egregiously, but he is certainly not the ideal answer to the defensive depth issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dez

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,564
14,977
Peeke was ... not very good last season in an expanded role. To be fair, he was better when played down the line-up, and isn't paid egregiously, but he is certainly not the ideal answer to the defensive depth issues.
Peeke was ... not very good last season in an expanded role. To be fair, he was better when played down the line-up, and isn't paid egregiously, but he is certainly not the ideal answer to the defensive depth issues.
Unfortunately when you're trying to rid yourself of a $4.9m contract for a guy like Garland, the trade options are limited.

You're almost assuredly going to have to either eat some salary, or accept a bad contract in return. Peake may not be the answer. But if the Jackets offered him 'even-up' for Garland with no retained salary, the Canucks would jump at on in a heartbeat.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
23,663
7,830
Unfortunately when you're trying to rid yourself of a $4.9m contract for a guy like Garland, the trade options are limited.

You're almost assuredly going to have to either eat some salary, or accept a bad contract in return. Peake may not be the answer. But if the Jackets offered him 'even-up' for Garland with no retained salary, the Canucks would jump at on in a heartbeat.

I don't disagree, and I'd probably be fine with that trade as long as they don't throw in a draft pick. Peeke would be an upgrade on Juulsen, and is probably fine at ~15 minutes per game in the bottom pairing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vector

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,840
19,948
Victoria
Kings might need a winger if Arvidsson has back surgery.

But doubt a trade could work.

LAK have also been so tight to the cap that they've played a man short, so unless Arvidsson is going to be LTIR most of the year it's tough for them to fit a $$ winger in. More likely that they will promote from within first (Kalyiev, Lafferiere).
 
  • Like
Reactions: kinghock

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,337
7,408
Victoria
LAK have also been so tight to the cap that they've played a man short, so unless Arvidsson is going to be LTIR most of the year it's tough for them to fit a $$ winger in. More likely that they will promote from within first (Kalyiev, Lafferiere).
Kalyiev was suspended to start i think that was compounding it
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
17,011
9,736
there’s no way you retain on garland at 1.5 when you can retain on myers for one year and essentially zero actual cash

way.

garland played just under 10 minutes last night. myers played just under 20. we can lose garland. we cannot lose myers unless we replace his minutes and/or juulsen shows he can play more than 12 minutes in a clutch game.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
17,011
9,736
my view is we need to address the fact the canucks have zero defensive depth if we want to be playoff contenders let alone contenders. even with soucy back in the lineup we are one short of an nhl calibre defensive lineup. we badly need a bottom pairing that will not be the game plan of other teams to target with last change in road games and we also need call ups. you can only play cat and mouse so much, and cole and hronek are going to be worn down.

hirose is poised and capable, but i think not strong or experienced enough yet to manage the boards or the front of the net. juulsen can maybe be babysat but he is definitely toolbox deficient.

maybe a couple of brisebois, mcward, irwin, rathbone and wolanin can step up and in. that's a lot of near nhl depth, but no clear nhl depth.

and the giraffe in the room needs to be considered. he usually starts the season awkward and slightly confused, but he does look a little more of both than usual. if he can't play 20 minutes we may need to make a trade now and give up on bear.
 

LemonSauceD

Instigator
Sponsor
Jul 31, 2015
7,017
11,772
Vancouver
there’s no way you retain on garland at 1.5 when you can retain on myers for one year and essentially zero actual cash
Well hold on.

Retaining on Garland would mean a much positive return. At $3.4M x 3, he’s a bargain 5v5 player and Allvin needs to market it as such. That’s a cost controlled asset for any team and a good contract to have before the salary cap increase. So if we do retain 30%, I wouldn’t be expecting anything less than a B+ prospect, a mid round pick, and an NHL asset. If you can’t find a deal like that or better, you simply keep him and revisit next off season.

Unless it’s a Garland for Roslovic 50% retained and Peeke (which I’m having second thoughts about this trade as whole), we will most definitely need to retain on Garland. The more you retain, the more value should be coming back in theory. From a cap perspective, 1.5M makes sense. Not too big of a hit, but not too significant, and you have a better chance at maximizing the return. IMO much easier to navigate with.

This is the reality of a Garland trade.
 

credulous

Registered User
Nov 18, 2021
3,433
4,617
didn't he hate gavrikov too?

no i just didn't think he was worth a 5m contract for term. he's an okayish top 4 dman not someone you commit significant assets to

credulous HATES Peeke.

yeah. i think he's a worse gudbranson. looks like a hockey player so gets credit for being much better than he is. he doesn't do anything good on the ice. peeke is worse than just playing myers or probably even juulsen or bear or mcward
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nazzlind

nucksflailtogether

Registered User
Oct 15, 2017
2,408
2,750
I really don't want to trade another 1st, but I wonder if a guy like Boqvist might be worth it, with Beau/CG going back the other way? I know he's another offensive defenseman and he shoots left, but he is young and fills that need. Another puck moving D on the right side would be huge and strong depth for if Hronek or Hughes were to go down.
 

credulous

Registered User
Nov 18, 2021
3,433
4,617
I really don't want to trade another 1st, but I wonder if a guy like Boqvist might be worth it, with Beau/CG going back the other way? I know he's another offensive defenseman and he shoots left, but he is young and fills that need. Another puck moving D on the right side would be huge and strong depth for if Hronek or Hughes were to go down.

boqvist is the only one of the columbus defenders i think would improve the canucks but it's hard to see them being interested when they have hughes, cole and soucy on that side. vancouver's not really a team that can afford 3m in the press box night after night
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,337
7,408
Victoria
boqvist is the only one of the columbus defenders i think would improve the canucks but it's hard to see them being interested when they have hughes, cole and soucy on that side. vancouver's not really a team that can afford 3m in the press box night after night
He is a RHD though he would get the ice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad