Confirmed with Link: Canucks trade Sam Gagner to Oilers for Ryan Spooner, one for one, no salary retained.

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

He’s kind of a Leipsic/Vey hybrid. Small soft perimeter player who sucks defensively but has some PP utility.

Probably won't last on that top line for very long..most likely go back to Leivo.

 

[MS]

Probably won't last on that top line for very long..most likely go back to Leivo.

I don’t see him as being a Green favourite, no. Hitchcock absolutely hated him straight away and I think they’re similar in their takes on this type of player.

Although he is clearly a Benning favourite and who knows how far that takes him.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

For f*** sake, can't we just stop having players like this on our team?

 

[Soups On]

Rectifying a self inflicted wound with Gagner being paid by the Canucks to play for the Marlies. Sure.

Look, if Spooner can inject some life on the first or second PP, great. But based on his career performance, it does sound like he needs to be sheltered to be effective. Putting him with Elias and Brock seems kind've wasteful. It would be nice to see MacEwen up there but I understand why Green would be hesitant.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I don’t see him as being a Green favourite, no. Hitchcock absolutely hated him straight away and I think they’re similar in their takes on this type of player.

Although he is clearly a Benning favourite and who knows how far that takes him.

That top line definitely needs someone to do spade work, and dig pucks out...I don't think I could handle watching feeble pedestrian forechecking in the top 6..It makes me want to throw stuff at the TV.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

That top line definitely needs someone to do spade work, and dig pucks out...I don't think I could handle watching feeble pedestrian forechecking in the top 6..It makes me want to throw stuff at the TV.

You must have gone through a lot of tvs in the last five years.

 

[Lindgren]

I don't mind the trade. It mainly helps Utica, as the Canucks would've had to call someone up if they hadn't acquired Spooner, and The Marlies, currently battling the Comets for playoff position, lose one of their top producers in Gagner.

It would have been better if the Canucks had managed to get a draft pick for Gagner, but even with salary retained I doubt he would have brought that return.

The way the deal reflects badly on management isn't the return for Gagner; it's the reminder of what a bad acquisition and signing Gagner was in the first place. At the time, Benning defenders would have said that Gagner could eventually be traded for a decent pick. Now it's clear they were wrong (of course it was already clear when he passed through waivers), but don't come to this thread to see if any will acknowledge they were mistaken.

 

[Melvin]

If the healthy canucks send spooner to Utica then it's fine.

If the healthy canucks send Gaudette to Utica than the trade stinks.

It's as simple as that imo.

 

[MS]

That top line definitely needs someone to do spade work, and dig pucks out...I don't think I could handle watching feeble pedestrian forechecking in the top 6..It makes me want to throw stuff at the TV.

Yeah, Boeser and Spooner as a set of wingers defensively and in the corners does not seem like a good fit.

Leivo has looked decent there and I don’t understand the need to change.

 

[Jay Cee]

I'm willing to try anything at this point. Not holding breath.

 

[Bad Goalie]

They most likely already are sending one of Big Mac or gaudette down for spooner in the nhl lineup. It’s already worst case scenario when you consider just calling up your own guy!
Again I reiterate! If Gagner says boo about going to utica instead of Toronto again, and doesn’t report. The Canucks fan terminate his contract with no cap implications! Instead they’ve saved themselves all of $12,500 in a buyout situation between each player. But they are insistent on playing the lesser player in the NHL RIGHT NOW!
How in the utter **** is this positive for Vancouver in any way?

They had already made an agreement that if Gagner was called up and then sent back to the AHL it would always be back to the Marlies. Toronto made that part of the agreement. Benning gets bent every which way.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

They had already made an agreement that if Gagner was called up and then sent back to the AHL it would always be back to the Marlies. Toronto made that part of the agreement. Benning gets bent every which way.

TBH, I could give less than a f*** about any agreements made over hand shakes about where a player contractually obligated to my organization! But that’s just me, seeing as it’s a business and all.

 

[biturbo19]

The worst case is that he stinks but stays in the lineup for 150 games ala Vey and Granlund. That is what people are worried about.

The one nice thing about Gagner is that he was done here and would have been bought out if not traded.

Again, these players are both bad players.

One of them we were through and done with and didn’t have to see on the roster anymore. Thankfully.

But now we’re going to spend the next year gifting a roster spot to a different crap player, rather than investing that roster spot on someone who might develop into something useful.

There’s an opportunity cost here.

I mean, if you really desperately want to dig and dig until you can find a reason to be negative and fearful of this trade, i guess you can make that point. Ultimately though, you're just complaining about a separate issue and using it to poison your view of pretty much everything else.

You're essentially just saying you don't trust the coaching staff. You don't trust them to use players appropriately. You don't trust them to make exactly the same "tough call" they literally just made this year, in deciding that Gagner and his big salary were not NHL caliber and sending him down to the minors/headed for a buyout.

If that's how you feel about the coaching staff (and influence of management on their roster management), cool. There are plenty of reasons to lack faith in this coaching staff's competence in evaluation and deployment. But Travis Green isn't part of this trade. We didn't just acquire him alongside Spooner. If you want to filter every single thing through shit coloured glasses with the lens of, "Green and Benning will screw it up and make it bad" or whatever...you're going to see everything as bad and poopy.

You're not really commenting on a Spooner vs Gagner trade at that point though. You're commenting the same tired, "Green and Benning are incompetent so no matter what, this move will end up bad". If that's how you feel, that's your prerogative i guess. It's an exceptionally bleak, actively negative way of trying to evaluate things though. Don't be surprised if people point out how you're working off an aggressively negative no-win perspective in everything.

 

[timbermen]

That's totally what happened.

I think he'll be back, he's probably in anger management classes.

 

[Melvin]

I mean, if you really desperately want to dig and dig until you can find a reason to be negative and fearful of this trade, i guess you can make that point. Ultimately though, you're just complaining about a separate issue and using it to poison your view of pretty much everything else.

You're essentially just saying you don't trust the coaching staff. You don't trust them to use players appropriately. You don't trust them to make exactly the same "tough call" they literally just made this year, in deciding that Gagner and his big salary were not NHL caliber and sending him down to the minors/headed for a buyout.

If that's how you feel about the coaching staff (and influence of management on their roster management), cool. There are plenty of reasons to lack faith in this coaching staff's competence in evaluation and deployment. But Travis Green isn't part of this trade. We didn't just acquire him alongside Spooner. If you want to filter every single thing through **** coloured glasses with the lens of, "Green and Benning will screw it up and make it bad" or whatever...you're going to see everything as bad and poopy.

You're not really commenting on a Spooner vs Gagner trade at that point though. You're commenting the same tired, "Green and Benning are incompetent so no matter what, this move will end up bad". If that's how you feel, that's your prerogative i guess. It's an exceptionally bleak, actively negative way of trying to evaluate things though. Don't be surprised if people point out how you're working off an aggressively negative no-win perspective in everything.

To the contrary.

If you're insistent on looking at every trade in some sort of isolated vacuum, then your opinions are going to be bereft of so much context to render them meaningless.

Sure, Gagner and Spooner are both similarly useless, thus that on paper this is a lateral move. But those that follow the team understand the other factors at play. Gagner was put of sight, out of mind, and swapping him for spooner is akin to calling Gagner up, as Spooner will undoubtedly be on the nhl roster and taking away ice time from other players. This worry has already been vindicated with the reports of spooner skating with EP and Boeser. This is no different than calling up Gagner and having him play with EP and Boeser, which would be similarly admonished.

Your need to dismiss other points as being motivated by anything else is nothing more than a childish ad hominem, and reflective of your own reluctance to engage in critical thinking and discussion.

If you don't agree with the points others are making, then make a counter argument. Personal attacks and accusations get you nowhere.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Do you think really think so?

Didn't they just cut Gagner Nilsson and Del Zotto after players outplayed them or needed opportunities. Schaller has been pasted to the press box and Eriksson and Gudbranson are on 4th lines and a 3rd defense pair. Green was even only giving the Sedins 10min of ice when they weren't skating well.

I dont think this is a thing but you might be right in that Benning likes Spooner and they give him a long leash to resurrect his career. Also Baertchi might be done so that could create a hole.....we'll see.

They cut those guys after how much time? Spooner gets at least a full season and 1/2based on those you listed.

 

[MS]

I mean, if you really desperately want to dig and dig until you can find a reason to be negative and fearful of this trade, i guess you can make that point. Ultimately though, you're just complaining about a separate issue and using it to poison your view of pretty much everything else.

You're essentially just saying you don't trust the coaching staff. You don't trust them to use players appropriately. You don't trust them to make exactly the same "tough call" they literally just made this year, in deciding that Gagner and his big salary were not NHL caliber and sending him down to the minors/headed for a buyout.

If that's how you feel about the coaching staff (and influence of management on their roster management), cool. There are plenty of reasons to lack faith in this coaching staff's competence in evaluation and deployment. But Travis Green isn't part of this trade. We didn't just acquire him alongside Spooner. If you want to filter every single thing through **** coloured glasses with the lens of, "Green and Benning will screw it up and make it bad" or whatever...you're going to see everything as bad and poopy.

You're not really commenting on a Spooner vs Gagner trade at that point though. You're commenting the same tired, "Green and Benning are incompetent so no matter what, this move will end up bad". If that's how you feel, that's your prerogative i guess. It's an exceptionally bleak, actively negative way of trying to evaluate things though. Don't be surprised if people point out how you're working off an aggressively negative no-win perspective in everything.

That lack of trust is well-earned.

One of the hallmarks of this administration is acquiring horrible players and then spending years watching them cost us games. This goes from Sbisa to Granlund to Pouliot to Gudbranson to Vey and on and on.

Again, if this was purely an AHL deal and we were swapping out a guy playing in Toronto for a guy who would help Utica - great! Solid move in a vacuum.

But any move that involves bringing a proven bad player onto the NHL roster at the opportunity cost of acquiring a better player or investing those minutes in developing a younger player ... is a bad move.

Gaudette right now is snowing some real promise. Instead of burying him for 9 minutes/game on a line with Tyler Motte, we could be giving him a look on wing next to top players. Or keep working on developing Leivo who has shown promise. But instead we’re recycling someone else’s garbage on our top line and god only knows how long it will go for given how these guys do things.

 

[biturbo19]

To the contrary.

If you're insistent k Looking at every trade in some sort of isolated vacuum, then your opinions are going to be bereft of so much context to render them meaningless.

Sure, Gagner and spooner are both similarly useless, thus that on paper this is a lateral move. But those that follow the team understand the other factors at play. Gagner was put of sight, out of kind, and swapping him for spooner is akin to calling him up, as spooner will undoubtedly be on the nhl roster and taking away ice time from other players. This worry has already been vindicated with the reports of spooner skating with EP and Boeser. This is no different than calling up Gagner and having him play with EP and Boeser, which would be similarly admonished.

Your need to dismiss other points as being motivated by anything else is nothing more than a childish ad hominem, and reflective of your own reluctance to engage in critical thinking and discussion.

If you don't agree with the points others are making, then make a counter argument. Personal attacks and accusations get you nowhere.

If you're going to get anything out of a player like Spooner though, that's exactly who he should be skating with. He's the type of player who, if he's got any chance at scoring enough to live with his other deficiencies...he's going to need good offensive opportunities like that. That's precisely how you'd go about "failing fast" on a guy like Spooner. Throw him into a good situation, and if he still fails...you bury him like Gagner.

You just jump in throw crap like, "childish ad hominem" at me, imply ulterior motivation and "reluctance to engage in critical thinking and discussion", when you are the one who came in here with the argument that essentially boils down to, "this move is bad because Benning and Green are bad so they're going to do bad things that make this trade bad on the whole". That is juvenile simplistic negative argumentation. It's endlessly frustrating and more or less impossible to engage with on a "thoughtful critical discussion" level because it's circular and designed to ensure everything is bad, because the people who did it are bad.

 

[Bad Goalie]

have a feeling this will be a granlund moment where we don't paper this guy to Utica next week because he's an 'nhl player.'

I am behin12d reading this whole pile of crap for the first time. I was just saying that all of the guys spewing how good this can turn out for utica don't realize he won't be any good to utica if he isn't papered down and neither will Brisebois, MacEwen, Gaudette, Schenn, or Demko. These bozos have a rep for not realizing they are supposed to do this to give young guys a chance to extend their seasons and get a taste for a playoff run.

I am walking on ice over this upcoming date.

 

[biturbo19]

That lack of trust is well-earned.

One of the hallmarks of this administration is acquiring horrible players and then spending years watching them cost us games. This goes from Sbisa to Granlund to Pouliot to Gudbranson to Vey and on and on.

Again, if this was purely an AHL deal and we were swapping out a guy playing in Toronto for a guy who would help Utica - great! Solid move in a vacuum.

But any move that involves bringing a proven bad player onto the NHL roster at the opportunity cost of acquiring a better player or investing those minutes in developing a younger player ... is a bad move.

Gaudette right now is snowing some real promise. Instead of burying him for 9 minutes/game on a line with Tyler Motte, we could be giving him a look on wing next to top players. Or keep working on developing Leivo who has shown promise. But instead we’re recycling someone else’s garbage on our top line and god only knows how long it will go for given how these guys do things.

Has Spooner really been definitively "proven bad"? He's never been a great player, and he was a complete bust in the mess that is Edmonton...but he's also proven to have reasonable stretches of Top-6/9 caliber NHL ability and Top-6 productivity.

If they throw him in there with good players in good opportunities and he is "proven bad" there, looks completely washed and awful...so be it. Be viciously critical if he continues to play extremely poorly in good opportunities for a prolonged period. By all means. Right now though, it's very much a case where you're essentially stating that you've made up your mind on not only the player before he's even played a shift here...but the coach/GM's inability to wad up this project and throw it in the trash if it doesn't work out. Even when the player we just sent away in Gagner is a clear and present example of...exactly the opposite.

It's fatalistic thinking. It's a real bummer. And it's not something that can even really be engaged "critically" without straying completely away from discussion of the trade itself, because it fundamentally isn't about this particular trade at all. It's about the same firmly entrenched notions about what this management is in a broad all-encompassing sense, constantly bleeding into everything else.

Literally may as well just go around copy/pasting the same, "Benning is bad so this move will be bad" comment into pretty much every discussion, for all the "critical thought" it involves on a specific case-by-case basis.

 

[Melvin]

If you're going to get anything out of a player like Spooner though, that's exactly who he should be skating with. He's the type of player who, if he's got any chance at scoring enough to live with his other deficiencies...he's going to need good offensive opportunities like that. That's precisely how you'd go about "failing fast" on a guy like Spooner. Throw him into a good situation, and if he still fails...you bury him like Gagner.

Then I disagree with the strategy of acquiring yet another cast off on the hope and prayer that playng him on the top line will help him be a better player than he's been the past three seasons, and I do not trust management to "bury him like Gagner" as they have not shown any willingness to do this with any of their ex Bruins.

You just jump in throw crap like, "childish ad hominem" at me, imply ulterior motivation and "reluctance to engage in critical thinking and discussion", when you are the one who came in here with the argument that essentially boils down to, "this move is bad because Benning and Green are bad so they're going to do bad things that make this trade bad on the whole". That is juvenile simplistic negative argumentation. It's endlessly frustrating and more or less impossible to engage with on a "thoughtful critical discussion" level because it's circular and designed to ensure everything is bad, because the people who did it are bad.

Oh Jesus. I didn't "jump into" anything. You responded to an argument I made by saying, quote: "I mean, if you really desperately want to dig and dig until you can find a reason to be negative and fearful of this trade, i guess you can make that point..."

This is a classic ad hominem. You are not addressing my argument, but instead attacking my motives. It is childish and frankly I didn't read the rest of your post after that.

Yes, moves look worse when considering all the context. I don't understand your cirtisicm of this. The linden Vey trade would not have been half as bad if Willie didn't end up playing him in prime situations for 116 games. This group simply has not earned the benefit of the doubt and it is 100% valid to consider their history to give a transaction more context.

But even all that aside, I never said the "move is bad." I even went as far as to say that if they send Spooner down when healthy, then it's fine. I never said the move is bad because of what they will do, I said the move might be fine but I am worried about what they might do, a worry that I feel is entirely valid. So in addition to ad hominem your tirade is also based upon a strawman of me saying the "move is bad" when all I said was thst I was worried about how Spooner will be used.

You might want to check your own motives to discover why you need to read so much into the things that people say to contort their arguments into something else so that you can go on a rant about it.

 

[biturbo19]

Then I disagree with the strategy of acquiring yet another cast off on the hope and prayer that playng him on the top line will help him be a better player than he's been the past three seasons, and I do not trust management to "bury him like Gagner" as they have not shown any willingness to do this with any of their ex Bruins.



Oh Jesus. I didn't "jump into" anything. You responded to an argument I made by saying, quote: "I mean, if you really desperately want to dig and dig until you can find a reason to be negative and fearful of this trade, i guess you can make that point..."

This is a classic ad hominem. You are not addressing my argument, but instead attacking my motives. It is childish and frankly I didn't read the rest of your post after that.

Yes, moves look worse when considering all the context. I don't understand your cirtisicm of this. The linden Vey trade would not have been half as bad if Willie didn't end up playing him in prime situations for 116 games. This group simply has not earned the benefit of the doubt and it is 100% valid to consider their history to give a transaction more context.

But even all that aside, I never said the "move is bad." I even went as far as to say that if they send Spooner down when healthy, then it's fine. I never said the move is bad because of what they will do, I said the move might be fine but I am worried about what they might do, a worry that I feel is entirely valid. So in addition to ad hominem your tirade is also based upon a strawman of me saying the "move is bad" when all I said was thst I was worried about how Spooner will be used.

You might want to check your own motives to discover why you need to read so much into the things that people say to contort their arguments into something else so that you can go on a rant about it.

If you're going to call me out for a "lack of critical thought and discussion" and then blatantly admit you're not even going to read my post...don't expect me to read the rest of your post either. If that's your attitude, that's not engaging in critical thought and discussion, and it's not worth my time or attention.

 

[Melvin]

If you're going to call me out for a "lack of critical thought and discussion" and then blatantly admit you're not even going to read my post...don't expect me to read the rest of your post either. If that's your attitude, that's not engaging in critical thought and discussion, and it's not worth my time or attention.

Cool. If you're not going to make actual arguments then I don't want you responding to me.

I'm amused though that you think critical thinking requires me to read the entire ranting of someone who started off his post with an ad hominem and a personal attack.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

To the contrary.

If you're insistent on looking at every trade in some sort of isolated vacuum, then your opinions are going to be bereft of so much context to render them meaningless.

Sure, Gagner and Spooner are both similarly useless, thus that on paper this is a lateral move. But those that follow the team understand the other factors at play. Gagner was put of sight, out of mind, and swapping him for spooner is akin to calling Gagner up, as Spooner will undoubtedly be on the nhl roster and taking away ice time from other players. This worry has already been vindicated with the reports of spooner skating with EP and Boeser. This is no different than calling up Gagner and having him play with EP and Boeser, which would be similarly admonished.

Your need to dismiss other points as being motivated by anything else is nothing more than a childish ad hominem, and reflective of your own reluctance to engage in critical thinking and discussion.

If you don't agree with the points others are making, then make a counter argument. Personal attacks and accusations get you nowhere.

This guy! I like you! Please post more often! It’s nice to read logic and actual reasoning

 

[PetterssonSimp]

I am behin12d reading this whole pile of crap for the first time. I was just saying that all of the guys spewing how good this can turn out for utica don't realize he won't be any good to utica if he isn't papered down and neither will Brisebois, MacEwen, Gaudette, Schenn, or Demko. These bozos have a rep for not realizing they are supposed to do this to give young guys a chance to extend their seasons and get a taste for a playoff run.

I am walking on ice over this upcoming date.

Granlund and more recently Motte are prime examples of this!