Speculation: Let's make a list of players that "Could" Be traded for our 1st Round Pick (11th Overall)

[Lindgren]

The Canucks are so far over the cap, they can't trade for new players until they clean out the trash.

The deal that makes the most sense is OEL and our 1st to Chicago or Zona.

Do you think that OEL would approve either of those moves? Why?

 

[credulous]

Funny that you mention because Gudbranson because when the canucks traded for him and what Andrew Peeke is now right are very similar profiles. 24 year old defenders that are big and skate pretty well are physical but lack hockey iq to be top 4 defenders on good teams.

he's a classic example of a bad player on a bad team who people think could be good on a good team

spoiler: columbus are bad because they play peeke a lot and he's very bad

 

[VanJack]

Obviously for the Canucks to trade their 11th overall pick for a roster or player or two, they'd have to deal with at least one of their bloated contracts.

The first guy out the door could be Myers, once his bonuses are paid in September. But I wouldn't sleep on Miller either.

Everybody assume he's 'untradeable'. But if reports are accurate, even after the Canucks signed him to a new contract, they had a trade in place with the Pens at the TDL that fell apart at the last minute.

Seems the Canucks are basically 'all-in' on this 'rebuild on the fly'. They just seem determined to trade picks for prospects--as little sense at it makes.

 

[Peen]

Given our cap situation, I actually would say effectively no one. They don't have money to re-sign players without moving out money.

If this question is - who would I trade the 11th + Boeser/Garland/OEL (term guys), that question is way more interesting.

Like we can't afford to take on a player whose contract expires in a year, even if they're an RFA. We need at least 2+ years of ELC/bridge production.

 

[MS]

Peeke a young skilled RD [email protected]

We would be lucky to get Peeke for the 11th overall 1 for 1 swap.

You're on the moon if you think he's only valued at a 2nd.

Peeke might be worth more than a 2nd but there is no way in hell 3 years of control on a #4ish defender is worth #11 in this draft.

 

[JohnHodgson]

Would you guys ever do this?

To Detroit:

11th pick
Brock Boeser

To Vancouver:
17th pick
43rd pick

Detroit moves up in a deep draft at a small cost of a second round pick and takes a flyer on Boeser to help replenish the scoring that was traded away in Bert and Vrana.

Canucks shed cap space, gain a second round pick, and can probably find a solid D or C at 17.

Thoughts?

 

[Peen]

Would you guys ever do this?

To Detroit:

11th pick
Brock Boeser

To Vancouver:
17th pick
43rd pick

Detroit moves up in a deep draft at a small cost of a second round pick and takes a flyer on Boeser to help replenish the scoring that was traded away in Bert and Vrana.

Canucks shed cap space, gain a second round pick, and can probably find a solid D or C at 17.

Thoughts?

Detroit wouldn't do that unless they really like the opportunity cost of Brock for "free"

11 for 17+43 sounds like a pretty standard value trade in itself for teams to move up/down.

 

[JohnHodgson]

Detroit wouldn't do that unless they really like the opportunity cost of Brock for "free"

11 for 17+43 sounds like a pretty standard value trade in itself for teams to move up/down.

Interesting.

I just got a response on Detroit board saying Vancouver says no.

This draft is really deep and Detroit having picks 9 and 11 would be super advantageous for their draft board. It's also a really a deep draft so I don't think 43 to move up 6 high spots is a big offer.

But yes, I agree... Detroit would have to see Boeser as someone worthwhile to take on basically for "Free". They need to hit cap floor next year so might as well take a chance on a 26 year old top six winger?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Would you guys ever do this?

To Detroit:

11th pick
Brock Boeser

To Vancouver:
17th pick
43rd pick

Detroit moves up in a deep draft at a small cost of a second round pick and takes a flyer on Boeser to help replenish the scoring that was traded away in Bert and Vrana.

Canucks shed cap space, gain a second round pick, and can probably find a solid D or C at 17.

Thoughts?

I wouldnt do it because moving from the 11th pick to the 17th is moving on from the second to the third tier of players...imo

Brock Boeser has the speed of an ocean going freighter, but he still has a knack for the net..Played better under Tocchet..I wouldnt be opposed to trading him, but not utilizing the 11th OA to do it.

 

[JohnHodgson]

I wouldnt do it because moving from the 11th pick to the 17th is moving on from the second to the third tier of players...imo

Brock Boeser has the speed of an ocean going freighter, but he still has a knack for the net..Played better under Tocchet..I wouldnt be opposed to trading him, but not utilizing the 11th OA to do it.

From what I've seen so far, not too big of a drop off.

If we could execute that trade and get ASP or Willander at 17 would be nice.

 

[Peen]

Interesting.

I just got a response on Detroit board saying Vancouver says no.

This draft is really deep and Detroit having picks 9 and 11 would be super advantageous for their draft board. It's also a really a deep draft so I don't think 43 to move up 6 high spots is a big offer.

But yes, I agree... Detroit would have to see Boeser as someone worthwhile to take on basically for "Free". They need to hit cap floor next year so might as well take a chance on a 26 year old top six winger?

It all comes down to how the teams view Boeser.

From what i can tell, Vancouver has been trying to move Boeser for an asset like a 2nd without taking back anything. So maybe there is an argument that vancouver says no. I kind of buy the "bad free agent market - not a lot of true rebuilding teams willing to deal established players" argument where maybe Garland and Boeser have more value than I personally think they do.

But if I'm a team around the league, I would question why I would take him for free. Maybe Detroit does like the idea of taking a shot with Boeser relative to other options. Who knows.

If I had to guess, i would assume both teams are asking for the other to give up a 2nd at the start of that negotiation.

i would imagine that Brock's bounce back will be a more sustained period of form that he showed under Tocchet where there is some rebound in his overall effort and two-way presence with a pace above 60+ depending on who his c is/ice time, but it's still not really a "winning player" - especially one that justifies his salary. But i think that player we saw years ago where his defensive game was so improved circa bubble season 2020 is probably not who he is. We've only seen it for one year in his career.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

11th pick gets traded to generate short term cap space so we can get back to our winning tradition.

 

[Diversification]

I was actually proposing an offer sheet at $6.3 million. Rangers won't match. Castonguay might have better ideas to utilize and make Laf a better player. (ex-agent)

WUT?

 

[Diversification]

It all comes down to how the teams view Boeser.

From what i can tell, Vancouver has been trying to move Boeser for an asset like a 2nd without taking back anything. So maybe there is an argument that vancouver says no. I kind of buy the "bad free agent market - not a lot of true rebuilding teams willing to deal established players" argument where maybe Garland and Boeser have more value than I personally think they do.

But if I'm a team around the league, I would question why I would take him for free. Maybe Detroit does like the idea of taking a shot with Boeser relative to other options. Who knows.

Yep. Pretty much.

If you were a team with cap space, would you invest 6.65M for 2 years on UFA Boeser? If the answer is no, there's your answer in terms of his trade value at full freight.

If we deal him, it would have to be with retention. And then it begs the question: how much can we retain and still have room to take on, say, a 3C?

It's a tricky situation that management finds themselves in if they want to reallocate cap space more productively.

 

[Nucker101]

WUT?

View attachment 709429

First team in history to make offer sheet with no cap space.

Let’s make history.

 

[RobsonStreet]

Your analysis of his value is off. Peeke is a young & cost controlled player. He plays the right side and has a ton of upside - especially defensively.

His numbers don't look good but that's not the only way to evaluate a player, especially a defenseman - also hes playing for Columbus all players stats are taking a plunge there right now. Peeke is not a throw in trade for Columbus right now he's actually a bit of a hidden gem.

Nothing I’ve seen of Peeke tells me he’s a meaningful upgrade on Hronek or Bear, meaning you’re spending draft capital to go from one cost-controlled third-pair D (Juulsen) to another.

Facilitate an exit for Myers whenever is realistic and stay out of bidding wars. Right now, third line centre is a much bigger area of concern and should be the focus anyway.

 

[MarkMM]

Do you think that OEL would approve either of those moves? Why?

No guarantees but hopefully he'd be open to bottom feeding teams where he gets a chance to prove himself in a contract year.

Otherwise we tell him that if he doesn't take the trade then we'll waive him and he'll end up going to those teams anyway or a place perhaps less attractive (if that's possible, you never know his personal opinions, I'd rather live in Arizona or Chicago than Winnipeg but with his history maybe he even likes a place like Winnipeg...not saying that's a team he'd end up, just as an example of you never knowing where someone might not want to end up).

Would you guys ever do this?

To Detroit:

11th pick
Brock Boeser

To Vancouver:
17th pick
43rd pick

Detroit moves up in a deep draft at a small cost of a second round pick and takes a flyer on Boeser to help replenish the scoring that was traded away in Bert and Vrana.

Canucks shed cap space, gain a second round pick, and can probably find a solid D or C at 17.

Thoughts?

Not the worst idea and I'd consider it if a few factors played out:

1.) We try to see if we can move Boeser and get back a 2nd without this; I'm thinking if we retaina a million or two we should be able to get a 2nd, clear his space and keep our 1st. We can get additional cap space by LTIR'ing Pearson (not hopefully in the sense that I want him to continue to be injured, but I don't think he's a fit here, has health issues he should focus on so maybe that's just a convenient thiing for us) and hopeflly by trading / waiving Myers after his bonus is paid.

If that doesn't work, then second condition:

2.) The players we really want are gone by 11 and the next player we want is a bit of a stretch to pick at 11 and we have confidence would be there at 11 (so someone like Willander in this hypothetical scenario).

 

[Lindgren]

No guarantees but hopefully he'd be open to bottom feeding teams where he gets a chance to prove himself in a contract year.

Otherwise we tell him that if he doesn't take the trade then we'll waive him and he'll end up going to those teams anyway or a place perhaps less attractive (if that's possible, you never know his personal opinions, I'd rather live in Arizona or Chicago than Winnipeg but with his history maybe he even likes a place like Winnipeg...not saying that's a team he'd end up, just as an example of you never knowing where someone might not want to end up).

OEL can't be waived and he can't be sent to the minors. He has a no movement clause. It's a clause that doesn't permit movement without his permission. He can't be moved. That's what no "movement" means.

He'll be 36 when his current contract runs out, after four more seasons. He won't be playing for a new deal (if he's indeed still playing then). He'll be retiring.

 

[MarkMM]

OEL can't be waived and he can't be sent to the minors. He has a no movement clause. It's a clause that doesn't permit movement without his permission. He can't be moved. That's what no "movement" means.

He'll be 36 when his current contract runs out, after four more seasons. He won't be playing for a new deal (if he's indeed still playing then). He'll be retiring.

Oh sorry, I got mixed up and was thinking of Myers.

Yeah, Benning really, really screwed this franchise over for an entire generation or two.

 

[strattonius]

Peeke might be worth more than a 2nd but there is no way in hell 3 years of control on a #4ish defender is worth #11 in this draft.

Agreed. I'm really just arguing that he isn't a throw in for a trade and is worth more than a 2nd.

First rounders gain exponentially the higher they are. So an 11th is worth considerably more than a 25th - and really Peeke's value would be something closer to that. A Rasmus Sandin type.

Nothing I’ve seen of Peeke tells me he’s a meaningful upgrade on Hronek or Bear, meaning you’re spending draft capital to go from one cost-controlled third-pair D (Juulsen) to another.

Facilitate an exit for Myers whenever is realistic and stay out of bidding wars. Right now, third line centre is a much bigger area of concern and should be the focus anyway.

I don't think they should be chasing Peeke either. I think Peeke is valued more than a 2nd, that's all.

 

[RandV]

The Canucks are so far over the cap, they can't trade for new players until they clean out the trash.

The deal that makes the most sense is OEL and our 1st to Chicago or Zona.

It should be pretty simple. The 11th overall is not nearly enough to move OEL. No other contract the have Canucks is bad enough that it would require the 11th overall to move it.

What it comes down to is while the Canucks have no cap room they have no one they need to sign and they are under the threshold you're allowed to go over in the off season. The draft kicks off the offseason, so it's highly unlikely they'll use their big asset on day 1 to try to clear space. A hockey trade maybe, but not a cap dump.

If the Canucks do end up having to drop a 1st to clear cap space then it's much more likely going to be the 2024th 1st. Much like last year when they waited till about the last day then moved their 2023 2nd to clear Dickinson. There was the same need for cap space a year ago (thanks Benning!) and they didn't jump in right away at the draft moving the 2022 #15 overall to get it.

 

[kcunac]

Posted this on the main boards and reactions from Philly fans were mixed.

11OV, OEL, Myers for Sanheim, Hayes

I personally like Sanheim. He’s played very solid two way minutes but had issues with Torts last season. I think both he and Hayes have a good chance of improving with a change of scenery. I don’t think alone is worth the 11OV, but the difference between Myers/OEL and Hayes makes up for it. Yes Hayes is a boat anchor, but he has a year less than OEL and should be able to make a positive contribution in the top 9 and provides centre depth.

Salary is even but our team would be significantly improved.

 

[DFAC]

Posted this on the main boards and reactions from Philly fans were mixed.

11OV, OEL, Myers for Sanheim, Hayes

I personally like Sanheim. He’s played very solid two way minutes but had issues with Torts last season. I think both he and Hayes have a good chance of improving with a change of scenery. I don’t think alone is worth the 11OV, but the difference between Myers/OEL and Hayes makes up for it. Yes Hayes is a boat anchor, but he has a year less than OEL and should be able to make a positive contribution in the top 9 and provides centre depth.

Salary is even but our team would be significantly improved.

Giving up the 9th and 11th overall picks for a few years of OEL has to be up there in worst moves ever

We have become a laughing stock of a franchise

 

[mriswith]

Posted this on the main boards and reactions from Philly fans were mixed.

11OV, OEL, Myers for Sanheim, Hayes

I personally like Sanheim. He’s played very solid two way minutes but had issues with Torts last season. I think both he and Hayes have a good chance of improving with a change of scenery. I don’t think alone is worth the 11OV, but the difference between Myers/OEL and Hayes makes up for it. Yes Hayes is a boat anchor, but he has a year less than OEL and should be able to make a positive contribution in the top 9 and provides centre depth.

Salary is even but our team would be significantly improved.

The complicating thing about OEL, other than his NMC and shocking pickiness when moving from Arizona, is that while the value to dump him is more than the 11th, a good ELC more than counters his buyout cost.

 

[Icebreakers]

Giving up the 9th and 11th overall picks for a few years of OEL has to be up there in worst moves ever

We have become a laughing stock of a franchise

Crazy as we just had to wait 1 more year to have Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle expire all at the same time and gain 12m in cap space while adding Guenther.

Oh and we also would have an extra 5m in cap space without Garland. So basically 17m. That's Petey re-signed easily with 14m to spare.

You literally had to do nothing. And they f***ed it all up.


Can you believe we have 5 more years of OEL? This is 100x worse than Eriksson.