Speculation: Ryan Kesler trade rumours/speculation discussion

[Bleach Clean]

Historically, deadline deals are usually quantity of youth for quality roster players. But the deadline is also the time where the most value seems to be extracted out of those roster players as well. Due to the fact the Canucks have so many organizational needs in the pipeline and lack depth, I would be okay taking a quantity type of deal - though it would have to have a blue-chip prospect involved. A guy that projects as a 1st line player down the road. Someone like TT.

If teams aren't going to put Drouin/Johansen/Maata/Saad on the table at the deadline, it's even more unlikely they do so at the draft IMO. So you're waiting to move Kesler at a time where value will be lower, while still not coming away with one of those untouchable assets from the other teams in play. Don't see any advantage to doing that.

The only reason you wait to the draft IMO is if you want roster players back, as opposed to a more futures based package.

Whatever advantage that is lost by waiting until the draft, is made up by being strict on the one piece the Canucks need. Timing is not of the essence, the return is. If you lose sight of that for the sake of timing, as in needing to move him at the deadline, then you are about to make a grave mistake IMO.

A high end prospect is fine, but the roster player in the package has to be that much better. Something for now and later. Also, the prospect must be one that fills the biggest organizational need for the team. The ultimate need. Or, they just traded perhaps their best ever trade chip for something that is not ideally suited for their long-term purpose.

TT is a fine prospect, but I see him transition to the wing eventually, and I think he his drawbacks of size and overall speed (not agility) will limit his top end. So the perceived quality of the asset will differ based on who you talk to.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

1st rate: Saad
2nd rate: TT

1st rate: Maatta
2nd rate: A bunch of whatevers

1st rate: Couturier
2nd rate: Quantity

Seems pretty simple to me. A first rate package includes Saad. A second rate package includes TT and likely Bickell as a cap dump.

Really? I know Saad has been great on the Hawks but i'd rather take Teravinen...

 

[BerSTUzzi]

Populiot has question marks all over him.

So did and does PK Subban. I'm not saying Pouliot is going to be Subban but every young player not in the NHL is going to have question marks.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Sutter and Pouliot are greatly unappreciated by fans because they are Ryan Johansen or Jakob Voracek. Pouliot would easily be the best defensive prospect we've had since Bourdon.

I don't like Sutter because he doesn't look capable of carrying the teams secondary scoring. He has also plateaued as a point producer - around 30 points. Not enough upside to be a big piece in a Kesler trade IMO. I would deal Hansen form Sutter, not Kesler...

In a vacuum, Pouliout is a good piece. I just happen to believe the Canucks needs are up front, and that the goal should be to look for Henrik's replacement. Pouliot is more of luxury asset than a necessity IMO.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

The tough thing with a Chicago deal is that we're either going to have to retain a decent chunk of Kesler's contract, or we're going to have to get a bad contract in return (Bickell, signed for three more years...).

From Chicago I'd probably want (and this works cap-wise):

Teuvo Teravainen, Nick Leddy, Brandon Pirri, conditional 2014 1st (if Chicago makes conference finals, otherwise it becomes a 2nd), and a 2015 1st.
for
Kesler ($1.25M retained) and Weber (50% retained)


Chicago fans will probably hate it, but it gives them a very good player at a $3.75M cap hit for this season + two more seasons.

There's no chance Hawks fans would do that. They wont even trade Leddy for B. Schenn straight up...

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I don't like Sutter because he doesn't look capable of carrying the teams secondary scoring. He has also plateaued as a point producer - around 30 points. Not enough upside to be a big piece in a Kesler trade IMO. I would deal Hansen form Sutter, not Kesler...

In a vacuum, Pouliout is a good piece. I just happen to believe the Canucks needs are up front, and that the goal should be to look for Henrik's replacement. Pouliot is more of luxury asset than a necessity IMO.

But Sutter is also a very good 3rd line center, which the Nucks also need...

 

[Bleach Clean]

I thought you were interested in a Pittsburgh offer with Sutter as one of the pieces? Doesn't Sutter, Pouliot and a 1s fall under one of those 'stupid offers'?

I also said that the PIT offer is likely to be beaten. And I'm not high on Pouliot, so the quantity itself is questionable, let alone quality.

Isn't Teravainen considered a better prospect than Wennberg, closer to being NHL ready, as well as having more upside?

You're not saying it would be stupid to base a deal around TT are you?

No, I'm not saying that. My other post explains this better.

Also, if you have a problem with what I post, feel free to ignore them. I'm not finding our back and forth particularly worth it TBH.

But Sutter is also a very good 3rd line center, which the Nucks also need...

Yup.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

But Sutter is also a very good 3rd line center, which the Nucks also need...

If they trade Kesler, Sutter would be their 2nd line centre. Sutter isn't even outproducing Richardson, never mind Santorelli or the fact Horvat could step into a 3rd line role sooner than later.

Sutter made sense at the deadline last season, not now IMO.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

But Sutter is also a very good 3rd line center, which the Nucks also need...

If we trade Kesler the bigger need will be 2nd line Center ...a good third line center will be an unnecessary luxury at that point, we'll be tanking for McJesus

 

[BerSTUzzi]

I don't like Sutter because he doesn't look capable of carrying the teams secondary scoring. He has also plateaued as a point producer - around 30 points. Not enough upside to be a big piece in a Kesler trade IMO. I would deal Hansen form Sutter, not Kesler...

In a vacuum, Pouliout is a good piece. I just happen to believe the Canucks needs are up front, and that the goal should be to look for Henrik's replacement. Pouliot is more of luxury asset than a necessity IMO.

Fair enough, I think Sutter gets a bad rap (I never said he'd be Kesler) just he plays very few minutes behind Crosby/Malkin and with Tanner Glass and Pyatt. If we can pull out a Saad or equivalent in a trade we'll all be happy campers.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

If you are looking for comparable trades in the recent past:

Pomminville + 4th for Hacket, Larsson, 1st, 2nd

I know some will hate the comp, but similar production, and remaining contract.

Ryan for Silfverberg, Nosen, 1st

Again, remaining time on contract, productive, arguably moreso than Kesler, but not a centre, younger though.

Carter for Johnson, 1st
Carter for Voracek, 1st

Richards, Bordson for Simmonds, Schenn, 2nd

In none if these is the young roster player as good as a Johansen, Saad, Maata type. And Richards/Carter were 26 when traded with their prime years all locked up. Not sure how Kesler is more valuable than that in a noticeable way. I actually think Pomminville deal is telling, he's not got as good a reputation, but a team going to playoffs adding a top 6 forward doesn't give one back off of their current roster. Usually because they don't have one to give.

 

[arsmaster*]

Isn't Teravainen considered a better prospect than Wennberg, closer to being NHL ready, as well as having more upside?

You're not saying it would be stupid to base a deal around TT are you?

I prefer Wennberg.

This is a case where this idea of 1st line upside is based solely on play style/risk with the puck.

The riskier the appearance of said prospect, the higher upside it seems on this board.

I don't profess to have seen tons of either of these guys but I prefer Wennberg. He bigger, faster, stronger, thinks the game better, seems more interested in playing both ways and has great skill.

It seems one way player is the main criteria for one to have "first line upside".

 

[opendoor]

Simmonds, Voracek and Bertuzzi were all NHL players when traded. Schenn was a top 5 pick traded to a team where there was no auction and wasn't at the trade deadline.

In fact Voracek and Saad track similarly, which is why I find it so stupefying Canucks fans would be willing to take anything less than what Richards garnered from a trade negotiated with one team at the draft.

I don't see the comparison at all. Richards and Carter put up 66 point seasons the year before they were traded (including a 36 goal season from Carter). Voracek put up a 46 point season and was only 4 years younger than those guys. Saad on the other hand is already outproducing Kesler and is 8 years younger than he is.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

If you are looking for comparable trades in the recent past:

Pomminville + 4th for Hacket, Larsson, 1st, 2nd

I know some will hate the comp, but similar production, and remaining contract.

Ryan for Silfverberg, Nosen, 1st

Again, remaining time on contract, productive, arguably moreso than Kesler, but not a centre, younger though.

Carter for Johnson, 1st
Carter for Voracek, 1st

Richards, Bordson for Simmonds, Schenn, 2nd

In none if these is the young roster player as good as a Johansen, Saad, Maata type. And Richards/Carter were 26 when traded with their prime years all locked up. Not sure how Kesler is more valuable than that in a noticeable way. I actually think Pomminville deal is telling, he's not got as good a reputation, but a team going to playoffs adding a top 6 forward doesn't give one back off of their current roster. Usually because they don't have one to give.

Your first two examples are not centers, so we'll throw those in the circular file.

Both your next two trades were for NHL roster players who were young and on an upward trajectory. In fact, the Richards trade completely negates 3/4s of the "quantity over quality" arguments, in that it was a trade negotiated with a single partner on draft day. Look at the value for Richards, a 15-20 goal scoring young physical roster player, a top 5 nhl draft pick prospect, and a 2nd round pick. All that, and only negotiated with a single partner and done without the frenzy of trade deadline.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

If we trade Kesler the bigger need will be 2nd line Center ...a good third line center will be an unnecessary luxury at that point, we'll be tanking for McJesus

I disagree. The Canucks are a playoff team now if the Sedins and Burrows are even just mediocre, even without Kesler.

If you think the Sedins and Burrows are done then the rebuild will be happening anways.

I don't see how people think we can replace Kesler with a better and younger player now + add more pieces... I don't see that.

When you make these type of deals you get a really solid piece and a good young player + a good pick maybe 2.

I would be really happy with the high prices people on this board are talking but some I think are too high and just cripple the team Kesler goes to anyways.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If you are looking for comparable trades in the recent past:

Pomminville + 4th for Hacket, Larsson, 1st, 2nd

I know some will hate the comp, but similar production, and remaining contract.

Ryan for Silfverberg, Nosen, 1st

Again, remaining time on contract, productive, arguably moreso than Kesler, but not a centre, younger though.

Carter for Johnson, 1st
Carter for Voracek, 1st

Richards, Bordson for Simmonds, Schenn, 2nd

In none if these is the young roster player as good as a Johansen, Saad, Maata type. And Richards/Carter were 26 when traded with their prime years all locked up. Not sure how Kesler is more valuable than that in a noticeable way. I actually think Pomminville deal is telling, he's not got as good a reputation, but a team going to playoffs adding a top 6 forward doesn't give one back off of their current roster. Usually because they don't have one to give.

It's important to note though that the non-roster/very young asset in each deal for Richards and Carter, were considered the prime piece in the deal. Schenn and the 8th overall. Edit: Actually, for the Carter deal, you could make a case that Voracek was the prime piece.

This was mentioned by Proto: If you get a player commensurate to a top10 pick, like a Couturier, whether he's in the league or not, a 1st, and a good young roster player, then that's a welcome deal. Considering that Kesler is still young and a mid-term contract.

Arsmaster:

 

[BerSTUzzi]

I disagree. The Canucks are a playoff team now if the Sedins and Burrows are even just mediocre, even without Kesler.

If you think the Sedins and Burrows are done then the rebuild will be happening anways.

I don't see how people think we can replace Kesler with a better and younger player now + add more pieces... I don't see that.

When you make these type of deals you get a really solid piece and a good young player + a good pick maybe 2.

I would be really happy with the high prices people on this board are talking but some I think are too high and just cripple the team Kesler goes to anyways.

Pitts and Columbus could pay huge fore different reasons. Pitts obviously have Crosby/Neal/Malkin and young players don't mean as much for them right now. Columbus would be a better team for multiple years even if they gave up Jenner+Wennberg+1st because they have the assets to do so.

 

[Bgav]

I rather have TT then saad


(Gets ready to be flamed)

 

[thepuckmonster]

I rather have TT then saad


(Gets ready to be flamed)

I don't really know if I want either TBH.

 

[Addison Rae]

I'd settle for either, I prefer Saad but TT is a tremendous player.

 

[Peen]

I don't really know if I want either TBH.

who do you want honestly?

I really wonder because you seem to be against everything.

Saad is a surefire top six forward, and Terravainen is one of the best prospects out there right now not playing in the NHL

 

[thepuckmonster]

who do you want honestly?

I really wonder because you seem to be against everything.

Saad is a surefire top six forward, and Terravainen is one of the best prospects out there right now not playing in the NHL

I've said what I wanted many times over, feel free to read back.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

This is a case where this idea of 1st line upside is based solely on play style/risk with the puck.

The riskier the appearance of said prospect, the higher upside it seems on this board.

I don't profess to have seen tons of either of these guys but I prefer Wennberg. He bigger, faster, stronger, thinks the game better, seems more interested in playing both ways and has great skill.

It seems one way player is the main criteria for one to have "first line upside".

Not at all. You're projecting where you think a player can get to if they reach their full potential. A guy like Drouin projects as a 1st liner, whereas Horvat projects as more of a 2nd line centre due to their natural ability and production at lower levels - not because one of them play a 1-way game and the other is more of a two-way player.

The main criteria for 1st line upside will always be natural ability and skillset. It has nothing to do with being a one way or two-way player. Barkov projects as a 1st line centre, even though he's a two-way player etc... I could list dozens of other examples.

 

[Peen]

Etem + DSP + Anaheim's 1st 2014 (changes to Ottawa's 2014 first if the Ducks make the WCF)

for

Kesler + small piece

From the Anaheim #2c thread - I'm not sold on Etem at all. He seems like a way higher risk, and isn't the prospect that Teravainen is. Etem is at Brandon Pirri's level for me, and more of a secondary piece.

Are you really sold on etem? He's also two years older?

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

who do you want honestly?

I really wonder because you seem to be against everything.

Saad is a surefire top six forward, and Terravainen is one of the best prospects out there right now not playing in the NHL

TPM wants Etem.

My drothers would be Couterier then Teravinen.