Trade Deadline - 02.25.2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

DomY

Registered User
Aug 11, 2008
1,256
141
I could see it. Hutton has shown he is a serviceable second pairing guy. I also don't think he fits the long term view of the club.

If we could fill the defense with #7/8 garbage, limp this season along, and get a quality piece coming back for Hutton, I'd be happy. Maybe Hutton for a 2nd 2019, a non-roster dman prospect, and a 5-7th 2020 to make up for the goalie fiasco (depending on value of the prospect).
 

Cancuks

Former Exalted Ruler
Jan 13, 2014
3,881
3,251
At the EI office
I would sell high on Hutton. It wasn't long ago some were talking about putting him on waivers or not qualifying him after the season.
 

dbaz

Registered User
Jan 29, 2010
1,142
480
A 3rd??? What are you smoking
Ben Hutton is a legit top 4 D, you resign him ASAP

not really. hes a 5-6 on a decent team.
there are many other dmen better than him available at the tdl, which lowers his price.
too many dmen on the team for next year with (tanev, stetcher, gudbranson, edler, puu, biega) + assuming canucks sign another d in offseason + legit prospects making a push (hughes, juolevi,) and those who have been around for awhile a bit more in the ahl/7thdman (brisebois).
ideally they need to trade 2/3 of gudbranson, hutton, stetcher. stetcher is prob the best of the 3(and cheapest), so you keep him
 

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,546
14,755
Victoria
I would sell high on Hutton. It wasn't long ago some were talking about putting him on waivers or not qualifying him after the season.

I wouldn't. I don't think this perceived value is that high. If we're not getting a mid-first in return, I would keep him.

He's a young-enough, legit top-four defenseman. An extreme rarity for this team. Lock him in on a decent contract...maybe something like ~4 million long term, considering he doesn't have "pedigree" or a history of point production.
 

Bettman Returnz

Why so serious?
Jul 28, 2003
4,788
2,675
BC
Visit site
It would be amazing if we could trade Schaller. Can’t imagine it would be much.. but get him off the books. Really don’t need him.

Have a feeling if JB does make a trade (or 2) it will be very minor... junk for junk lol.
 

Eddy Punch Clock

Jack Adams 2028
Jun 13, 2007
13,126
1,823
Chillbillyville
I think (or hope) that any moves Benning makes at or before the deadline will focused around making the biggest possible splash on draft day.

Frustrating that we're still mathematically in it. It makes everything so unpredictable right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bettman Returnz

Bettman Returnz

Why so serious?
Jul 28, 2003
4,788
2,675
BC
Visit site
I think (or hope) that any moves Benning makes at or before the deadline will focused around making the biggest possible splash on draft day.

Frustrating that we're still mathematically in it. It makes everything so unpredictable right now.
100% agree! Forget this year/ playoffs. Let’s focus on the upcoming season and draft. Seems more logical to put Canucks in the playoff category this time next year. Chalk this season up to a bonus that we’ve played meaningful games into February.
 

Bettman Returnz

Why so serious?
Jul 28, 2003
4,788
2,675
BC
Visit site
Jeff Paterson saying that could be something up with Devils/Mojo... is it just me or isn’t he a better version of granlund? Do we really need another, especially if we have to give up a pick/prospect for a UFA...
 

BerSTUzzi

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
3,224
568
Kamloops
I could see Beaulieu on the radar for these dummies.

High pick. check

PP QB in Junior. check

Bad a D. check

Article about how he is not playing on TSN. check

Over payment coming? probably

I will give him one thing and that he can put up points and would be a massive improvement on Poo.
 

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
15,886
14,746
Jeff Paterson saying that could be something up with Devils/Mojo... is it just me or isn’t he a better version of granlund? Do we really need another, especially if we have to give up a pick/prospect for a UFA...
yes better Granlund for 4.5 million.

Of course Jersey is trying to dump him. He'll be 29 by next training camp is UFA and has put up 39pts in almost 2 seasons. Benning gonna give assets for a player he shouldn't even sign
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2kcanucks

ChilliBilly

Registered User
Aug 22, 2007
7,123
4,378
chilliwacki
I would sell high on Hutton. It wasn't long ago some were talking about putting him on waivers or not qualifying him after the season.

Thats pretty much HF Boards - sell him for a bag of pucks, 6 months later - he worth a first.

No one is giving us a first for Hutton. Or likely even a 2nd.

I think Guddy is more valuable, surprisingly, in that (as I have said before) he's the sort of depth D man that is valuable in deep cup run. Does everyone remember how beat up we were after game 7. Guddy is pretty much a borderline D man during the regular season, but the playoffs are an incredible grind.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
23,164
6,839
I think Guddy is more valuable, surprisingly, in that (as I have said before) he's the sort of depth D man that is valuable in deep cup run. Does everyone remember how beat up we were after game 7. Guddy is pretty much a borderline D man during the regular season, but the playoffs are an incredible grind.

tenor.gif


Sorry? What?
 

JanBulisPiggyBack

Registered User
Dec 31, 2011
3,841
2,721
Does anything this management do make sense?

It’s all simple economics here I will explain

You take a tier 1 goaltender and assign him a value
Markstrom = $1.00

You then look at what you have with the rest of you goaltenders.....
Demko = $0.40, Leighton = $0.15, DiPietri = $0.25, Mazanec = $0.15 and Kublakov = $0.05 ....... for a total of $1.00

Now here is where Benning is a genius

We claim McKenna of waivers

McKenna = $0.10

Therefore increasing the collection of goalies to $1.10
$1.10 > $1.00
Markstrom has become expendable and we trade him

Benning 4D chess reaches a 5th dimension and we as Canucks fans all rejoice
 

jester00

Registered User
Jun 9, 2011
213
29
Western Canada
It does this time actually, both Leighton and Mazaneck required waivers. It’s akways nice to have a plan B, I mean just look at what happened to McKenna.
Having a 5th goalie is never a bad thing

I thought Mazanec wouldn't require waivers to go back down since he has already cleared this year. 10 games or 30 days before he requires waivers again?
 

tyhee

Registered User
Feb 5, 2015
2,555
2,637
I thought Mazanec wouldn't require waivers to go back down since he has already cleared this year. 10 games or 30 days before he requires waivers again?

As far as I can tell at the time of the trade he had 20 days that could be spent on an NHL roster before he'd have to be waived before being sent to Utica He's been on the Canucks roster for 6 days but up to the time of Leighton's signing I don't think they count because Mazanec's recall to the Canucks was under emergency conditions (fewer than two healthy goalies under contract.) Section 13.5 of the CBA reads in part:

13.5 The rights granted under this Article to Loan a Player who is otherwise required to clear Regular Waivers .. expire for any Player who, after clearing Regular Waivers:

(i) is not loaned to a minor league club, or is Recalled from a minor league club (except on emergency Recall) and remains on an NHL roster thirty (30) days ...
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,087
9,678
Canucks will need 2 veteran goalies to play in the minors next season. Markstrom and Demko at NHL with DiPietro in the A. A rookie at both levels. So need an AHL vet plus another one in the ECHL to cover for injuries. Only barring 3 injuries should we see DiPietro up next season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad