Post-Game Talk: What grade you give the Canucks TDL moves?

[Dab]

Hard to say without knowing for sure what offers (if any) were on the table for guys like Brock, JT, Horvat, etc. I don't fault them for standing pat if they were getting low balled as they'll still have chances to move all three of these guys in the off season. I don't really like the return for Motte, but I also don't think it was realistic to expect a 2nd for him either. I guess a 4th is better than nothing but IMO a 3rd would've been fair value.

I think if they were serious about moving a top 6 forward they should have done it right after the Toffoli trade when the team was still pretending it could make the playoffs.

 

[cc]

I gave it a D since the harmonic trade was the only move I liked. It's fortunate that Dorion is still around.

I'd rather have kept the 3rd pick instead of Dermot. It just seemed like overpayment for a 3rd pairing left side d. He seems like a Yannick weber tyoe of player to me but I hope I'm wrong.

I felt he could have had a higher return for Motte if he moved sooner but I could be wrong. Felt like the Canucks got ripped off here. The only thing I can say was that it was better than nothing but only barely so.

 

[TheOtherGM]

Very few people climb the corporate ladder with a “screw the boss” mentality. Many, if not most people climb the corporate ladder by doing what the boss/owner wants. It’s engrained in corporate culture.

And maybe 20 years earlier in his career, that might have been true of Rutherford. I'm saying at this point in his career, as a mid-70s dude with money in the bank and two Stanley Cup rings on his fingers, I doubt he has patience for that kind of nonsense.

edit: And to reiterate as well, he has leverage with Aquilini with the ability to walk away. Rutherford does that and he's still going to be the highly respected hockey man he's always been. All the blame will fall on the shoulders of the already-suspect Vancouver ownership group, and you'd hope at this point they'd be aware of the public relations disaster that would ensue.

 

[TheOtherGM]

I gave it a D since the harmonic trade was the only move I liked. It's fortunate that Dorion is still around.

I'd rather have kept the 3rd pick instead of Dermot. It just seemed like overpayment for a 3rd pairing left side d. He seems like a Yannick weber tyoe of player to me but I hope I'm wrong.

I felt he could have had a higher return for Motte if he moved sooner but I could be wrong. Felt like the Canucks got ripped off here. The only thing I can say was that it was better than nothing but only barely so.

It's a failing of mine that I'm optimistic. I am taking the view that Dermott will benefit from the change of scenery and enhanced role he's likely to receive in Vancouver.
It's my understanding that analytics likes him, hinting at untapped upside.
The Canucks will need to fill out the defensive corps next season, and at minimum he'll do that at half the price of the guy whose roster spot he's taking.
He'll play a season here and be gone, or be re-signed at (presumably) an appropriate rate because Jimmie B is gone.
That's worst case scenario for me.
But because of this infernal optimism I'm saddled with, I'm choosing to believe he'll grow into a reliable top four option, which is a great find for the cost of a third round draft pick.

 

[timw33]

It's fortunate that Dorion is still around.

 

[rypper]

How do you know that?

edit. I just now realised I put E in there as an option. Im an idiot.

The way Allvin answered it in his post TDL said it all.

 

[JohnHodgson]

How much of the "disappointment" was the hype created from the media/fans?

They got A+ trade in Hamonic and made a smart gamble on Dermott. There wasn't a "need" to trade anyone else, as they are all under team control next year. Wish they could have done more but there aren't that many tradeable assets on the roster. I would rather them stand pat then take an L just for the sake of making a trade.

Overall grade of B in my books.

I don't give how people are giving this a D/F/E?

Hamonic trade was an undeniable STEAL in today's climate. That alone is an A+.

Motte for a 4th is better than Motte for nothing. We can't force other teams to trade higher picks... we went with the highest offer. The real win was not re-signing a 4th liner to a big contract on term (flashbacks of Rousell, Beagle). C+

Dermott for 3rd is a good value gamble. He's only 25 and has a lot of mileage left in the tank. Best case scenario: he turns into a top 4 defenseman and is a stalwart on the backend for the next 5-7 years. Worst case scenario: he doesn't work out and we can try to trade him next deadline to recoup the pick. Realistic scenario: he's a solid, reliable #4/5 defenseman for the next 5-7 years... hardly a bad investment for a 3rd round pick. B

 

[JohnHodgson]

Voted C.

In a vacuum, Hamonic for a 3rd was a good trade. Dermott for a 3rd was a solid trade. Motte for a 4th was terrible.

We're basically just shuffled a chair or two for next season.

Can someone explain to me how Motte for a 4th is "terrible"?

Massive overrating from Canucks fans lol...

The market for a 4th line forward was a 3rd/4th. You can't force teams to pay more LOL.

 

[JohnHodgson]

People that want to move Boeser/Miller/Garland/Bo for whatever is out there this TDL regardless of the value are as equally shortsighted as the previous regime

Yup.

People just want the "splash"... the instant gratification.

There's truly no rush to move these players. If the offers sucked (as reported), why force a trade just for the sake of making one?

The real evaluation of this regime will be in the off-season/draft.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

It's got to be a big fat F in spite of the Hamonic dump. We're clearly not competing for the playoffs anymore, yet we didn't actually sell assets that would command a good price to prepare for future season. Allvin needed to start undoing the damage from Benning's years ASAP and he hasn't done that to a meaningful degree. Instead, he'll probably be looking to trade from a position of weakness in the off-season.

specifically what trade would have made you grade higher?

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

For reference, here's what an "A" deadline looks like (on the Sell side), but Anaheim got extremely lucky having 4 UFAs that had significant value around the league and was clearly out of the playoff picture and entering the new Zegras + Drysdale era of the franchise.

massive difference in contracts between us n ducks

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

again more lies and twisting things around from you, that's not at all what fans wanted.

so what did they want then?

it appears ppl are upset we didn't "do more". he just listed most our tradable pieces.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

They get a C grade from me and I feel like I'm being generous. I'm in the camp that believes they should have moved Boeser. That for me is a massive missed opportunity. The team didn't do enough for the path forward, in my opinion.

so would you have accepted Aston-Reese, Simon, Clang and a 2022 2nd-round pick for Boeser?

his value is terrible with his q/o. One would think it'd be an awful time to trade him.

 

[Josepho]

Boeser I think can definitely be dealt with in the offseason.

I would be looking long and hard at some deal for Ottawa's 2023 1st, might have to be with top 3 protection or something -- that's going to be a desperate franchise and I'd wager there'll be an opportunity to jump at them like Tampa did to us with the Miller trade.

FWIW McGuire has spoken very highly of Boeser numerous times.

 

[MS]

so would you have accepted Aston-Reese, Simon, Clang and a 2022 2nd-round pick for Boeser?

his value is terrible with his q/o. One would think it'd be an awful time to trade him.

It will be even more terrible with a fat new contract.

The guy is a Mike Hoffman/Jordan Eberle/Jaden Schwartz. He's a $5 million complementary scorer who needs to be put in soft minutes with good linemates to succeed. He's replaceable and I wouldn't even call him a 'core' asset at this point.

This is where smart teams get the hell out and invest $7 million more wisely (plus harvest a few assets in the process) rather than doubling down and ending up with an albatross providing less value than his cap hit.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Remember that Twitter guy Ry saying what an amazing front office The Canucks have now? Even before doing one single thing?
You cannot criticize this new diverse management group!

crazily, they can be an amazing group of ppl before doing anything, eh. (Or not amazing: weisbrod for example.)

also, how the frig said you can't criticize them? smaaallll shoe sydrome here. yikes

 

[Dab]

It will be even more terrible with a fat new contract.

The guy is a Mike Hoffman/Jordan Eberle/Jaden Schwartz. He's a $5 million complementary scorer who needs to be put in soft minutes with good linemates to succeed. He's replaceable and I wouldn't even call him a 'core' asset at this point.

This is where smart teams get the hell out and invest $7 million more wisely (plus harvest a few assets in the process) rather than doubling down and ending up with an albatross providing less value than his cap hit.

Sign him to a one year deal as cheap as you can Sell him as a pure rental next trade deadline is the best way out of the Boeser mess, I think.

 

[MS]

Sign him to a one year deal as cheap as you can Sell him as a pure rental next trade deadline is the best way out of the Boeser mess, I think.

I don't see us getting any more for him at the next deadline than this summer.

If he isn't part of the plans, clear him out now. Rip the bandaid off and don't keep f***ing around with cancerous floaters. This team and this dressing room is broken behind the scenes and we can't keep just dawdling around with the same losers hoping something magic happens.

If there's no market, I'm fine with just not QOing him and 'trading' him for the player we sign with the cap space.

If you get zilch for Boeser and then sign a Burakovsky for $6 million (or a Niederreiter for $4 million, or whatever) ... we're a better team out of that transaction. I don't think we'd get zilch, though.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

And maybe 20 years earlier in his career, that might have been true of Rutherford. I'm saying at this point in his career, as a mid-70s dude with money in the bank and two Stanley Cup rings on his fingers, I doubt he has patience for that kind of nonsense.

edit: And to reiterate as well, he has leverage with Aquilini with the ability to walk away. Rutherford does that and he's still going to be the highly respected hockey man he's always been. All the blame will fall on the shoulders of the already-suspect Vancouver ownership group, and you'd hope at this point they'd be aware of the public relations disaster that would ensue.

i agree with all this accept the public relations "disaster" bit. Most ppl would be entirely unaware of the storyline, half of those wouldn't care. very niche group pay this much attention.

 

[TheOtherGM]

MS: Re Boeser. (still trying to figure out the quote function!)

With you on just about everything except the cancerous part. Something you've heard that I haven't? Of all the complaints one could have about Boeser, I've not been led to believe character is one of them.
Guy seems to work hard enough and be popular with his teammates. He's just slow and one dimensional as a hockey player and I'd agree on the preference to allocate that money to a faster and more well-rounded forward.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

I don't see us getting any more for him at the next deadline than this summer.

If he isn't part of the plans, clear him out now. Rip the bandaid off and don't keep f***ing around with cancerous floaters. This team and this dressing room is broken behind the scenes and we can't keep just dawdling around with the same losers hoping something magic happens.

If there's no market, I'm fine with just not QOing him and 'trading' him for the player we sign with the cap space.

If you get zilch for Boeser and then sign a Burakovsky for $6 million (or a Niederreiter for $4 million, or whatever) ... we're a better team out of that transaction. I don't think we'd get zilch, though.

so, overpaying a FA, likely with term is your solution? because that is the only way we'd pull a guy like Burakovsky

there is a finite amount of talent in the league. letting it go for less is why we here

 

[Dab]

I don't see us getting any more for him at the next deadline than this summer.

If he isn't part of the plans, clear him out now. Rip the bandaid off and don't keep f***ing around with cancerous floaters. This team and this dressing room is broken behind the scenes and we can't keep just dawdling around with the same losers hoping something magic happens.

If there's no market, I'm fine with just not QOing him and 'trading' him for the player we sign with the cap space.

If you get zilch for Boeser and then sign a Burakovsky for $6 million (or a Niederreiter for $4 million, or whatever) ... we're a better team out of that transaction. I don't think we'd get zilch, though.

I might agree with you but management sure won’t- they wouldn’t let a 4th liner with very little value in Motte walk. Where I agree is that Boeser is not the type of player you want to commit long term dollars to.

I think if next season is a write-off and Boudreau is brought back there is a good chance Brock has 20 goals by next years deadline- and as a pure rental that will surely fetch a decent return- far better than now with the contract quagmire looming.

 

[MS]

MS: Re Boeser. (still trying to figure out the quote function!)

With you on just about everything except the cancerous part. Something you've heard that I haven't? Of all the complaints one could have about Boeser, I've not been led to believe character is one of them.
Guy seems to work hard enough and be popular with his teammates. He's just slow and one dimensional as a hockey player and I'd agree on the preference to allocate that money to a faster and more well-rounded forward.

His effort level this season has been putrid. 'Cancerous' might be harsh but I don't think he's a guy you win with.

He isn't a good enough player to be an impact guy with this compete level.

 

[TheOtherGM]

His effort level this season has been putrid. 'Cancerous' might be harsh but I don't think he's a guy you win with.

He isn't a good enough player to be an impact guy with this compete level.

Fair enough. You just caught my eye with that particular word, which I associate with the worst-of-the-worst character concerns.

 

[MS]

I might agree with you but management sure won’t- they wouldn’t let a 4th liner with very little value in Motte walk. Where I agree is that Boeser is not the type of player you want to commit long term dollars to.

I think if next season is a write-off and Boudreau is brought back there is a good chance Brock has 20 goals by next years deadline- and as a pure rental that will surely fetch a decent return- far better than now with the contract quagmire looming.

I don't see it being hugely different. Teams could have gone for him as a rental now and nobody bit. I think we'll probably get a Toffoli-type return for him and I don't see it being much different at the next deadline - or him being a guy that contenders want. Plus there will be more options in the offseason (ie. Ottawa, Buffalo, etc).

I just want to move forward at this point. I don't want to see 15 of the same guys back here next year trying for 16th place. If he isn't in your plans - get rid of him and spend the money on guys that do fit your plans.