Proposal: Would you do Hoglander for Lundkvist?

[innitfam]

Absolutely not

 

[iFan]

f*** No!!!

 

[Fatass]

NL is too small, soft, and really not very good offensively. So what does he provide?

 

[Ace of Hades]

Absolutely atrocious for us.

Make it Schneider instead.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I’m not against trading Hoglander. But not for another undersized D who projects as a bottom pairing guy. We have enough of those.
I’d look at moving Hoglander as part of a bigger package to get a defensive D to pair with Hughes.

 

[Treefingers]

lol trading Hoglander for Lundkvist would be a monumental blunder. Hard pass.

 

[Peen]

If we still had Gaudette, I would trade Gaudette for him

 

[Hoglander]

A 22 year old smallish PP specialist that scores at half the rate Rathbone does in the AHL? We shouldn't be giving anything of significance for Lundkvist - guy is trending down.

 

[ratbid]

No. Keep Hoglander and use Garland + to acquire a defensive partner for Hughes. Lundkvist is not that partner. We have all the offence we need with Hughes, OEL, Myers, and (likely) Rathbone and if not Dermott. We need a stable boring defensive partner for Hughes (Carlo, Peeke, etc). Having a defensive partner for Hughes allows Schenn to move down and play with Rathbone and suddenly our entire d-core is miles better. Having Lundkvist on our team could potentially make the defence even worse.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I get why Hoglander is the name thrown around for Lundkvist, but their value is not close right now.

The name that actually makes sense for a swap would be Klimovich. Both guys are probably in the "late 2nd/early 3rd" area of value. Canucks are pretty full on the wings up front and he was an old management pick anyway.

He is also one of the only prospect names we've got that has any value. Guys like DiPietro and Woo have zero value and are worth like 7th round picks.

Karlsson would be another one.

 

[lawrence]

I don't know enough about Lundkvist to say for sure but it is definitely the type of deal that I would be looking at. Struggling young dman for struggling young winger. As much as I think Hogz has more to give, he might not even make the opening day lineup. Perhaps try to trade him for a dman with similar potential.

Hoglander wasn’t struggling. Would have love to see him in the Calder consideration or put up some numbers but still. He’s fine.

 

[credulous]

yes but i think lundqvist is likely to bust so you probably lose the trade. however, vancouver really have no alternative but to gamble on flawed right shot dmen and hope to hit on one of them to fix their d. they don't have the cap space or the assets to acquire a known quantity that fills the hole

 

[Peen]

yes but i think lundqvist is likely to bust so you probably lose the trade. however, vancouver really have no alternative but to gamble on flawed right shot dmen and hope to hit on one of them to fix their d. they don't have the cap space or the assets to acquire a known quantity that fills the hole

i'm not opposed to taking fliers but we can't be buying pedans and clendenings

they just took a flier on dermott

the guys you take a flier on have to be guys you can project as good fits with either hughes or oel - and noticeable upgrades on schenn/myers in those roles.

 

[credulous]

i'm not opposed to taking fliers but we can't be buying pedans and clendenings

they just took a flier on dermott

the guys you take a flier on have to be guys you can project as good fits with either hughes or oel - and noticeable upgrades on schenn/myers in those roles.

if lundkvist hits he'll be a top pairing dman. his skating and puck handling are elite all he is missing is compete and game sense. pedan, clendening and dermott weren't anywhere near his potential level

if you're not willing to move out hoglander for a guy like lundkvist then what are you willing to do? signing filip johansson's isn't gonna get you anywhere

 

[Peen]

if lundkvist hits he'll be a top pairing dman. his skating and puck handling are elite all he is missing is compete and game sense. pedan, clendening and dermott weren't anywhere near his potential level

if you're not willing to move out hoglander for a guy like lundkvist then what are you willing to do? signing filip johansson's isn't gonna get you anywhere

my point isn't that nils' ceiling is that of pedan/clending but i just think you're basically buying a worse rathbone who needs a bottom pair role. it's more so a poor fit point that i'm making

i would absolutely move hoglander for a rd who could fit next to hughes or oel. it's not even a question to me. i'm a big advocate for using one of garland/hoglander to facilitate a trade like that because i think they fill overlapping roles. neither can pk, both inconsistent night to night, both small skill wingers without much top end speed, both are "tough" for their size but relatively speaking, not that tough, both look like ass on the powerplay, etc.

i'm a big believer in only making trades where you can see the clear fit for the player both in the short term (what their current role would be and how conducive it is to growth) and then what that role would be like once they've truly hit. with nils, i don't see it for part one. long term, i don't really like the idea of having multiple physicality deficient guys pencilled into your top four.

i would take a flyer on like a u-25 RHD version of ben hutton who was strapped to erik gudbranson and could still be salvaged. not sure if that guy exists. vector and ms probably have some hole in the wall list of guys who might be hitting waivers or are pencilled in as 3rd pairing guys but should be playing more than that.

 

[credulous]

my point isn't that nils' ceiling is that of pedan/clending but i just think you're basically buying a worse rathbone who needs a bottom pair role. it's more so a poor fit point that i'm making

i guess i don't agree he's a bottom pairing guy. if he works out at all he's a star. i think his worst case
(if he sticks in the nhl) is something like justin schultz where you get a flawed player who can elevate his game often enough to make him worth playing

ben hutton is a weird example as he was never more than a bottom pairing guy and has barely hung on in the league. you can get guys like that pretty easily. the canucks have a bunch in schenn, dermott, burroughs and brady keeper. that's not what this team needs though. it needs someone with breakout potential like lundkvist. the only players i think that have that kind of potential that were/are available are haydn fleury and jeremy lauzon. maybe calen addison but if you don't like lundkvist you probably don't like addison. maybe you bet on filip hronek turning it around or you convince calgary to let go of rasmus andersson and he steps up his game but both of those players will cost a lot more than hoglander to acquire and you can't fit them in under the cap anyways

 

[Vancouver_2010]

For OEL, maybe

 

[F A N]

Tough one. I voted yes. I liked him at the draft. I think he still has quite a bit of potential. I also like Hoglander more than most. But Hoglander's ability to finish has been an issue since his draft year. There is a big risk that his ceiling is that of a 18-20 goal 40 point 2nd line forward. If Lundkvist can develop into a #4 the value is there.

I mean we're really just gambling on Lundkvist developing into a top 4 Dman because he fills a need as a RHD.

With that said, something has got to give. No way Hughes, Rathbone, and Lundkvist all succeed on the Canucks at the same time.

 

[Hansen]

Ill offer Jett Woo

 

[CanucksSayEh]

Im a simple guy, I see someone advocate trading Hoglander, and I fight them.

 

[Quinntessential]

Rather trade a 2nd or 3rd

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

If I am the professor x oops allvin I inform the rangers they have many options available to gratify me before I speak trade

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don’t love it, but it makes some sense, curious about opinions here… Cheers

this is clendening for forsling, only with a legit NHL-proven guy going the other way

 

[Ita]

I don’t love it, but it makes some sense, curious about opinions here… Cheers

It actually doesn't make sense at him. Lundkvist is an inferior player and at this point he might not even end up staying in the NHL...

 

[Diversification]

We need RS dmen that can soak up heavy minutes and move the puck well enough to keep up with QH or OEL in a complementary role.

I voted no because other than handedness, Lundkvist is not that player even if he pans out.