2019 Off-Season Non-Management Thread - Canucks/Boeser talking 4-5 years, $7m AAV - Kypreos)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peter Griffin

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
35,201
7,750
Visit site
Good luck with this idea of moving up, especially with Detroit! They are rebuilding too so why on earth would they move back? Also, we don’t have the assets that most would covet to move up onto that 4-7 spot.

To gain extra assets? That's kind of the basis of re-building. If Detroit has a bunch of guys they all deem to be of the same value, then moving back and picking up extra assets is exactly something they would look at doing. Really it all depends on who the Canucks would be targeting.
 

TruKnyte

Give me the meds now
Jan 1, 2012
6,766
4,385
Vancouver, BC
The Canucks are low on assets. If the trade up nets the Canucks Byram, I think it'll be a good move, but I doubt he'll be available at 6.

I don't even know what we would have to move up to 6 if Byram was somehow still there (I don't see him going past 4).

Have to imagine the Canucks wouldn't be the only team that would want to move up, and there would undoubtedly be better offers available.
 

Bettman Returnz

Why so serious?
Jul 28, 2003
4,788
2,675
BC
Visit site
To gain extra assets? That's kind of the basis of re-building. If Detroit has a bunch of guys they all deem to be of the same value, then moving back and picking up extra assets is exactly something they would look at doing. Really it all depends on who the Canucks would be targeting.
I get the concept... was more meaning that we don’t have coveted assets they would want. Our 4Oth wouldn’t be enough. Especially if they too have their eyes set on possibly zegras or Dach, etc.
 

Billy Kvcmu

Registered User
Dec 5, 2014
28,567
17,343
West Vancouver
I get the concept... was more meaning that we don’t have coveted assets they would want. Our 4Oth wouldn’t be enough. Especially if they too have their eyes set on possibly zegras or Dach, etc.
There are always assets that you can move, whether it’s the right move or not is another discussion
 

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
918
The Canucks are low on assets. If the trade up nets the Canucks Byram, I think it'll be a good move, but I doubt he'll be available at 6.
there isn’t a trade with Detroit I’d make for 6th as Byram isn’t going to be available there. It’s 4th overall or bust for Byram. The Avs should be the only target. Only a pure idiot like Dim would target a team too far down the list to actually get the player, then makes the trade and picks someone like tiny Zegras!
Horvat and 40th for 4th and 16th should be tabled now, you come down to Horvat for 4th overall at the time Colorado is on the clock
 

Peter Griffin

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
35,201
7,750
Visit site
I get the concept... was more meaning that we don’t have coveted assets they would want. Our 4Oth wouldn’t be enough. Especially if they too have their eyes set on possibly zegras or Dach, etc.

Fair enough. The Canucks do have assets that could be attractive(Madden, Gaudette Juolevi Woo), it's just a matter of whether it makes sense to move them. If it's for Byram, maybe, but I also don't see Detroit moving the pick if Byram falls but who knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bettman Returnz

Peter Griffin

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
35,201
7,750
Visit site
there isn’t a trade with Detroit I’d make for 6th as Byram isn’t going to be available there. It’s 4th overall or bust for Byram. The Avs should be the only target. Only a pure idiot like Dim would target a team too far down the list to actually get the player, then makes the trade and picks someone like tiny Zegras!

Well, the trade wouldn't be made unless the targeted player is available, that's a given.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
17,592
10,339
Literally everyone should say no. That would be one of the worst trades in franchise history and a fireable offense by itself.

there's always a way though. i'm ok with a three way oilers/sens/canucks deal

lucic, puljujarvi, 8th - canucks

for

ryan, baertschi, canucks 2nd, edmonton

for

eriksson, canucks 4th -sens

it makes me uneasy.

we'll see.
 

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
26,392
16,367
Literally everyone should say no. That would be one of the worst trades in franchise history and a fireable offense by itself.
I dont know how you could put a value on this player.?..(pedigree I guess ?).. taken 4thOA..Hip surgeries..hasnt demonstrated much at the NHL level.
 

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
16,788
16,112
Boy, the blase way some people react to rumours in this thread makes you wonder why they waste their time here. If "stuff is obviously happening d'uh what GM wouldn't be exploring", then what is the appeal of this thread? Just killing time?
I dont think its a big deal criticising the vagueness of a rumor like that. We have heard for months that the Canucks would love to move up and take Hughes or Byram. At least have a team or Gm or something we can sink our teeth into. 6 seems odd to me also.......whatever
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
63,606
25,637
Good to look at it. Seems like Bennng is turning every stone and its hilarious that people are taking such a negative attitude towards that. Do your job.....you never know when a GM coughs up a gem.

Would be a little suprised the Hawks would pass on Byram....Colorado and LA i could see as they need Cs in the worst way.

Would be shocked if Detroit moved on from that opportunity. Doesnt hurt to try

Uh.....what stone has he turned? He's doing the same shit.
 

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
918
when is this suppose to happen?
A savvy GM and owner would get together and offer Tryamkin a contract with a big enough signing bonus to buy himself out of his final year of his contract in Russia and he here for September. Too bad we have neither of those
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
I dont think its a big deal criticising the vagueness of a rumor like that. We have heard for months that the Canucks would love to move up and take Hughes or Byram. At least have a team or Gm or something we can sink our teeth into. 6 seems odd to me also.......whatever

I'm fine with the criticism. I just found the "well duh, *obviously* he's doing something" a funny response. I mean, it's not really *that* vague .. Burke does identify Detroit as the team/spot he thinks it's about. I mean, it's a rumour probably based on 2nd or 3rd hand chatter that may ultimately lead nowhere. How concrete / specific do you really expect it to be? I certainly think it was more interesting than just "expected business" for a GM as it indicates a desire to move up, which Benning has previously said they aren't interested in doing.
 

Carnal

Registered User
May 29, 2018
228
251
All this talk of moving up in the draft from 10 really makes you wonder if trading off assets for picks/prospects and tanking out the season to secure a top 5 pick would have been smarter than wasting assets to potentially move up a few spots...

Well really you shouldn't have to wonder about it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad