2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[Blue and Green]

Any time a franchise talent like Eichel is potentially available, a trade like that becomes a need. Pettersson-Eichel would be Crosby-Malkin. A night to night competitive advantage against 27~ other teams. They would tilt the ice every night.

Realistically, less than what I had originally posted is enough to get him. However, logically, you could add another 3-4 pieces to what I had originally posted and it would still be a trade win. VAN would be getting a franchise level talent for lesser players.

I'm all for McAvoy too. Are you saying that he is worth Boeser+ and Eichel is not?

Malkin and Crosby both fell into Pittsburgh's lap via the draft. Penguins didn't have to trade away the ranch for one of them which is what the Canucks would have to do to land Eichel. They've already traded away 1st, 2nd & 3rd round picks plus a good prospect to add two top-6 forwards.

The problem in Vancouver this season wasn't goals for, it was goals against and that's despite having a very good #1 goalie and a capable backup.

Boston isn't trading McAvoy. I mentioned needing a "McAvoy clone" because he's precisely the type of player that the Canucks need: a legitimate young first-pair RHD, primarily a defensive ace but also some offensive skill.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Malkin and Crosby both fell into Pittsburgh's lap via the draft. Penguins didn't have to trade away the ranch for one of them which is what the Canucks would have to do to land Eichel. They've already traded away 1st, 2nd & 3rd round picks plus a good prospect to add two top-6 forwards.

The problem in Vancouver this season wasn't goals for, it was goals against and that's despite having a very good #1 goalie and a capable backup.

Boston isn't trading McAvoy. I mentioned needing a "McAvoy clone" because he's precisely the type of player that the Canucks need: a legitimate young first-pair RHD, primarily a defensive ace but also some offensive skill.

I am well aware of the deficiencies within the Canucks' play. I also know that the Canucks have a dearth of assets. Still, _any_time_ you have the opportunity to add a franchise talent, you do it. No questions asked.

Frankly, I'm surprised there's even push back on the idea? A McAvoy clone would better suit the roster, yes, agreed, but this doesn't mean you turn down Eichel if there's even the slightest chance at getting him. These ideas have little to do with one another. It's an emphatic "yes" in both cases if you have the chance.

The Canucks need high end players, in whatever form. Anyway, this is all purely hypothetical. Eichel isn't coming here.

 

[HockeyWooot]

Any time a franchise talent like Eichel is potentially available, a trade like that becomes a need. Pettersson-Eichel would be Crosby-Malkin. A night to night competitive advantage against 27~ other teams. They would tilt the ice every night.

Realistically, less than what I had originally posted is enough to get him. However, logically, you could add another 3-4 pieces to what I had originally posted and it would still be a trade win. VAN would be getting a franchise level talent for lesser players.

I'm all for McAvoy too. Are you saying that he is worth Boeser+ and Eichel is not?

Agreed on the Crosby-Malkin point, having a 1-2 punch down the middle of that calibre would elevate our team to another tier. That’s actually why I threw out the proposition out there in the first place.

Any team that can afford the asset costs for Eichel without blowing up the team to do so, should hear out the asking price even if they don’t bite in the end.

Im a huge fan of Horvat and Boeser, but if they were the key piece the trade to acquire Eichel I wouldn’t think twice. Ideally it’s just Horvat but I suspect Buffalo would ask for more or value Boeser as a higher end talent.

 

[The Drop]

Eichel is worth every bit of that cap hit and every team needs an elite player for non-elite players.

Of course McAvoy would be a better fit. What do you think it takes to get him?





I'm going to revise this because I just don't think the Canucks can afford to give up so much. Another team would make for a better fit. From the Canucks, the max I would do is:


Horvat
This year’s 1st (assuming it’s a 10+ lottery pick)
Demko
Virtanen
Roussel (sort of a salary dump)

Then hopefully you can dump Sutter somewhere in order to make it all fit.

Anything more and the team just doesn't have enough gas to compete right away.

I would do that. Throw in Juolevi too.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Agreed on the Crosby-Malkin point, having a 1-2 punch down the middle of that calibre would elevate our team to another tier. That’s actually why I threw out the proposition out there in the first place.

Any team that can afford the asset costs for Eichel without blowing up the team to do so, should hear out the asking price even if they don’t bite in the end.

Im a huge fan of Horvat and Boeser, but if they were the key piece the trade to acquire Eichel I wouldn’t think twice. Ideally it’s just Horvat but I suspect Buffalo would ask for more or value Boeser as a higher end talent.

When judging trade value, you have to go by precedent. I look at an Eichel trade in a similar way to the Lindros trade. When Lindros was traded, he got this:

Ron Hextall (Back up that turned starter next year)
Steve Duchesne (13th highest scoring OFD at the time)
Kerry Huffman (Bottom 6er that was fringe afterward)
Mike Ricci (Very good middle6er that had his best year right after trade)
Peter Forsberg (Top5 Draft Pick)
Chris Simon (15 seasons in the NHL)
Two first-round draft picks (No protection)
$15 million (When trading money was a thing)


9 different assets. And tell me this: If Forsberg tracks more like Sean Monahan instead of one the greatest players ever to play the game, is that a trade win for COL? I would hope people think not. That should be the same rationale with the Eichel trade. Odds are, as in probability, no asset being given up for him is going to impact BUF at a franchise level. Not even Horvat+Boeser provide that level of impact.

Now in saying all of this, usually a disgruntled asset goes for far less. Like when Patrick Roy was dealt. Further, GMs are trading from what they can give up and not necessarily 'real value'. There are limitations. Still, the real value of a franchise player is greater than any non-franchise player. Or, multiple non-franchise players. (Assuming all players are healthy)

Hope that explains my position better.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The above recall on the Lindros Trade got me curious. I remember something about NYR making their own offer. Here it was:

John Vanbiesbrouck (28 year old starter)
Tony Amonte (Calder runner up the year prior (Bure won it))
Doug Weight (21 years old and already projecting as a top6 forward)
Alexei Kovalev (Prospect, PPG in the KHL the year the trade would have been made)
James Patrick (Dman had 71 points that year) OR Sergei Nemchinov (top6 27 year old forward)
2 first round picks
Cash

The VAN offer I made at the outset is not even close either package.

This is what it takes, sometimes, for a franchise level talent.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Just ruminating on a hypothetical:

Take my offer from the first post (too much, I know), and apply it to the following:

Horvat
Boeser
This year’s 1st (assuming it’s a lottery pick)
Demko
Stecher
Hoglander

...For Lafreniere.

Would you do it?

Please give your rationale.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

The above recall on the Lindros got me curious. I remember something about NYR making their own offer. Here it was:

John Vanbiesbrouck (28 year old starter)
Tony Amonte (Calder runner up the year prior (Bure won it))
Doug Weight (21 years old and already projecting as a top6 forward)
Alexei Kovalev (Prospect, PPG in the KHL the year the trade would have been made)
James Patrick (Dman had 71 points that year) OR Sergei Nemchinov (top6 27 year old forward)
2 first round picks
Cash

The VAN offer I made at the outset is not even close either package.

This is what it takes, sometimes, for a franchise level talent.

This is the package the Nordiques actually wanted, but they double-dealt with the Flyers too and in the end an arbitrator decided the Flyers package was agreed to first.

Incidentally you have it a little wrong. It was Vanbiesbrouck Amonte,Weight, Kovalev, 3 firsts, and $12M. There was some dispute about Vanbiesbrouck's contract status and if he'd become a UFA, Patrick would have replaced him in the trade.

In the end, I think the Flyers package was better on the strength of Forsberg alone.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

If we're talking a package for Eichel, I wouldn't give up Pettersson or Hughes but I'd offer up Horvat, either Boeser or Miller, plus Podkolzin and a Canucks 1st. I don't think that gets it done TBH.

 

[Pip]

I feel like the conversation ends when EP and Hughes get taken off the table.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I feel like the conversation ends when EP and Hughes get taken off the table.

Really? You think the following doesn’t get it done?

Horvat
Boeser
This year’s 1st (assuming it’s a lottery pick)
Demko
Stecher
Hoglander

If not, why not?

 

[Pip]

I guess it depends on how desperate they are to get rid of them but I feel an offer with 1 elite player would top a collection of secondary pieces. Guys like Stecher/Hoglander/Demko don’t really register any value in this type of trade. Horvat/Boeser are good players but neither will be elite.

I guess considering what Seguin got traded for anything is possible, but I think a player of Eichel’s caliber only goes for someone that is or can be a franchise player for them.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

This is the package the Nordiques actually wanted, but they double-dealt with the Flyers too and in the end an arbitrator decided the Flyers package was agreed to first.

Incidentally you have it a little wrong. It was Vanbiesbrouck Amonte,Weight, Kovalev, 3 firsts, and $12M. There was some dispute about Vanbiesbrouck's contract status and if he'd become a UFA, Patrick would have replaced him in the trade.

In the end, I think the Flyers package was better on the strength of Forsberg alone.

Forsberg is obviously awesome and you can't argue with the cups the Avs won. But a line of Amonte-Weight-Kovalev would be one of the most offensively dominating line in the mid to late 90s. Weight a 90 points center, Amonte a 40 goals-scorer, Kovalev can do it all. Plus 3x 1st, plus a #1 goalie in JVB. I think the Avs would still win their cups with this trade.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Just ruminating on a hypothetical:

Take my offer from the first post (too much, I know), and apply it to the following:

Horvat
Boeser
This year’s 1st (assuming it’s a lottery pick)
Demko
Stecher
Hoglander

...For Lafreniere.

Would you do it?

Please give your rationale.

Depending on where the lotto pick ended up. Anywhere in the top 7 is not worth it as there are some elite talents in that range IMO. If the pick is below that, I personally I would try to land the #2/3/4 pick for cheaper than spend all that asset capital for the #1. Lafrenier is a stud, but trading Horvat means we need a C. Byfield/Stutzel are better fit. Positionally Drysdale is also a great fit. It is probably better value to trade some of the package you listed for the "lower" pick instead.
But strictly looking at value, I'm not sure that package is enough to land the #1 overall pick. Imagine if we have that pick, would we trade it for a #2C, a top 6 RW with injuries issues, a 1st rounder (say #10 overall), a good young goalie who hasn't established to be a starter, a #5/6 D, and a prospect who was recently a 2nd rounder? I'd pass on that package for the 1st overall for sure.

 

[tyhee]

When judging trade value, you have to go by precedent. I look at an Eichel trade in a similar way to the Lindros trade. When Lindros was traded, he got this:

Ron Hextall (Back up that turned starter next year)
Steve Duchesne (13th highest scoring OFD at the time)
Kerry Huffman (Bottom 6er that was fringe afterward)
Mike Ricci (Very good middle6er that had his best year right after trade)
Peter Forsberg (Top5 Draft Pick)
Chris Simon (15 seasons in the NHL)
Two first-round draft picks (No protection)
$15 million (When trading money was a thing)


9 different assets. And tell me this: If Forsberg tracks more like Sean Monahan instead of one the greatest players ever to play the game, is that a trade win for COL? I would hope people think not. That should be the same rationale with the Eichel trade. Odds are, as in probability, no asset being given up for him is going to impact BUF at a franchise level. Not even Horvat+Boeser provide that level of impact.

Now in saying all of this, usually a disgruntled asset goes for far less. Like when Patrick Roy was dealt. Further, GMs are trading from what they can give up and not necessarily 'real value'. There are limitations. Still, the real value of a franchise player is greater than any non-franchise player. Or, multiple non-franchise players. (Assuming all players are healthy)

Hope that explains my position better.

1. I think this is comparing apples and oranges and that the value of Eichel doesn't begin to apporach the trade value Lindros had at the time.

It may be tough to accept based on the actual career Lindros had, but at the time he was viewed as absolutely the NEXT ONE and the comparisons were to Gretzky and Lemieux. He was considered to have skill close to theirs and be much tougher, the discussion being whether he'd be the greatest of all time.

Of course, it didn't come close to working out that way and a 1 for 1 swap for Forsberg alone wouldn't have been too far out of line. (Forsberg scored 20 more points in 52 fewer games, Forsberg won the Calder, one Hart and one Art Ross while Lindros won the Hart and Lindsay (then known as the Pearson) once each-in the same season. Lindros had one first team all-star award and Forsberg three first team awards. Hockey-Reference.com shows Lindros with a total PV of 101.6, Forsberg with 97.9, a difference completely accounted for by Lindros' extra 52 games played.)

Eichel is really good, but thero be is a difference between being expected to be among the league's best few centers several years and being expected to be mentioned in conversation for the best player of all time.

2. I wonder whether it is possible, in any event, to compare trade value in such different eras. Different eras bring different playing styles which can affect the value of a single player, different rules (salary cap vs none) which can affect the value of a single player and different depth of player pools which can affect the value of a single player.

3. In any event, I always thought the Flyers overpaid for Lindros. With the benefit of hindsight it is one of the most lopsided of all time. Imo using one of the most lopsided deals in history as a template now doesn't work.

4. It is possible to argue you've understated what the Flyers gave up, calling Hextall a backup about to become a starter. In the season leading up to the trade he started 45 games for the Flyers, missing games due to suspension and injury. He'd suffered with injuries for two seasons before that as well, but previously had been one of the best goalies in the league and in 1986-87 he had won the Vezina and Conn Smythe trophies and made the NHL first all-star team.

In any event, I don't think anyone would even consider giving up as much today for Eichel as the Flyers gave up for Lindros 28 years ago.

 

[604]

Just ruminating on a hypothetical:

Take my offer from the first post (too much, I know), and apply it to the following:

Horvat
Boeser
This year’s 1st (assuming it’s a lottery pick)
Demko
Stecher
Hoglander

...For Lafreniere.

Would you do it?

Please give your rationale.

I would not.

1) Lafreniere is a scoring winger. I believe that a strong #2 centre is more vital than a very good scoring winger.
2) It does not seem like Lafreniere is a generational level player. Even if he is a 40 goal, 80 point guy, that is not much of an upgrade from what Boeser could be (30 goal, 70 point guy) - the gap is certainly not Horvat + 1st + Demko +Stecher + Hoglander.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If we're talking a package for Eichel, I wouldn't give up Pettersson or Hughes but I'd offer up Horvat, either Boeser or Miller, plus Podkolzin and a Canucks 1st. I don't think that gets it done TBH.

Horvat, Boeser, Podkolzin and a 1st should be good enough to get it done. Replace Podkolzin with Demko because of BUF's need in net.

This is the package the Nordiques actually wanted, but they double-dealt with the Flyers too and in the end an arbitrator decided the Flyers package was agreed to first.

Incidentally you have it a little wrong. It was Vanbiesbrouck Amonte,Weight, Kovalev, 3 firsts, and $12M. There was some dispute about Vanbiesbrouck's contract status and if he'd become a UFA, Patrick would have replaced him in the trade.

In the end, I think the Flyers package was better on the strength of Forsberg alone.

Yes, PHI's package turned out to be better. However, at the time, I would have said that NYR was sending better youth over.

In any case, the question is: Does a top10 player in today's game warrant a return fit for a future generational talent?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I would not.

1) Lafreniere is a scoring winger. I believe that a strong #2 centre is more vital than a very good scoring winger.
2) It does not seem like Lafreniere is a generational level player. Even if he is a 40 goal, 80 point guy, that is not much of an upgrade from what Boeser could be (30 goal, 70 point guy) - the gap is certainly not Horvat + 1st + Demko +Stecher + Hoglander.

What would you say the gap is then? Just curious.

#1: Is a 2C more important than a 1RW? I would say no. The position, to me, does not overturn quality.

#2: Fair enough.

I guess it depends on how desperate they are to get rid of them but I feel an offer with 1 elite player would top a collection of secondary pieces. Guys like Stecher/Hoglander/Demko don’t really register any value in this type of trade. Horvat/Boeser are good players but neither will be elite.

I guess considering what Seguin got traded for anything is possible, but I think a player of Eichel’s caliber only goes for someone that is or can be a franchise player for them.

I largely agree with your rationale.

I don't expect BUF to get what they deserve here. If they trade him, it's due to the relationship souring. Teams seldom accommodate that situation with elite players in return.

Horvat + Demko seems like the base from VAN. How much you add on top of that comes down to how much you value a top10 player vs the field.

Depending on where the lotto pick ended up. Anywhere in the top 7 is not worth it as there are some elite talents in that range IMO. If the pick is below that, I personally I would try to land the #2/3/4 pick for cheaper than spend all that asset capital for the #1. Lafrenier is a stud, but trading Horvat means we need a C. Byfield/Stutzel are better fit. Positionally Drysdale is also a great fit. It is probably better value to trade some of the package you listed for the "lower" pick instead.
But strictly looking at value, I'm not sure that package is enough to land the #1 overall pick. Imagine if we have that pick, would we trade it for a #2C, a top 6 RW with injuries issues, a 1st rounder (say #10 overall), a good young goalie who hasn't established to be a starter, a #5/6 D, and a prospect who was recently a 2nd rounder? I'd pass on that package for the 1st overall for sure.

The point about value is key here. Value wise, as you've acknowledged, that package for Eichel doesn't get you the 1st overall pick either. It's not enough.

I saw a thread in the polls section on the main boards and it compared Lafreniere's value to Eichel, so the transitive value of the two players got me thinking. Would the same package get Lafreniere even if it did not get Eichel? I think the answer is, no. You wouldn't get either player.

 

[Bleach Clean]

1. I think this is comparing apples and oranges and that the value of Eichel doesn't begin to apporach the trade value Lindros had at the time.

It may be tough to accept based on the actual career Lindros had, but at the time he was viewed as absolutely the NEXT ONE and the comparisons were to Gretzky and Lemieux. He was considered to have skill close to theirs and be much tougher, the discussion being whether he'd be the greatest of all time.

Of course, it didn't come close to working out that way and a 1 for 1 swap for Forsberg alone wouldn't have been too far out of line. (Forsberg scored 20 more points in 52 fewer games, Forsberg won the Calder, one Hart and one Art Ross while Lindros won the Hart and Lindsay (then known as the Pearson) once each-in the same season. Lindros had one first team all-star award and Forsberg three first team awards. Hockey-Reference.com shows Lindros with a total PV of 101.6, Forsberg with 97.9, a difference completely accounted for by Lindros' extra 52 games played.)

Eichel is really good, but thero be is a difference between being expected to be among the league's best few centers several years and being expected to be mentioned in conversation for the best player of all time.

2. I wonder whether it is possible, in any event, to compare trade value in such different eras. Different eras bring different playing styles which can affect the value of a single player, different rules (salary cap vs none) which can affect the value of a single player and different depth of player pools which can affect the value of a single player.

3. In any event, I always thought the Flyers overpaid for Lindros. With the benefit of hindsight it is one of the most lopsided of all time. Imo using one of the most lopsided deals in history as a template now doesn't work.

4. It is possible to argue you've understated what the Flyers gave up, calling Hextall a backup about to become a starter. In the season leading up to the trade he started 45 games for the Flyers, missing games due to suspension and injury. He'd suffered with injuries for two seasons before that as well, but previously had been one of the best goalies in the league and in 1986-87 he had won the Vezina and Conn Smythe trophies and made the NHL first all-star team.

In any event, I don't think anyone would even consider giving up as much today for Eichel as the Flyers gave up for Lindros 28 years ago.

Well thought out response, tyhee.

The Lindros deal is only a template in so far as giving up many non-elite pieces for one elite piece. It's happened before in the NHL. Granted, this era is not that era and my valuation of the pieces involved is not wholly accurate. Still, on premise it's a fit, if not in degree.

You're right, Lindros was considered the next one, and Eichel is a top10 talent. Not quite the same thing. How much of a difference between the two players you think that is will make up the difference in pieces moved. I would say that my initial offer is _not_ close to what PHI gave up.

Lastly, Forsberg's emergence makes the Lindros trade look lopsided now. I'm not sure that was the sentiment at the time of execution. Goes to show that a lot of luck and the proper projections have to break right for deals to work out. Interesting tangent of a discussion.

 

[Diablo2020]

Yes lets gut our team for the most unnecessary addition possible.

Of all the things we could armchair GM...we're gonna Jack Eichel?

How insulting to this core!

This discussion is our Subban for Weber.

Except Horvat doesnt have a long term crippling contract.

Plus on top of Horvat we add +++.

We think we're getting the better player and we are, except Eichel doesnt get nearly as many touches with the puck as he does in Buffalo.

Horvat goes on to be an absolute horse for the next forseeable years while captaining their team.

Eichel doesnt fizzle like Subban but doesnt warrant the huge package we give up as he now battles with Petey for face of the franchise.

Eichel has 10 million reasons why he is the face of the franchise, plus you know, all the guys that left to bring in Jack..

Basically, a screw you to Petey, Bo and like 5 others..

What a terrible, terrible discussion even for these slow days of quarantine

 

[Fedz]

Really? You think the following doesn’t get it done?

Horvat
Boeser
This year’s 1st (assuming it’s a lottery pick)
Demko
Stecher
Hoglander

If not, why not?

If we're going to give up a package like this I'd rather it be for a bonafide #1 franchise defenseman. I appreciate the conversation is based upon Eichel's frustration, but this type of price tag doesn't make sense for a spot we are already very strong AND young in. (C - Pettersson, Horvat and Gaudette)

 

[Bleach Clean]

If we're going to give up a package like this I'd rather it be for a bonafide #1 franchise defenseman. I appreciate the conversation is based upon Eichel's frustration, but this type of price tag doesn't make sense for a spot we are already very strong AND young in. (C - Pettersson, Horvat and Gaudette)

It's the difference between being strong at centre vs being dominant at centre.

To me, the enlightening part of this discussion is arguments against the trade based solely upon current need, and not player X's quality relative to the NHL. Like, wanting a top10 player _should_ be an automatic. Except it isn't? Even before you get into cost, there's this notion that improvement at centre would be negligible? Odd.

I'd love to acquire a bonafide #1 Dman for a package of non-elite assets. What do you suggest? Which ones are on the move and how can we capitalize?

Yes lets gut our team for the most unnecessary addition possible.

Of all the things we could armchair GM...we're gonna Jack Eichel?

How insulting to this core!

This discussion is our Subban for Weber.

Except Horvat doesnt have a long term crippling contract.

Plus on top of Horvat we add +++.

We think we're getting the better player and we are, except Eichel doesnt get nearly as many touches with the puck as he does in Buffalo.

Horvat goes on to be an absolute horse for the next forseeable years while captaining their team.

Eichel doesnt fizzle like Subban but doesnt warrant the huge package we give up as he now battles with Petey for face of the franchise.

Eichel has 10 million reasons why he is the face of the franchise, plus you know, all the guys that left to bring in Jack..

Basically, a screw you to Petey, Bo and like 5 others..

What a terrible, terrible discussion even for these slow days of quarantine

Why is this discussion "terrible"? There is potentially a disgruntled top10 player in the game that may be traded. Can you think of better fodder for the Fantasy GM Thread?

Anyway, the bold is interesting: So Horvat is going to do better because horse, and Eichel is going to do worse because less touches. Ok? Going in, Eichel is a top10 player and Horvat is a 2nd line C... Does this register?

Are you overlooking the stark difference in quality here? Maybe?

And just to be clear here, you think "gutting the team" is replacing, effectively:

Horvat (2C)
Boeser (1RW)
Demko (2G)
Stecher (5D)

For

Eichel (Franchise C)

The other parts are off the roster at present. If you agree that Demko and Stecher are lower roster assets at present, then the difference is the net gain by significantly upgrading on Horvat against the loss of Boeser. Hardly gutting team, I would say. YMMV

 

[Fedz]

It's the difference between being strong at centre vs being dominant at centre.

To me, the enlightening part of this discussion is arguments against the trade based solely upon current need, and not player X's quality relative to the NHL. Like, wanting a top10 player _should_ be an automatic. Except it isn't? Even before you get into cost, there's this notion that improvement at centre would be negligible? Odd.

I'd love to acquire a bonafide #1 Dman for a package of non-elite assets. What do you suggest? Which ones are on the move and how can we capitalize?

I appreciate that bringing in Eichel makes us dominant down the middle, but it does so at a cost that makes zero sense for the depth of the organization. Let alone the dressing room, but that is a whole different subject. Bringing in Sidney Crosby is an automatic, but not if it cripples our future? I believe there is a big difference between a player being a good fit here and a move being a good fit here. There is a cost for every "automatic" and a substantial one at that.

Reality is, Buffalo probably doesn't even entertain a discussion of pieces unless its Hughes or Pettersson back which is a non starter for the Canucks for a variety of reasons...and the Canucks wouldn't move the pieces it would take to get Eicehl IF for some reason Buffalo did entertain a deal without our two big pieces. I just can't see them trading a franchise player for a bunch of pieces they already have. I appreciate they may not have 'exactly' those pieces but Buffalo has a full cupboard; talent isn't their issue. Not to mention there would be at least a dozen or so other teams bidding against us...

Just my .02 cents. If I look at it from the angle if I were either team's GM, which I am very clearly not since I am posting my .02 here.

**Your last line belittling my #1 dman comment is kind of funny. Your whole Eichel to the Canucks proposal discussion is based off a belief that Eichel is on the move. He's no more on the move than Drew Doughty is in LA. So, I can play fantasy island too. Let's talk what it takes to get Doughty from LA.**

 

[Diablo2020]

Why is this discussion "terrible"?

First and foremost, our glaring need is defense but we can circle back to that I guess.

That disgruntled top10 player in the game with a career high of 82 points is just the worst fit in my opinion.

- He plays a position we're doing the best at currently.
- He's signed for 10 million dollars a season.
- His origins are from Boston and they have many NHL teams in the area making us an unlikely landing spot.
- He had year long drama with the coach to the point they anointed him "GM Jack" after Byslma got turfed.

Those are facts that make me worry about trading Bo Horvat in a package for Jack Eichel.

My "Horse" analogy was supposed to represent Shea Weber. Also traded for the flashier player. A horse that he's been ever since he arrived in Montreal. I didnt say Horvat would become better, magically start putting up 90 point years. I said he'd be a horse. Dependable. Like Weber.

Touches are a thing in sports. GM Jack plays 22 minutes a game because Buffalo stinks and has no centers. He isnt going to play 22 minutes a game here. Not with Green. Even though he's supremely talented, I dont see him having the puck go through him quite like the offense in Buffalo does so yes, less touches which probably equals less production.


Who determined Jack is top 10 and Horvat is a 2nd line center, and why would I register it?

Horvat was 30th in center scoring.

In a list that included c/wingers like Wheeler, Miller, Aho, Nugent Hopkins and Strome.

Theres 31 NHL teams and Horvat scored in the top 25-30...

Jack Eichel has a career high of 82 points in 5 NHL seasons played.

Hes had injuries, hes on a bad team, hes under 10 million reasons of pressure, but lets cool the jets on calling him elite and demanding Eric Lindros ransoms.

And just to be clear, yes thats a gutting of the Vancouver Canucks.

Maybe if a different team had two extra Dylan Larkins, an extra Tristan Jarry, and a RHD they dont desperately need more of to begin with, they'd be up for adding Eichel.

Id assume they wouldnt also have their own Pettersson they'd be pushing aside by adding Eichel too though.

We dont have extra anything, other than garbage.

We dont need Stecher but we have nothing better and already probably cant keep Tanev.

We dont need Demko but he holds great value to us, in the right deal, this isnt it.

We cannot afford to trade 60 goals plus Stecher plus Demko for Jack Eichel.

We should not do anything to take away from how this is Petey's team. He's #1.

10 million dollar player to our cap structure right before we pay Pettersson and Hughes, come on!

 

[Bleach Clean]

I appreciate that bringing in Eichel makes us dominant down the middle, but it does so at a cost that makes zero sense for the depth of the organization. Let alone the dressing room, but that is a whole different subject. Bringing in Sidney Crosby is an automatic, but not if it cripples our future? I believe there is a big difference between a player being a good fit here and a move being a good fit here. There is a cost for every "automatic" and a substantial one at that.

Reality is, Buffalo probably doesn't even entertain a discussion of pieces unless its Hughes or Pettersson back which is a non starter for the Canucks for a variety of reasons...and the Canucks wouldn't move the pieces it would take to get Eicehl IF for some reason Buffalo did entertain a deal without our two big pieces. I just can't see them trading a franchise player for a bunch of pieces they already have. I appreciate they may not have 'exactly' those pieces but Buffalo has a full cupboard; talent isn't their issue. Not to mention there would be at least a dozen or so other teams bidding against us...

Just my .02 cents. If I look at it from the angle if I were either team's GM, which I am very clearly not since I am posting my .02 here.

**Your last line belittling my #1 dman comment is kind of funny. Your whole Eichel to the Canucks proposal discussion is based off a belief that Eichel is on the move. He's no more on the move than Drew Doughty is in LA. So, I can play fantasy island too. Let's talk what it takes to get Doughty from LA.**

Is there smoke that Doubty is disgruntled and may ask for a trade? I didn't know. Absolutely, let's talk about it if there is something there. What do you give up for him?

My Eichel proposal stems from current rumours about Eichel.

On "reality": I actually think the opposite. I think the reality is that Eichel, if moved, moves because he's fed up. If that happens, odds are that BUF will not be getting an elite piece back. When has that ever happened for a team in a bind? In fantasy value, he deserves far more than he will get in reality.

On elite players: For me, always an automatic. No question. I understand that this organization lacks depth and has a thin core. Luckily though, it can trade from centre to gain at centre. That's something most teams cannot do. That's the thinking anyway.

I appreciate your counter-argument on this regardless. I'm learning from this.