Rumor: Canucks Interested in Zacha

[TBF1972]

Going to be funny when Zacha just gets sent to Vancouver for a second round pick and future third round pick.

at the end it might be better for the devils and zacha.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

at the end it might be better for the devils and zacha.

Rutherford has stated he’s not trading any high picks…. So unless devils are taking some dead cap space back, that’s likely not going to happen (from Canucks).

 

[TBF1972]

Rutherford has stated he’s not trading any high picks…. So unless devils are taking some dead cap space back, that’s likely not going to happen (from Canucks).

the devils have no urgency to move on from zacha. he still is a top 9 wing on the roster, he can play center, if needed, and his qualifying offer is reasonable and won't mess up the devils cap situation.

if there is no market for him today, they can play the waiting game. a hot streak could push his trade value up for a future trade.

 

[Zippy316]

I can only see zacha being included in a larger package. Otherwise, we’d need devils to take back a player like poolman/Dickinson…

If Devils like Poolman as a bottom pairing RHD, that could make a lot of sense. Our strength in the prospect pool is our LHD. A defensive RHD to play PK and play on the third pairing with the younger guys could work well.

The only real issue is it’s an awkwardly long and pricey deal for that type of player. I would probably only do it if Garland is coming along in the deal with him and you get him cheaper because of it. Then you could look at it as you should be paying Garland close to 6 and Poolman close to 1.5 so it evens itself out.

 

[walkedpast]

Going to be funny when Zacha just gets sent to Vancouver for a second round pick and future third round pick.

Take it and run. This bum isn't even worth half of it.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Boeser + Poolman

Zacha + McLeod

Wow that's f***ing awful for the Canucks.

 

[kanucks25]

Wow that's f***ing awful for the Canucks.

How so? Poolman has negative value, probably at least a 2nd round pick's worth.

You can adjust a bit but I don't see how that's too far off.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

If Devils like Poolman as a bottom pairing RHD, that could make a lot of sense. Our strength in the prospect pool is our LHD. A defensive RHD to play PK and play on the third pairing with the younger guys could work well.

The only real issue is it’s an awkwardly long and pricey deal for that type of player. I would probably only do it if Garland is coming along in the deal with him and you get him cheaper because of it. Then you could look at it as you should be paying Garland close to 6 and Poolman close to 1.5 so it evens itself out.

Fair enough but for the Canucks garland isn’t a sweetner to get rid of poolman/Dickinson. So don’t really see a deal that makes sense revolving around zacha.

Also Boeser is likely more expendable than garland too.

 

[bossram]

Devil’s advocate… turning around depreciated assets is the way that teams often end up winning trades.

You must literally be the New Jersey Devils' advocate lmao.

Flipping depressed assets only works if there is some indication the asset is being undervalued. A guy like Carter Verhaeghe with great underlying stats? Good bet. Zacha? He's just not good, so not really.

 

[Canuck86]

Thatcher Demko embarrassed the leafs...

Toronto outshot them 53 to 24...

only 1 thing matters at the end of the game...outscoring your opponent and WINNING the game, exactly what the Canucks did to a so called top caliber team haha!! A team that can't even win a playoff round

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

How so? Poolman has negative value, probably at least a 2nd round pick's worth.

You can adjust a bit but I don't see how that's too far off.

Because were giving up the far better asset and just to get rid of Poolman who we can put on a bottom pairing and just let him play out the contract.

Not at all worth getting rid of a negative contract.

 

[kanucks25]

Because were giving up the far better asset and just to get rid of Poolman who we can put on a bottom pairing and just let him play out the contract.

Not at all worth getting rid of a negative contract.

We have several undesirable contracts, some of which we need to get rid of to round out the roster if the plan is a 2-year retool.

If the plan was to wait 3 years for all of them to expire, then I would agree with you.

Cap space is not cheap in today's NHL. Nate Schmidt got traded twice for a 3rd round pick just so no cap came back the other way.

We open up roughly 6M in cap through this trade, give or take depending on Zacha's new contract.

 

[NYVanfan]

Because were giving up the far better asset and just to get rid of Poolman who we can put on a bottom pairing and just let him play out the contract.

Not at all worth getting rid of a negative contract.

this. ppl going on about Poolman being the worst anchor .. $2.5M for 3 more years is not brutal, the guy can play. Strongly dislike Boeser going for this return, and no interest in Severson, need <25 guys

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

We have several undesirable contracts, some of which we need to get rid of to round out the roster if the plan is a 2-year retool.

If the plan was to wait 3 years for all of them to expire, then I would agree with you.

Cap space is not cheap in today's NHL. Nate Schmidt got traded twice for a 3rd round pick just so no cap came back the other way.

We open up roughly 6M in cap through this trade, give or take depending on Zacha's new contract.

Still don't think it's worth getting rid of one of the only players who looks like a consistent scorer on a team that severely lacks goal scoring.

 

[kanucks25]

this. ppl going on about Poolman being the worst anchor .. $2.5M for 3 more years is not brutal, the guy can play. Strongly dislike Boeser going for this return, and no interest in Severson, need <25 guys

With Schenn, Burroughs and Juulsen already in the organization, we have no need for a #6 defensive RD like Poolman.

Guys getting paid league minimum can do his job just fine, why do we need to pay him 2.5M for 3 more years?

If it's not Poolman then it's Dickinson or Pearson.

 

[AfroThunder396]

I wouldn't hate taking Jason Dickinson back if VAN needs to dump cap.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

With Schenn, Burroughs and Juulsen already in the organization, we have no need for a #6 defensive RD like Poolman.

Guys getting paid league minimum can do his job just fine, why do we need to pay him 2.5M for 3 more years?

If it's not Poolman then it's Dickinson or Pearson.

Ready? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you got to be kidding me. Burroughs as much as I like him is an AHL Dman, same with Juulsen.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I wouldn't hate taking Jason Dickinson back if VAN needs to dump cap.

We wouldn't hate giving him back either, he has been useless for us.

 

[kanucks25]

Ready? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you got to be kidding me. Burroughs as much as I like him is an AHL Dman, same with Juulsen.

I mean none of the options I mentioned are great but they are 6/7/8 D-men for a reason.

Nothing Poolman has shown suggests to me he's significantly better than any of them, yet being paid over 3x as much.

 

[Zippy316]

Fair enough but for the Canucks garland isn’t a sweetner to get rid of poolman/Dickinson. So don’t really see a deal that makes sense revolving around zacha.

Also Boeser is likely more expendable than garland too.

That’s fair. It’s also tough to see how the Devils fit in Boeser and Bratt long term though.

The Devils biggest need at the moment (aside from goaltending) is skilled forwards with some size to diversify the forward group. Too many undersized or softer guys in the top nine outside of the core forwards. Adding Boeser would take up a good chunk of cap space that could address that.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I mean none of the options I mentioned are great but they are 6/7/8 D-men for a reason.

Nothing Poolman has shown suggests to me he's significantly better than any of them, yet being paid over 3x as much.

And nothing would suggest to me that we need to move out a 2.5 million dollar bottom pairing dman at the expense of one of our best young players.

 

[kanucks25]

And nothing would suggest to me that we need to move out a 2.5 million dollar bottom pairing dman at the expense of one of our best young players.

Just brainstorming how this trade could make sense.

We don't have cap space for Zacha without moving out cap. So if this trade actually does go down, we're either getting rid of a more expensive player and/or getting rid of a cap dump.

Either way, we need to send value one way or another for freeing up cap.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Just brainstorming how this trade could make sense.

We don't have cap space for Zacha without moving out cap. So if this trade actually does go down, we're either getting rid of a more expensive player and/or getting rid of a cap dump.

Either way, we need to send value one way or another for freeing up cap.

Yah I get where your coming from here.

 

[Forge]

We wouldn't hate giving him back either, he has been useless for us.

Doesn't he hit things?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Doesn't he hit things?

He does, ok fine, not completely useless, but almost completely useless lol