Yep. A big question I have is whether tendering a 2.2MM QO is in our best interests when we're going to have to churn out surplus value at as many positions possible to make any sort of push in the short term.
Canucks News, Rumours, & Fantasy GM | Part 2
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Yep. A big question I have is whether tendering a 2.2MM QO is in our best interests when we're going to have to churn out surplus value at as many positions possible to make any sort of push in the short term.
The Canucks would be stupid to put the QO out there. He’ll get more in arbitration and his agent would be failing him if they didn’t at least file for arb. It’s how he got the current salary he is on.
You have less productive RFA’s like Andrew Peeke getting $2.75m x 3 as a comparable for 15 points in 82.
You have less productive RFA’s like Andrew Peeke getting $2.75m x 3 as a comparable for 15 points in 82.
Nucker42
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2011
- 2,836
- 2,206
Dhaliwal on the show today saying the Canucks should know today about Hirose…. A little vague but sounding like they should know if he’s signing or returning to school
Peeke is more Physical and might be slightly more valuable towards our needs and in terms of value but I dont think 2.2 for Bear is an overpayment
Personally I think it would be in Hirose best interest to sign with us this year but I know that from Immigrant families there is a lot of pressure for kids to finish their degrees
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,105
- 10,950
i think that bear's body language and play has fallen off since he came back after we got hronek. so long as hronek and myers are around he is in a depth role where burroughs can beat him out of the lineupby fighting. given he has a contract negotiation upcoming that cannot be easy. plus the canucks are stuck with poolman and myers future uncertainty until well past his qo date. so they will want him cheap.
i think he is in that hard spot as an rfa dman where a ceiling on his development is appearing and nobody is giving him a raise and a pay cut is more realistic. that can be really tricky to negotiate as hutton found out. do you gamble on a ufa market that may treat you as at or ust above replacement, or do you try and leverage with your current team. i will bet hutton would have gotten more money and more opportunity taking a pay cut but staying with canucks .
i think he is in that hard spot as an rfa dman where a ceiling on his development is appearing and nobody is giving him a raise and a pay cut is more realistic. that can be really tricky to negotiate as hutton found out. do you gamble on a ufa market that may treat you as at or ust above replacement, or do you try and leverage with your current team. i will bet hutton would have gotten more money and more opportunity taking a pay cut but staying with canucks .
m9
m9
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,230
It's hard to know if they should bring back Bear without knowing what the plan is for OEL & Myers.
An issue I've had with this team in recent years is that they don't know how to build a team and have often added redundant assets. In this case they really need to add some size/defensive awareness/PK ability to the group and if they just bring everyone back I'm not sure where that comes from.
An issue I've had with this team in recent years is that they don't know how to build a team and have often added redundant assets. In this case they really need to add some size/defensive awareness/PK ability to the group and if they just bring everyone back I'm not sure where that comes from.
i like the idea of bear paired with hughes given that hughes is basically tilting play by himself at this point.
similar concept to crosby with grinders - you don't necessarily need a hronek next to him, and if anything, it pushes the rest of the guys down a pair.
without quinn i'd still like bear as a 4/5 ideally
similar concept to crosby with grinders - you don't necessarily need a hronek next to him, and if anything, it pushes the rest of the guys down a pair.
without quinn i'd still like bear as a 4/5 ideally
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
I have very little issues going into next season with Hughes and Bear as a pairing and I think you can probably get Bear cheaper by offering him that opportunity.
Hughes/Bear and Dumoulin or Gavrikov and Hronek is a pretty good top 4.
Hughes/Bear and Dumoulin or Gavrikov and Hronek is a pretty good top 4.
m9
m9
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,230
If bear is not taking a contract that you want him to you let him walk.. period
Defensive guys come cheap to sign later after the melee anyway and every dollar counts
Defensive guys come cheap to sign later after the melee anyway and every dollar counts
Canucker
Go Hawks!
On a "good" team, Bear is a bottom pairing defenseman...if he's Hughes' partner next season for any reason other than injury, it will be a failing on management's part IMO.
Svencouver
Registered User
With Livingstone headed to Nashville - you wonder if Woo has a spot lining up for him once Myers is up. He's taken a big step this year, and with early returns on guys like Juulsen, Wolanin, and Rathbone showing well in the NHL, would likely be more than serviceable after one more year playing as the #1 in Abbotsford.
Hughes-Bear
Wolanin-Hronek
OEL-Woo
Rathbone
All of a sudden, this lineup of 50% AHL fodder that would have been pukeworthy at the start of the year looks somehow strangely adequate. Save for OEL, every pairing can skate, pass, and defend reasonably well. That top 4 is, in particular, in the exact mould of what management wants on the blueline. Bear has been, if slightly inconsistent, Hughes' best partner, and Wolanin has been simply excellent. Woo's physicality and low-mistake game would be a welcome addition as a #5-6, and if Rathbone comes into the lineup, he'll have his partner in Abbotsford back.
Hughes-Bear
Wolanin-Hronek
OEL-Woo
Rathbone
All of a sudden, this lineup of 50% AHL fodder that would have been pukeworthy at the start of the year looks somehow strangely adequate. Save for OEL, every pairing can skate, pass, and defend reasonably well. That top 4 is, in particular, in the exact mould of what management wants on the blueline. Bear has been, if slightly inconsistent, Hughes' best partner, and Wolanin has been simply excellent. Woo's physicality and low-mistake game would be a welcome addition as a #5-6, and if Rathbone comes into the lineup, he'll have his partner in Abbotsford back.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 32,327
- 29,106
Bench OEL, trade Myers and Boeser. Hope that OEL just willingly LTIR’s in a year. I say that without knowing what the f*** the rules are on claiming something degenerative/body cant keep up, but it’s in both sides best interests if he can’t keep up. He would stand to earn only 12MM over 6 years instead of the 18.5 over 3 that he is owed.
Use the Myers/Boeser/Poolman/Pearson savings towards acquiring a matchup 3c and legitimate top four d.
That blue line would still result in an out-of-playoffs finish if you ask me. Also, when injuries happen, we’re doomed.
Woo and Wolanin need to be injury call ups at best, not pencilled into the line-up. We need another top 4 defenseman for sure, and it’s unlikely Myers is going anywhere other.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 32,327
- 29,106
Few of the canucks media guys have said that management really likes RD Filip Johansson who Minnesota did not sign, and that we plan on giving him a shot next season
One thing to keep in mind with Johansson is MInnesota got a 2nd round compensatory pick for not signing him. It's not like they gave up on him for nothing. So there might be something there.
Best case with Bear is his rights being traded with a winger for another RD
CanucksMJL
Context apologist.
- Jul 6, 2009
- 865
- 1,004
This confused me so much. It was a wild ride before Rick Dhaliwal came to mind.Why would Gavrikov not be a realistic possibility given the relationship with DM??
RD who’s extremely plugged in with DM says Gavrikov is a realistic possibility. But we should listen to you though right??
I'm like wait, I thought Gavrikov was LD and of course he's plugged in with DM. That's his agent. Also why is Gavrikov publicly speculating on where he might sign in the offseason. Then I wondered if DM was actually some reporter I wasn't recognizing.
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,204
- 12,693
I’ve been hoping for over a year now that we’d target Andrew Peeke as a partner for Hughes. I think he fits the mould perfectly and he’s the right age for our core. He’s basically a younger Schenn replavement.
Columbus is also one of the rare teams that has a surplus of RD with Gudbranson, Blankenburg, Jiricek, Boqvist, Ceulemans, and Peeke.
Columbus is also one of the rare teams that has a surplus of RD with Gudbranson, Blankenburg, Jiricek, Boqvist, Ceulemans, and Peeke.
I think september would be the best time to target him.. IF guys have great camps and make columbus think he may be an option
But yeah i have liked him for over a year. Him and will borgen were the two i liked wanted since last summer
- Status
