Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Don’t Incur Vector’s Wrath!

[Peter Griffin]

Really happy they lost Guentzel, Necas, and Rantanen in the span of like 8 months while in win now mode. Yeah they got some nice pieces but that’s irrelevant because they are throwing away a year. Ha. Losers.

Yea they deserve what they get. Couldve re-signed Guentzel but their cheap ass owner dicked around.

 

[Isi]

Soucy wasn’t it this year. I was his biggest drumbeater when he got here and I liked him last year but they kept playing him on the left side and he just for whatever reason doesn’t play that side very well.

Losing him I wouldn’t say made us significantly worse and who knows if that trade can be made in the offseason with the amount of bigger names available that every team is convinced they are gonna sign.

It’s too much ado for basically nothing. The posts here make me think…People wanted trades to talk about even if they were absolute garbage so we can play pretend GM in the offseason.

The sky really isn’t falling here, we just have zero information to work with because no one has any interest in talking to our media machine. It’s why JR/Aqua tapped some dude that’s semi-retired to put out a story and not anyone else.

By not selling off the season, you basically tell the players you’ve got this far in a f***ed up season, we believe in you, and nows the time to prove to everyone or you can start looking for a new city to live in. Your choice.

Don’t you think the players are tired of having nothing to play for so often in their Canuck careers in March and April?

Players don’t think “ooh high draft pick” and if anyone honestly believes that is a selling point, I’d straight up to their face call them dumb.

Not saying you are dumb, you’re just passionate and I understand that.

By not buying anything at the deadline, aren't we telling the players that we don't believe in you, anyway? I don't see why selling players (which we did in trading Soucy, anyway) is something that would cause great offence to the players, but not buying players at the deadline is just a-ok? We're telling them we don't think your performance is worthy of further investment. Why would Quinn be any happier with that?

I sort of brought up Soucy just as a Devil's advocate thing, but the more I think about it, the more I think that if anything, that trade should piss the players off even more than a possible Brock/Suter trade would have. The players understand that it's a business. There's 20 games left in the season, we're not in a playoff spot (or if we were, we were in it by literally one point), there's players on expiring contracts, one of which, Brock, they've not been able to come to terms with all season. (and the report on deadline day was that we made another attempt to sign Brock and we obviously did not come to terms)

I think the playing group, while disappointed, would understand if the GM decided to trade Brock for the best return on offer. But how do you explain to the playing group trading Soucy? He's contracted. There's no real reason think we would not have been able to push him aside for a similar return in the summer. We've made the defence weaker for the rest of the season. The D depth for the rest of the season is Mancini & Di Giuseppe. What are we telling the players by having that be our D depth? Players are already tired and sore and the 7th D is a rookie who has shown nothing. Why would the players be happy about that? But we did it anyway.

Now of course, this a pointless discussion. Our decisions had nothing to do with Quinn Hughes and the playing group. The decisions were for one man and one man only.

 

[Szechwan]

I hope Carolina never finds an ounce of success. I hate the way they operate.

There was a period where I thought they were the smartest team in the league, and to a degree that may even be true. But having seen how they operate on a few occasions, I completely agree. f*** those guys.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

By not buying anything at the deadline, aren't we telling the players that we don't believe in you, anyway? I don't see why selling players (which we did in trading Soucy, anyway) is something that would cause great offence to the players, but not buying players at the deadline is just a-ok? We're telling them we don't think your performance is worthy of further investment. Why would Quinn be any happier with that?

I sort of brought up Soucy just as a Devil's advocate thing, but the more I think about it, the more I think that if anything, that trade should piss the players off even more than a possible Brock/Suter trade would have. The players understand that it's a business. There's 20 games left in the season, we're not in a playoff spot (or if we were, we were in it by literally one point), there's players on expiring contracts, one of which, Brock, they've not been able to come to terms with all season. (and the report on deadline day was that we made another attempt to sign Brock and we obviously did not come to terms)

I think the playing group, while disappointed, would understand if the GM decided to trade Brock for the best return on offer. But how do you explain to the playing group trading Soucy? He's contracted. There's no real reason think we would not have been able to push him aside for a similar return in the summer. We've made the defence weaker for the rest of the season. The D depth for the rest of the season is Mancini & Di Giuseppe. What are we telling the players by having that be our D depth? Players are already tired and sore and the 7th D is a rookie who has shown nothing. Why would the players be happy about that? But we did it anyway.

Now of course, this a pointless discussion. Our decisions had nothing to do with Quinn Hughes and the playing group. The decisions were for one man and one man only.

See you in 2 hours when I’m not on mobile. This is too engrossing a conversation for me to properly do on this medium.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I am pretty sure what we want will actually costs us 2 1st rounders so getting 2nd and 3rd rounders won’t really do anything.

So stop trying then? Do you think adding extra picks this draft would allow the the team to move higher picks? When was the last time 2 1st rounders were actually traded? You’re intentionally delusional here.

 

[Hodgy]

I’ve said this already, but Boeser’s value cuts both ways. If he didn’t have much value to other teams it’s because they did a good job pro scouting him and it just further confirms he’s not providing much value to the Canucks. But basically anyone whose half followed the team could tell you that Boeser hasn’t been good this year and that he wouldn’t be missed too much if he was traded.

But I’m not overly upset if the return was just a second and change. It’s just not likely to make a big difference either way.

I just don’t like the overall direction of this organization - I.e., compete now at the expense of the future.

 

[arttk]

So stop trying then? Do you think adding extra picks this draft would allow the the team to move higher picks? When was the last time 2 1st rounders were actually traded? You’re intentionally delusional here.

We know that good players are moved for 1st + top prospect + roster player. We can’t afford to move a top prospect because we have so little and need them due to our cap so the solution is to use another 1st to make up for that.

Other teams tend to have top prospects because they were not managed by Jim f***ing dumbass Benning’s.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I am pretty sure what we want will actually costs us 2 1st rounders so getting 2nd and 3rd rounders won’t really do anything.

Lol what players have cost 2 1st round picks? Are you expecting to get Mikko Rantanen back for Brock Boeser?

 

[arttk]

Lol what players have cost 2 1st round picks? Are you expecting to get Mikko Rantanen back for Brock Boeser?

We are looking for a young 2C.. that’s going to cost 1st + top prospect + roster player. What part of we cannot give up Lekk/Willandwr/Dpetey do you not understand?
We need 2 1st because the 2nd 1st is going to fill in that top prospect req.

 

[Peter Griffin]

We know that good players are moved for 1st + top prospect + roster player. We can’t afford to move a top prospect because we have so little and need them due to our cap so the solution is to use another 1st to make up for that.

Other teams tend to have top prospects because they were not managed by Jim f***ing dumbass Benning’s.

Nobody is saying we should move a top prospect. Like holy shit. We’re saying accumulate assets now, and utilize them next season when it might actually matter.

 

[arttk]

Nobody is saying we should move a top prospect. Like holy shit. We’re saying accumulate assets now, and utilize them next season when it might actually matter.

God what part of we are looking to trade for a young 2C do you not understand?

 

[Peter Griffin]

We are looking for a young 2C.. that’s going to cost 1st + top prospect + roster player. What part of we cannot give up Lekk/Willandwr/Dpetey do you not understand?
We need 2 1st because the 2nd 1st is going to fill in that top prospect req.

So just just keep Boeser instead of trading him for needed assets and have zero extra assets to acquire that 2C then? Like do you actually realize how stupid you are or are you just a management shill that agrees with whatever they decide? Honest question because you’re making yourself look foolish here.

 

[Peen]

I’ve said this already, but Boeser’s value cuts both ways. If he didn’t have much value to other teams it’s because they did a good job pro scouting him and it just further confirms he’s not providing much value to the Canucks. But basically anyone whose half followed the team could tell you that Boeser hasn’t been good this year and that he wouldn’t be missed too much if he was traded.

But I’m not overly upset if the return was just a second and change. It’s just not likely to make a big difference either way.

I just don’t like the overall direction of this organization - I.e., compete now at the expense of the future.

I'm worried they're going to do the same garbage they did with Zadorov and Lindholm. They set good initial maximums (4.5x4) and whatever it was for Lindholm. Then they matched what Boston offered both.

They, again, set the right max offer of 8x5. He isn't Konecny or Meier or whoever. I'd bet you they end up offering him a seven year deal.

 

[Peen]

So just just keep Boeser instead of trading him for needed assets and have zero extra assets to acquire that 2C then? Like do you actually realize how stupid you are or are you just a management shill that agrees with whatever they decide? Honest question because you’re making yourself look foolish here.

I think you should take a step back for like 10 minutes, come back, and read what arttk's saying again and you might see why this isn't a good look for you.

I just think you're missing his point. If you acknowledge what he's saying and disagree with it, that's different. But it reads like you aren't really getting his point

 

[Isi]

See you in 2 hours when I’m not on mobile. This is too engrossing a conversation for me to properly do on this medium.

Well I should actually outline my position here instead of beating around the bushes, which is that I feel this is simply another deadline day where the decisions have been made to appease ownership, and I think the actual decisions made during the trade deadline period demonstrate that.

If we were doing our best to compete for the rest of the season, we would not have traded Soucy. Instead we made a futures trade by trading him out. If were doing our best to build towards to the future, we would not have only traded Soucy. But we only traded Soucy, and not the players on actual expiring contracts.

To me, trading Soucy but not Brock/Suter is inherently a contradiction. We've made a move that makes our roster worse now but better placed for the future, whilst not making another move/s that would do the same. So is that contradiction because management are stupid? To appease the playing group? Those don't make any sense to me. The conclusion I make is that we were able to get ownership's blessings to move Soucy on (or probably their indifference) but getting them on board with trading Brock/Suter without immediately replacing them/being able to show ownership a return that they deemed of sufficient value was another matter.

I don't think trading Soucy and not trading Brock/Sutter can be explained any other way. But I suppose that's me having confidence in management that could be proven to be wrong. But if management truly approached the deadline solely in terms of doing our best to make the playoffs, then I don't see how trading Soucy makes any sense. So to my mind, management gets criticised either way.

I firmly believe we could have made the playoffs while trading Brock/Suter. And I firmly believe we could miss the playoffs with Brock/Suter. And that's because in a 20 game shootout for the last wildcard spot with up to 4 teams, it's not the team that makes the best decisions that gets the spot, it's just dumb luck.

 

[arttk]

So just just keep Boeser instead of trading him for needed assets and have zero extra assets to acquire that 2C then? Like do you actually realize how stupid you are or are you just a management shill that agrees with whatever they decide? Honest question because you’re making yourself look foolish here.

Trading Brock for like a 2nd and whatever doesn’t get us enough to get the player we are aiming to get.
It’s not really as simple as, we’ll just package that 2nd and our 1st and another 2nd to get somebody else. Well have you considered that’s not really an option because players at that price point actually won’t improve our team? If there are players that would we probably would’ve traded Brock already.

yes there is a cost to not trading away boeser, but there is also another cost of trading him which is communicating to Quinn that we are throwing in the towel.

We are not going to f*** around and find out with Quinn, especially not at a price of like a 2nd rounder.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Reality is that they need a center in particular like JT Miller to go up against the McDavids, Eichels, and MacKinnons of the conference. None of those centers are who you think of in that regard.

If he makes it to free agency—I wonder if they will try to over-pay Bennett to come back to Canada. He fit's their on-ice needs very well.

But, I'm not a huge fan of Bennett in the context of Vancouver's off-ice challenges. I feel like he flourished once he was out of the Canadian spotlight. I don't think playing in Vancouver would do him any favors especially if its under the expectations of a big contract and even more so when he's been a career 40-50 point player. It feels like a recipe for scrutiny and ultimately disaster.

I can also see him very easily signing a sweetheart tax-free deal to stay with the Panthers where he knows his niche.

I see him staying with FLA as well.

If Pettersson returns to form, he can challenge anyone not named McDavid or Mackinnon. Short of that, no realistic solution is going to fit the bill.

They just have to be positioned to strike when a high end centre comes available. Whenever that may be.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I think you should take a step back for like 10 minutes, come back, and read what arttk's saying again and you might see why this isn't a good look for you.

I just think you're missing his point. If you acknowledge what he's saying and disagree with it, that's different. But it reads like you aren't really getting his point

Sure, explain to me what I’m missing then? Because @arttk is doing a terrible job.
Just blindly accepting management’s position doesn’t sit well with me. You do realize that @arttk plan is to acquire a 2nd line center, but instead of trading the winger who is struggling to provide any production for assets, his plan is to keep said winger and let them walk for nothing and somehow acquire that needed center despite not adding any additional assets. Do you not see how stupid that is? Does it not make more sense to add as many additional assets possible in a season where they aren’t going realistically accomplish anything? Are you all so blinded by the “make the playoffs at all costs” mantra that you don’t realize it leads to less assets and ultimately less opportunity to improve going forward? Bunch of complete morons.

 

[Szechwan]

See you in 2 hours when I’m not on mobile. This is too engrossing a conversation for me to properly do on this medium.

Aw shit now you guys have done it, Rev is moving to PC. You're f***ed now.

 

[Hansen]

KK and a late first for Boeser and one of EP2/Lekk/Willander?

f*** right off

Carolina tries to rip everyone off. They can f*** themselves. You dont deal for a rental and get another teams top prospect out of the deal too.

Honestly I would blacklist the Hurricanes for making trades, other teams around the league should consider it too

 

[Peter Griffin]

God what part of we are looking to trade for a young 2C do you not understand?

So letting Boeser walk for nothing instead of moving him and accumulating assets helps them acquire that 2nd line center? Ask yourself, how stupid are you?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Well I should actually outline my position here instead of beating around the bushes, which is that I feel this is simply another deadline day where the decisions have been made to appease ownership, and I think the actual decisions made during the trade deadline period demonstrate that.

If we were doing our best to compete for the rest of the season, we would not have traded Soucy. Instead we made a futures trade by trading him out. If were doing our best to build towards to the future, we would not have only traded Soucy. But we only traded Soucy, and not the players on actual expiring contracts.

To me, trading Soucy but not Brock/Suter is inherently a contradiction. We've made a move that makes our roster worse now but better placed for the future, whilst not making another move/s that would do the same. So is that contradiction because management are stupid? To appease the playing group? Those don't make any sense to me. The conclusion I make is that we were able to get ownership's blessings to move Soucy on (or probably their indifference) but getting them on board with trading Brock/Suter without immediately replacing them/being able to show ownership a return that they deemed of sufficient value was another matter.

I don't think trading Soucy and not trading Brock/Sutter can be explained any other way. But I suppose that's me having confidence in management that could be proven to be wrong. But if management truly approached the deadline solely in terms of doing our best to make the playoffs, then I don't see how trading Soucy makes any sense. So to my mind, management gets criticised either way.

I firmly believe we could have made the playoffs while trading Brock/Suter. And I firmly believe we could miss the playoffs with Brock/Suter. And that's because in a 20 game shootout for the last wildcard spot with up to 4 teams, it's not the team that makes the best decisions that gets the spot, it's just dumb luck.

Not going to argue the first point, if that's how you feel, that's how you feel and I at least see the reasoning behind it.

I don't think Tocchet liked using Soucy on the RS. That's a whole other pot of worms, but when he was on the left side, he was a huge liability at times when we needed him not to be. Couldn't move the puck as effectively up the ice.

I think management still has an eye on trying their best to retain Suter/Boeser, we'll see tomorrow but I think Brock is checked the f*** out anyways. I was leaning trade him but I think it only would have served to piss Hughes off even more, if he'd played every game for us he'd ought to be a Hart finalist if we make the playoffs. That's basically IMO like telling him, great work, but we couldn't put together a team good enough for you, so we have to punt it AGAIN.

But like you said it's not a either-or, there were at least avenues where you could have upgraded Brock, but Carolina seems intent to be a perennial "bridesmaid but never the bride".

It's a difficult position to argue for either of us, just because there are so many options we had, and still do. There's a ton of nuance which is why I'm actually enjoying the discussion.

I'm as disappointed as any, but this is the way it's always gone for us. Our players have a bipolar trade value. When we're good, we can make deals from positions of strength, when we aren't, we might as just do nothing. It still boggles me that 99-point Miller couldn't fetch a package like Rantanen got, considering he plays center, and wins draws at a dominant rate.

But like Burke once said, when you are drowning, other GM's aren't throwing you life vests, they are throwing you anchors.

 

[David71]

All we can hope for now is our team gets healthy, they come together as a team, and they start playing good hockey.

Pettersson has looked very good the last two games, that’s a start, we really need Hughes back and we need Boeser to get his head out of his ass too.

We are where we are. Let’s try to make the playoffs and see if we can stir some shit up. This team has been through a lot this year with the Miller drama, injuries, threat of trades looming, and more.. Hopefully if they’re able to put that behind them, they’ll start having some fun, and they’ll start winning some hockey games.

i dont think hughes would be healthy enough in time for the playoffs IF they make it. needs a full offseason to recover from his lower body injury.

 

[Peen]

Sure, explain to me what I’m missing then? Because @arttk is doing a terrible job.
Just blindly accepting management’s position doesn’t sit well with me. You do realize that @arttk plan is to acquire a 2nd line center, but instead of trading the winger who is struggling to provide any production for assets, his plan is to keep said winger and let them walk for nothing and somehow acquire that needed center despite not adding any additional assets. Do you not see how stupid that is? Does it not make more sense to add as many additional assets possible in a season where they aren’t going realistically accomplish anything? Are you all so blinded by the “make the playoffs at all costs” mantra that you don’t realize it leads to less assets and ultimately less opportunity to improve going forward? Bunch of complete morons.

I kind of agree with him so my post is along similar lines -> Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Don’t Incur Vector’s Wrath!

It sucks. I think this TDL and inability to add two impact forwards is pushing them to, imo, their brink. They almost nabbed Guentzel. They lost Miller. They have Chytil to show for it. That is horrible. From a results standpoint, they need to be accountable. This is a throwaway season now with zero upside.

I just... don't think the process is nearly as bad as the results. I agree with him - a 2nd + meh isn't getting you the same as a 1st in a future trade. And I think there's value in not selling star players for below market because of the internal optics (QH saying hey you traded a guy who scored 40 last year for the 50th and some other organization's danila klimovich) + how it f***s you in future leverage that you're willing to shift off your already fair ask.

 

[kanucks25]

Well I should actually outline my position here instead of beating around the bushes, which is that I feel this is simply another deadline day where the decisions have been made to appease ownership, and I think the actual decisions made during the trade deadline period demonstrate that.

If we were doing our best to compete for the rest of the season, we would not have traded Soucy. Instead we made a futures trade by trading him out. If were doing our best to build towards to the future, we would not have only traded Soucy. But we only traded Soucy, and not the players on actual expiring contracts.

To me, trading Soucy but not Brock/Suter is inherently a contradiction. We've made a move that makes our roster worse now but better placed for the future, whilst not making another move/s that would do the same. So is that contradiction because management are stupid? To appease the playing group? Those don't make any sense to me. The conclusion I make is that we were able to get ownership's blessings to move Soucy on (or probably their indifference) but getting them on board with trading Brock/Suter without immediately replacing them/being able to show ownership a return that they deemed of sufficient value was another matter.

I don't think trading Soucy and not trading Brock/Sutter can be explained any other way. But I suppose that's me having confidence in management that could be proven to be wrong. But if management truly approached the deadline solely in terms of doing our best to make the playoffs, then I don't see how trading Soucy makes any sense. So to my mind, management gets criticised either way.

I firmly believe we could have made the playoffs while trading Brock/Suter. And I firmly believe we could miss the playoffs with Brock/Suter. And that's because in a 20 game shootout for the last wildcard spot with up to 4 teams, it's not the team that makes the best decisions that gets the spot, it's just dumb luck.

I think you're looking into the Soucy trade too much.

He was pretty much our 7th D-man (might have fallen to 8th with Willander's arrival) and signed for over 3M next year. They were just getting rid of what was essentially dead cap and gained a pick that they may have used had they found the right subsequent deal.

He was the 5th lefty on our depth chart. Trading him away does not make the team worse, the difference is marginal at best.