Proposal: David Krejci to the Vancouver Canucks

[glenbuis]

I believe krecji makes 7.25 for the next 5 yrs and not 5.25

 

[glenbuis]

I believe krecji makes 7.25 for the next 5 yrs and not 5.25

 

[pierre gagnon*]

Krejci had chemistry with Eriksson on his line last year and on the PP. Bruins really need a dee, not sure who the Canucks would think about moving. Also Benning really liked Khoklachev, he seems to be out of the Bruins plans but he could be had as a throw in with one of McQuaid, Beleskey, Colin Miller or Joe Morrow. Tanev would be a dream but that would cost Krejci and pick/prospect and the Bruins would have to take back some salary. Bruins have a lot of good prospects if that interests the Canucks in a package deal. Lot of options if they even consider dealing with each other. Some players that played out that way in junior, Danton Heinen, Jesse Gabrielle, Jake DeBrusk to name a few.

 

[Horse McHindu]

If OP used Virtanen, this thread would be more interesting.

I *HIGHLY* doubt that Boston would be interested in a Virtanen for Krejci swap. Boston's GM laughs, reminds us about 2011, and then hangs up.

 

[Horse McHindu]

The longer you prolong the rebuild, the more painful it will be. Unfortunately for Vancouver (although it must be noted that ownership is a big part of this), Jim Benning hasn't come to this realization yet.


Vancouver should say hell no, but Benning probably would take this trade if offered.

Here's the thing though: Benning and company ARE rebuilding. They just don't want to trade every single vet in a fire sale and ice a bunch of 18-22 year old kids (surrounded by what would likely be a few PTO/fringe calibre vets, or vets that have never been elite and/or leaders).

In a gradual sense, the Canucks actually have been getting younger for the past few years.

However - Management (and ownership) believe that a large part of rebuilding, is getting your prospects/young players to compete every night with the hope that they get playoff exposure (even if they get trounced in the 1st or 2nd round). My personal belief is that this mindset is a good one.

I actually do think it's possible to rebuild-retool AND simultaneously compete for a playoff spot, but it's tricky.

Looking at it from a management's perspective,

1) You've invested all of this money and term into Eriksson
2) Eriksson clearly isn't meshing with the twins or anyone else so far
3) The Sedins' are no longer elite 1st line players, and may not even be 1st line calibre players at this stage in their careers. However - they would likely be excellent 2nd line players.

So - with all that in mind, why NOT

1) Trade for a center that has proven chemistry with Eriksson
2) Acquire said center (Krejci), and move the twins down the 2nd line where they can potentially dominate (or produce) against inferior lines and defensive pairings.
3) Continue to get gradually younger *outside* of Henrik, Daniel, Krejci, and Eriksson?

You would now have 2 good scoring lines for a number of years.

As it relates to point #3, you can then....

1) Move Miller and Burrows at season's end (or deadline if the Canucks aren't competing for a playoff spot.
2) Move Hansen and Edler once guys like Boeser and Juolevi are ready to step-up.
3) Move Tanev once Stetcher becomes a bona-fide Top 4 guy.

You can still get gradually younger, while guys like Krejci, Eriksson, Hank, Daniel, and Brandon Sutter (3rd line C) can ensure that the Canucks are competitive for a playoff spot.

 

[Baddkarma]

Krejci has a NMC till 2019, wife and kids, doubt he waives unless the Bruins start to tank, which is possible...

 

[CherryToke]

Here's the thing though: Benning and company ARE rebuilding.

So why are you making proposals that send the Canucks best young player for a 30 year old (with two hip surgeries) if you think they are rebuilding?

 

[oilerbear]

David Krejci to the Vancouver Canucks

Obviously, most hockey pundits will argue that the Canucks should be doing a full-on rebuild, but management/ownership in Vancouver clearly do not see things that way.

We all know the narrative by now. Canucks management wants to get gradually younger while simultaneously fielding a competitive team filled with character, so that their prospects are integrated into a solid environment.

Given the above, and given the fact that the Canucks have Eriksson and the twins in their line-up, I think it makes sense for the Canucks to trade for David Krejci (and again, I re-iterate, using Management's outlook).


To Vancouver:

-David Krejci

To Boston:

-Bo Horvat
-draft pick (3rd?)

Advantages for Canucks:

1) Immediate spike in scoring prowess due to 'trickle down' effect (i.e. twins can no longer carry a 1st line, but are still likely good 2nd line players. Sutter is not good enough to anchor a 2nd line, but is a very good 3rd line center. You get the idea). The Canucks have invested a lot of money into Louie Eriksson, and he has proven chemistry with Krejici. Eriksson turns back into a 30 goal guy.

Rodin-Krejci-Eriksson (new 1st line)
Sedin-Sedin-Hansen (former sub-par 1st line for 2016 --> Now a great 2nd line)
Baertschi-Sutter-Burrows (decent 3rd line). You can even have Sutter and Hansen here if someone like Virtanen or Burrows produces with the twins in a 2nd line capacity. You would now have 3 formidable lines.
Granlund-Gaunce-Dorsett

Virtanen goes to Utica to get ice-time.

2) Canucks still have a decent prospect pool and youth.
-Demko, OJ, Boeser, Hutton, Stetcher, Markstrom, Gudbranson (he still counts).

Advantage for Boston:

Get a guy who could possibly be as good as David Krejci in the future.


I think a move like this punches a playoff ticket for Vancouver. They would likely lose in the 1st round, with an outside shot of a 2nd round appearance, but again.........management/ownership want this team to make the playoffs.

If we're being honest, I think a part of this reason is that they suspect that the city of Vancouver won't embrace a full-on rebuild like cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, etc. did in the past.

You can still get gradually younger :

Even with a Horvat for Krejci move, you can still get significantly younger within the coming years. Miller and Burrows go off the books, while Hansen can be moved if Boeser or Virtanen step up to the plate.

The thing for me is this. The team has obviously invested a lot in Eriksson and the twins. Why not maximize their value? Give Eriksson a center that he has proven chemistry with, and put the twins in a position where they can be dominant 2nd liners.

Outside of that, management can still commit to getting gradually younger while simultaneously fielding a competitive team.

this is just brutal.

Horvat has faced bottom 3rd competition his first 2 years.
14-15 47.3% ZS
68 gm
12 EVG 11 EVA 23 EVP -8

15-16 42.6% ZS
82gm
12 EVG 12 EVA 24 EVP -30
4 PPG 12 PPA

16-17
11gm 1.27 SH/gm X 82 gm =104 SH
take best Shooting % year .14 X 104 = 14G
Take his EVA last 2 years 12 EVA.
82gm 12 EVG 1 PPG 1 SHG 12 EVA 2 PPA 1 SHA -22

Horvats trended 20/21yr totals:
162gm 29G 29A 58P -52 bottom 3rd comp
.179 GPG
.179 APG
.358 PPG
-.321 Goal diff per game.

Yakupov 20/21 yr totals
144gm 25G 32A 57P -68 bottom 3rd comp
.174 GPG
.201 APG
.396 PPG
-.472 Goal diff per game.

I knew I recognized that performance!

 

[Horse McHindu]

So why are you making proposals that send the Canucks best young player for a 30 year old if you think they are rebuilding?

Like I said, it's management's vision. They believe that there is more to rebuilding than just doing a 'black and white' trade an old guy for a young guy ASAP.

They want to simultaneously get gradually younger, while fielding a team that can make the playoffs. In terms of the latter, they have a lot of money invested in Eriksson and the twins.

-Eriksson is at his best when he's with Krejci
-At this stage in their careers, the twins are at their best on a 2nd line.
-If you're going to bring in a guy like Krejci and kill two birds with one stone (i.e. the birds being, finding the perfect center for Eriksson while dropping the twins to the 2nd line), then it's better to trade your best young player (Horvat) as opposed to depleting your farm and draft picks (i.e. a package of Juolevi, Boeser, etc.).

So yes, you lose Horvat (which sucks obviously), but you still retain Boeser, Juolevi, Demko, 2017 1st, Virtanen, Hutton, Stetcher, etc., etc., while also catering to the current core (i.e. attempting to field a competitive playoff team, which likely would be competitive due to the twins being on a 2nd line while Eriksson goes back to being a 30 goal guy on a different line).

Over the years, guys like Hansen, Edler, and Tanev can be shipped off for draft picks once guys like Boeser, Juolevi, and Stetcher prove themselves worthy of Top 4 duty.

Again - this is not my personal vision. This outlandish idea is something that I perceive would be in line with management's idea (i.e. gradually getting younger and accumulating more picks while simultaneously fielding a competitive team by catering to Eriksson and the twins).

 

[Horse McHindu]

this is just brutal.

Horvat has faced bottom 3rd competition his first 2 years.
14-15 47.3% ZS
68 gm
12 EVG 11 EVA 23 EVP -8

15-16 42.6% ZS
82gm
12 EVG 12 EVA 24 EVP -30
4 PPG 12 PPA

16-17
11gm 1.27 SH/gm X 82 gm =104 SH
take best Shooting % year .14 X 104 = 14G
Take his EVA last 2 years 12 EVA.
82gm 12 EVG 1 PPG 1 SHG 12 EVA 2 PPA 1 SHA -22

Horvats trended 20/21yr totals:
162gm 29G 29A 58P -52 bottom 3rd comp
.179 GPG
.179 APG
.358 PPG
-.321 Goal diff per game.

Yakupov 20/21 yr totals
144gm 25G 32A 57P -68 bottom 3rd comp
.174 GPG
.201 APG
.396 PPG
-.472 Goal diff per game.

I knew I recognized that performance!

There is more to life than "advanced stats."

If you honestly think that Horvat isn't held in that much higher regard than Yakupov, then you need a reality check.

 

[CherryToke]

Like I said, it's management's vision. They believe that there is more to rebuilding than just doing a 'black and white' trade an old guy for a young guy ASAP.

They want to simultaneously get gradually younger, while fielding a team that can make the playoffs. In terms of the latter, they have a lot of money invested in Eriksson and the twins.

-Eriksson is at his best when he's with Krejci
-At this stage in their careers, the twins are at their best on a 2nd line.
-If you're going to bring in a guy like Krejci and kill two birds with one stone (i.e. the birds being, finding the perfect center for Eriksson while dropping the twins to the 2nd line), then it's better to trade your best young player (Horvat) as opposed to depleting your farm and draft picks (i.e. a package of Juolevi, Boeser, etc.).

So yes, you lose Horvat (which sucks obviously), but you still retain Boeser, Juolevi, Demko, 2017 1st, Virtanen, Hutton, Stetcher, etc., etc., while also catering to the current core (i.e. attempting to field a competitive playoff team).

Over the years, guys like Hansen, Edler, and Tanev can be shipped off for draft picks once guys like Boeser, Hutton, and Stetcher prove themselves worthy of Top 4 duty.

Again - this is not my personal vision. This outlandish idea is something that I perceive would be in line with management's idea (i.e. gradually getting younger and accumulating more picks while simultaneously fielding a competitive team by catering to Eriksson and the twins).

You know Krejci is coming off his second hip surgery right? You don't trade players like Horvat for 30 year olds with two major hip surgeries.. he could fall a part at any moment.

 

[Horse McHindu]

You know Krejci is coming off his second hip surgery right? You don't trade players like Horvat for 30 year olds with two major hip surgeries.. he could fall a part at any moment.

I was made aware of that, but it's not like I'm suggesting that we trade for him tomorrow.

Lets see how he plays this year, and see if he looks like his old self.

This is all a moot point anyways since he has an NMC apparently, and is married with a few kids (i.e. roots in Boston).

 

[wintersej]

You know Krejci is coming off his second hip surgery right? You don't trade players like Horvat for 30 year olds with two major hip surgeries.. he could fall a part at any moment.

For context, the surgeries were seven years apart. One was on the right (the first) and one was on the left. Same surgery. Jamie Benn just had the same surgery, too. Not a big deal.

 

[eternalbedhead]

Here's the thing though: Benning and company ARE rebuilding. They just don't want to trade every single vet in a fire sale and ice a bunch of 18-22 year old kids (surrounded by what would likely be a few PTO/fringe calibre vets, or vets that have never been elite and/or leaders).

In a gradual sense, the Canucks actually have been getting younger for the past few years.

However - Management (and ownership) believe that a large part of rebuilding, is getting your prospects/young players to compete every night with the hope that they get playoff exposure (even if they get trounced in the 1st or 2nd round). My personal belief is that this mindset is a good one.

I actually do think it's possible to rebuild-retool AND simultaneously compete for a playoff spot, but it's tricky.

Looking at it from a management's perspective,

1) You've invested all of this money and term into Eriksson
2) Eriksson clearly isn't meshing with the twins or anyone else so far
3) The Sedins' are no longer elite 1st line players, and may not even be 1st line calibre players at this stage in their careers. However - they would likely be excellent 2nd line players.

So - with all that in mind, why NOT

1) Trade for a center that has proven chemistry with Eriksson
2) Acquire said center (Krejci), and move the twins down the 2nd line where they can potentially dominate (or produce) against inferior lines and defensive pairings.
3) Continue to get gradually younger *outside* of Henrik, Daniel, Krejci, and Eriksson?

You would now have 2 good scoring lines for a number of years.

As it relates to point #3, you can then....

1) Move Miller and Burrows at season's end (or deadline if the Canucks aren't competing for a playoff spot.
2) Move Hansen and Edler once guys like Boeser and Juolevi are ready to step-up.
3) Move Tanev once Stetcher becomes a bona-fide Top 4 guy.

You can still get gradually younger, while guys like Krejci, Eriksson, Hank, Daniel, and Brandon Sutter (3rd line C) can ensure that the Canucks are competitive for a playoff spot.

But that's the thing: fire sales aren't often good ideas, but that's not always what a rebuild is. Point being, your suggestion is moving a young, high potential center for an older guy who will likely be hard on the decline by the time that Vancouver is a legitimate contender again. The trade in the OP is purely a win-now move, and you're parting with a good young player in Bo Horvat to do so.

 

[Addison Rae]

There is more to life than "advanced stats."

If you honestly think that Horvat isn't held in that much higher regard than Yakupov, then you need a reality check.

bro you're quoting the same guy that said bogman yakimov would go top 5 in a redraft a few years ago.

 

[biturbo19]

I like Krejci, and he'd be huge for Vancouver's offensive woes. But even just completely glossing over the lunacy of a team in Vancouver's position trading a key piece of the future like Horvat in the first place...this is an extremely long ways from working under the salary cap.

 

[Moose Head]

The nucks really need to start realizing where they are on the development curve. Time to trim the fat, not give up good young assets for older players. Kreji is really good, but there are teams out there that can put him to better current use than the nucks. Really, the nucks should be guaging value on all their vets, not look to aquire more.