Former Canucks Thread 2023-24 Off-Season Edition | Page 33 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Former Canucks Thread 2023-24 Off-Season Edition

I can agree with the M-Petey trade but are you seriously characterizing the Miller trade as Vancouver having dumped a contract?

I regard both trades as a 3 team transaction, similar to how NBA trades are done, since they were done on the same day and involved 1 common asset.

There was a lot of negative noise from this forum about the contract lengths, AAV and on-ice performances for Heinen and Desharnais. The trade was effective in clearing cap space and contract spots for the future. This eliminated being on the hook for $4.25 mill until 2026.

People can nitpick each detail to death, but overall, I see no overpayment and the team reduced their NHL contracts by 3, including Brannstrom to NYR. For those that lament the loss of Dorrington and Fernstrom, wait until the end of the playoffs and see which prospects that Rutherford includes in his next deals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David71
Dorrington gets a solid shrug from me. I never saw anything amazing in him, and everything about him screams he's a generic depth defenseman who'll have a Jett Woo-like AHL career and serve as a 7th D-man at best. I legitimately think Hirose is above him on the depth chart, and McWard is at his level.

I think Dorrington has a greater chance to actually play in the NHL over Hirose and McWard because he plays a Juulsen-type game but agreed with everything else.
 
Dorrington gets a solid shrug from me. I never saw anything amazing in him, and everything about him screams he's a generic depth defenseman who'll have a Jett Woo-like AHL career and serve as a 7th D-man at best. I legitimately think Hirose is above him on the depth chart, and McWard is at his level.
I shared a similar impression but over in the Dorrington thread there were others who saw things differently. Again, if he's a nothing prospect that we weren't going to sign anyway then he's just a throwin. If he somehow has value then I don't see a need to throw him into a trade where we're trading them JT Miller. There was a rumor that we had asked for Fortescue so I wonder if a swap was proposed.

I regard both trades as a 3 team transaction, similar to how NBA trades are done, since they were done on the same day and involved 1 common asset.
The trades were technically announced on separate days but point taken.

There was a lot of negative noise from this forum about the contract lengths, AAV and on-ice performances for Heinen and Desharnais. The trade was effective in clearing cap space and contract spots for the future. This eliminated being on the hook for $4.25 mill until 2026.
Agreed. And I was completely on board with getting rid of Heinan and Desharnais even though it was self-inflicted. But that was on the assumption that those two had negative value (which I may be wrong about).

Keep in mind that salary did need to be moved to make the deal work. I'm not sure about Rangers' cap situation but I assume the Rangers needed to send a substantial contract back (e.g. Chytil's) to make the deal work. Similarly, we needed to move some money too as we would be right up against the cap taking. M-Petey and Chytil on.

People can nitpick each detail to death, but overall, I see no overpayment and the team reduced their NHL contracts by 3, including Brannstrom to NYR. For those that lament the loss of Dorrington and Fernstrom, wait until the end of the playoffs and see which prospects that Rutherford includes in his next deals.
My math is bad so maybe I am missing something here but how did you arrive at "reduce their NHL contracts by 3?"

IN: Mancini, Chytil, M-Petey, O'Connor
Out: Brannstrom, Miller, Heinan, Desharnais.

It's 2 contracts in and 2 contracts out in each of the two trades.

Dorrington and Fernstrom did not have NHL contracts. And again, Fernstrom doesn't need to be signed this summer. Dorrington, if he does have NHL potential, is about as good of a prospect we can realistically sign as a UFA and it's not like we're right up against the contract limit. Even after Willander signed we have 46 contracts with a few contracts down on the farm expiring that we don't need to re-up such as Nathan Smith. Maybe you let one of the LD go. Like will Wolanin and Brisebois both return and be playing in Abbotsford? Wolanin hasn't gotten an NHL opportunity here the past 2 seasons. Usually these guys move on. Brisebois has been a lifer but he' s a UFA for the first time and he should command an NHL deal - perhaps a 2 year deal. He might look elsewhere for an opportunity.
 
I shared a similar impression but over in the Dorrington thread there were others who saw things differently. Again, if he's a nothing prospect that we weren't going to sign anyway then he's just a throwin. If he somehow has value then I don't see a need to throw him into a trade where we're trading them JT Miller. There was a rumor that we had asked for Fortescue so I wonder if a swap was proposed.
There is a crowd here that thinks every Canucks prospect is a winning lottery ticket. I only trust insight from a few people here, and I can't imagine any of them being high on Dorrington with his lack of puck skills and plain vanilla style.

I feel that Dorrington and Fernstrom were added because they didn't fit our long-term plans. Dorrington would need to be signed this offseason, and likely wasn't that interesting to us.

While I can see why some might have preferred to keep him, Fernstrom seems like a Gunler or Holtz-type player, 3-4 years away from the NHL and likely a middle-six body if he does make it. He's unlikely to play on his ELC, and it's hard to project his value on a Hoglander-type deal if he made it that far.
 
There is a crowd here that thinks every Canucks prospect is a winning lottery ticket. I only trust insight from a few people here, and I can't imagine any of them being high on Dorrington with his lack of puck skills and plain vanilla style.

I feel that Dorrington and Fernstrom were added because they didn't fit our long-term plans. Dorrington would need to be signed this offseason, and likely wasn't that interesting to us.

While I can see why some might have preferred to keep him, Fernstrom seems like a Gunler or Holtz-type player, 3-4 years away from the NHL and likely a middle-six body if he does make it. He's unlikely to play on his ELC, and it's hard to project his value on a Hoglander-type deal if he made it that far.
Whenever you can draft prospects like Dorrington and Fernstrom after round #2, and eventually trade them for value coming the other way, then that's a 'draft win'.

The Canucks are knee-deep in prospect d-men; and if Fernstrom was a center instead of a winger, he might have more value to the Canucks.

But really hard to argue with the return on either of the trade of Miller to the Rangers; or the subsequent trade with the Pens, which landed them O'Connor and Marcus Pettersson.

As soon as it was announced that the Canuck were forced to trade Miller, his value sunk. And getting Chytil, Mancini and a first rounder was actually fair value. Dorrington and Brannstrom were basically throw-ins.

And Pittsburgh happily accepted the Rangers first rounder and needed another prospect as well, so Fernstrom was their guy. The Canucks obliged and jettisoned the contracts of Heinen and Desharnais in the bargain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tables of Stats
There is a crowd here that thinks every Canucks prospect is a winning lottery ticket. I only trust insight from a few people here, and I can't imagine any of them being high on Dorrington with his lack of puck skills and plain vanilla style.
Well why don't you name these few people whose insight you trust and see what they think. I think it adds to our discussions.

I feel that Dorrington and Fernstrom were added because they didn't fit our long-term plans. Dorrington would need to be signed this offseason, and likely wasn't that interesting to us.
Like I said, if management thinks Dorrington is a nothing prospect then he's a throwin. It is only if he had value like some here think that I question his inclusion in the Miller trade.

While I can see why some might have preferred to keep him, Fernstrom seems like a Gunler or Holtz-type player, 3-4 years away from the NHL and likely a middle-six body if he does make it. He's unlikely to play on his ELC, and it's hard to project his value on a Hoglander-type deal if he made it that far.
The guy was drafted in the 3rd round last summer. What has he done to not fit our long-term plans? I assume that being named SHL rookie of the year in his draft+1 season is pretty impressive? Why pick him at all if he somehow doesn't fit into the team's long term plans?

There's nothing wrong with a 3rd round pick being 3-4 years away. He's likely going to spend next year in SHL and even if we would have signed him to an ELC this summer, it would slide one year. Take Raty, he was in his draft +4 season and in the last year of his ELC. Is he worth having in the system? I think so. I'm not sure why you're talking about Hoglander, are you talking about his bridge deal? Raty is unlikely to get that bridge deal. Any 3rd round pick who earns "a Hoglander-type deal" would be a win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frostage
As soon as it was announced that the Canuck were forced to trade Miller, his value sunk.

I don't really agree with this, because his trade return was essentially the same as the rumored return the first time they went to move him.

Chytill lundqvist and 1st

Vs

Chytill Mancini and 1st
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe
There is a crowd here that thinks every Canucks prospect is a winning lottery ticket. I only trust insight from a few people here, and I can't imagine any of them being high on Dorrington with his lack of puck skills and plain vanilla style.

Yeah, the collective hysterics when we traded Jonathan Myrenberg are hilarious in retrospect. Total nothing prospect who is about to have his rights lapse when Boston doesn't sign him in the next couple weeks.

I did think Dorrington was a decent prospect who will probably play NHL games but there wasn't a ton of upside or value there.

I feel that Dorrington and Fernstrom were added because they didn't fit our long-term plans. Dorrington would need to be signed this offseason, and likely wasn't that interesting to us.

Dorrington was in a situation where he was the 4th-best LHD prospect we had born in 2004 or 2005 behind EP2, KK, and Mynio and there are kind of limits on how many guys of the same type/age you can develop and find room for at once. In particular EP2 is an incredibly similar prospect in terms of future NHL role but so much better at everything. Dorrington also may have been hesitant to sign because he could see that the situation wasn't ideal for him.

Fernstrom I'm less sure that moving him was a good idea or that it was because he didn't fit - he was pretty clearly our 2nd best winger prospect behind Lekkerimaki and then proceeded to blow up almost immediately after trading him. This one might hurt when we're watching the 2016 WJCs.

While I can see why some might have preferred to keep him, Fernstrom seems like a Gunler or Holtz-type player, 3-4 years away from the NHL and likely a middle-six body if he does make it. He's unlikely to play on his ELC, and it's hard to project his value on a Hoglander-type deal if he made it that far.

It's really hard to know what Fernstrom is at this point or how he projects, to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vector
Well why don't you name these few people whose insight you trust and see what they think. I think it adds to our discussions.
It tends to vary by prospect. I value people who put in the time to get eyes on a prospect, and that isn't always the same person or people every time. Beyond that, good articulation and detail in their thought process have a huge impact. My brain loves to lose names; they kind of slide off my brain like butter over a hot pan, but you and MS are on that list, and I still go to the Devils forum to read BG's takes, though they're not overly relevant to our prospects these days. Pavel Buchnevich's post in the Dorrington thread is an example of a good take that didn't need to be long to cover what was needed.

The guy was drafted in the 3rd round last summer. What has he done to not fit our long-term plans? I assume that being named SHL rookie of the year in his draft+1 season is pretty impressive? Why pick him at all if he somehow doesn't fit into the team's long term plans?

There's nothing wrong with a 3rd round pick being 3-4 years away. He's likely going to spend next year in SHL and even if we would have signed him to an ELC this summer, it would slide one year. Take Raty, he was in his draft +4 season and in the last year of his ELC. Is he worth having in the system? I think so. I'm not sure why you're talking about Hoglander, are you talking about his bridge deal? Raty is unlikely to get that bridge deal. Any 3rd round pick who earns "a Hoglander-type deal" would be a win.
I made an error in looking at comparables. I sorted him as U20 rather than U19 when looking for comparables, and it coloured my perception of the pick as that same production one year older doesn't tend to translate into a valuable player, but that same production as a rookie tends to indicate a high-end player. It's what I get for posting a hot take from my phone instead of taking my time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F A N
Fernstrom I'm less sure that moving him was a good idea or that it was because he didn't fit - he was pretty clearly our 2nd best winger prospect behind Lekkerimaki and then proceeded to blow up almost immediately after trading him. This one might hurt when we're watching the 2016 WJCs.

It's really hard to know what Fernstrom is at this point or how he projects, to me.
See above. I sorted him as if he played this season as a U20 player rather than a U19 player, and it made him project significantly worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MS
I don't really agree with this, because his trade return was essentially the same as the rumored return the first time they went to move him.

Chytill lundqvist and 1st

Vs

Chytill Mancini and 1st
Granted the trade values are different. Chytil back then hasn't fully broken out yet (had a good playoffs) but he was younger, cheaper and had a lesser concussion history. Lundqvist at the time was worth a whole lot more than Mancini. The 2023 1st was worth a whole lot less than the 1st we got from the Rangers. Miller was probably worth more being younger?

Dorrington was in a situation where he was the 4th-best LHD prospect we had born in 2004 or 2005 behind EP2, KK, and Mynio and there are kind of limits on how many guys of the same type/age you can develop and find room for at once. In particular EP2 is an incredibly similar prospect in terms of future NHL role but so much better at everything. Dorrington also may have been hesitant to sign because he could see that the situation wasn't ideal for him.
EP2 looks like he will graduate to the bigs though and we did rumour to have been interested in Fortescue. I don't think it's a big deal having 3 LD prospects down on the farm.
 
Granted the trade values are different. Chytil back then hasn't fully broken out yet (had a good playoffs) but he was younger, cheaper and had a lesser concussion history. Lundqvist at the time was worth a whole lot more than Mancini. The 2023 1st was worth a whole lot less than the 1st we got from the Rangers. Miller was probably worth more being younger?

I mean Chytil hadn't broken out, but less health scares so probably same value.

Lundqvist was trending down vs Mancini Trending up, Lundqvist was traded for a first and while that is more than I think Mancini is worth, I think it gets made up for in the difference in 1st you just pointed to.
 


i finished it twice

courtnall
ronning
dirk
momesso
butcher
quinn
hedican
brown
lafayette

nedved
noonan
tikkanen
sanford
halak
bergevin
david roberts
dave richter
rich sutter

bored on a flight, thx for the diversion j21
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jyrki21
I mean Chytil hadn't broken out, but less health scares so probably same value.

Chytil was coming off a strong playoffs at the time so while unproven as a 2C (and injury prone) there was hope vs now where he can't be expected to stay healthy and is one hit away from retirement. I would value the summer 2022 version of Chytil a lot more but I've been outspoken about not wanting to touch Chytil's contract before trading for him.
 
I shared a similar impression but over in the Dorrington thread there were others who saw things differently. Again, if he's a nothing prospect that we weren't going to sign anyway then he's just a throwin. If he somehow has value then I don't see a need to throw him into a trade where we're trading them JT Miller....

My math is bad so maybe I am missing something here but how did you arrive at "reduce their NHL contracts by 3?"

IN: Mancini, Chytil, M-Petey, O'Connor
Out: Brannstrom, Miller, Heinan, Desharnais.

It's 2 contracts in and 2 contracts out in each of the two trades.

Dorrington and Fernstrom did not have NHL contracts...
My math is worse than yours. I probably got sidetracked, thinking how to respond to you, that I shoved in that 3 contract dump. Vancouver was able to include 3 bad contracts, at the cost of adding 2 prospects.

Nobody knows if the deals would have occurred, without those prospects or those bad contracts.

Nobody knows if the deals would have occurred, without those prospects but with better assets from Vancouver.

Nobody knows if San Jose would have given Vancouver a 2028 5rd pick for Desharnais.

You are pretty fixated on Dorrington, with a couple of IF scenerios. Since JR is not going to tell you, why not just assume Vancouver did not value him as highly as NYR, who signed him right away ... and move on.
 
You are pretty fixated on Dorrington, with a couple of IF scenerios. Since JR is not going to tell you, why not just assume Vancouver did not value him as highly as NYR, who signed him right away ... and move on.

It's because that some posters here liked him and NYR signed him right away so I'm wondering if we actually have a legitimate prospect here that we just threw in there in a deal where we held the most desirable asset.

I don't see why we can't discuss things and have to move on.
 
Dorrington gets a solid shrug from me. I never saw anything amazing in him, and everything about him screams he's a generic depth defenseman who'll have a Jett Woo-like AHL career and serve as a 7th D-man at best. I legitimately think Hirose is above him on the depth chart, and McWard is at his level.

dorrington isn't flashy or anything but he's risen to the level every single step up he's taken. i think he'll probably thrive in the ahl and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see him in the nhl in a couple years. he's got pro size, pro reads and pro skating he just needs to show he can process the game at that speed
 
dorrington isn't flashy or anything but he's risen to the level every single step up he's taken. i think he'll probably thrive in the ahl and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see him in the nhl in a couple years. he's got pro size, pro reads and pro skating he just needs to show he can process the game at that speed
That's true of most prospects who generate any buzz near the end of their college careers. Most of them, especially those without any standout abilities at that level, fail to continue this trend at the AHL level.
 
It's because that some posters here liked him and NYR signed him right away so I'm wondering if we actually have a legitimate prospect here that we just threw in there in a deal where we held the most desirable asset.

I don't see why we can't discuss things and have to move on.
Sorry for my poor communication skills here. I meant to say that I am moving on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F A N

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Ad

Ad