Value of: Jack Rathbone to Boston

[Canuck86]

Rathbone has played every pre season game for the Canucks. He has a good slap shot and some Canuck fans tout him as having a better defensive game than 7.8m Quinton Hughes.

With Hughes and OEL being paid big $ and long term, there is not much room for Rathbone unless its bottom pair and maybe 2nd unit PP.

I am not wanting the Canucks to give Rathbone away, but we shouldn't risk losing Juolevi for nothing and he can be a PK 3rd pair D for us now. Rathbone is also from the Boston area and he has a younger brother who is sick or has some sort of disease??

So this would be more about the Canucks giving Rathbone a chance to play closer to his family, he is waiver exempt so he could play in Providence.

As for the Return, the Canucks need a RHD or a C preferably a right shot C. I am not suggesting these Bruin players or prospects are a fair deal for Rathbone but after a quick search these might be of interest to GM JB:

Connor Clifton RHD
Jack Studnicka RH C
Trent Frederic LH C
Brady Lyle RHD

Not sure if any are available of how they rank within the Boston organization, but thought I would bring up Rathbone getting a chance to play closer to home and the Canucks trying to fill an area of need while helping JR play closer to home not on the west coast.

Thoughts??

Click to read more...

 

[canuckking1]

Juolevi is garbage and the team shouldn’t move Rathbone to accommodate him.

 

[Hammman]

You don't move a player like Rathbone before giving him a chance to develop and build his value. He's not worth nothing right now, but if he develops as he should he would be worth a lot more.

 

[Maurice of Orange]

Id keep Rathbone for the 3rd pairing and waive Juolevi.

 

[StickShift]

Generally speaking, any NHL team should have zero interest in moving away from a player like Jack Rathbone. He looks like a sure bet

However, given the Canucks relative depth and the similar offensive profile of Hughes/OEL/Rathbone—and the Canucks relative lack of depth on RHD. I do think it is within the realm of possibility of swapping out Rathbone for a RHD with a similar ceiling in the coming seasons. Maybe for a player who is a bit more defensively oriented.

 

[neelynugs]

i don't see why vancouver would trade him, but he's also not really what boston needs.
the b's already have an undersized lefty D in gryz.

 

[Canuck86]

Generally speaking, any NHL team should have zero interest in moving away from a player like Jack Rathbone. He looks like a sure bet

However, given the Canucks relative depth and the similar offensive profile of Hughes/OEL/Rathbone—and the Canucks relative lack of depth on RHD. I do think it is within the realm of possibility of swapping out Rathbone for a RHD with a similar ceiling in the coming seasons. Maybe for a player who is a bit more defensively oriented.

I agree and Boston may not be the ideal fit but that is where he is from. I wouldn't want to move Rathbone but to save face as the GM I would consider it. Cause if he waives OJ and gets picked up, what does that truly say about his drafting... Multiple top 10 picks are both busts, losing recent 2nd round picks before seeing what they could truly bring or not trying to move them in a deal for a pick or prospect back that might fill a different area of need for the Canucks.

It is unlikely we move him, as he is NOT needing waivers so a bunch of minutes in the AHL might help round out his game more with some PK time etc. I would be all for having him on the 3rd pair, but eventually he will need a raise and its highly unlikely the Canucks ever trade Hughes, OEL has his NMC still so he ain't moving either.

Was just a proposal for the Canucks to move a decent asset for an area where we are lacking...You can't acquire something like that without giving up something and I think the GM should be banned from trading any more draft picks...he has depleted us enough since he arrived and we are quite thin in multiple areas with no real prospects coming soon in said areas of need

 

[Canuck86]

i don't see why vancouver would trade him, but he's also not really what boston needs.
the b's already have an undersized lefty D in gryz.

Not a rush to move him by any means, but I was offering up an asset with upside and not a diminished asset or a player with negative value or just a draft pick. Rathbone could replace Gryz after his deal is up if Rathbone proves his worth at the NHL level during that time also...just an idea for Bruins fans to think about.

Before Hughes signed, I would have seen what the Devils would have offered for him...cause if they want a trio of brothers maybe they would have paid handsomely, for now tho we will never know!

 

[Three On Zero]

Rathbone > Juolevi.... It's time for Benning to admit that Juolevi was a bad pick and move on with our lives.

 

[Paddys Pub]

Nope. Not interested in moving him to keep Joulevi. That’s insane.

 

[elitepete]

Rathbone plays a position of organizational strength for the Canucks, and that is the reason why I would be willing to trade him.

We badly need rhd that are good in their own zone. Being big+physical and/or able to move the puck is a bonus..

Canucks also may have a strength at forward IF one of Hoglander or Pod breaks out offensively. In that case I think it would make sense to trade one of Miller or Garland. Preferably Garland. Would Boston have interest in a deal around Garland and Carlo?

 

[Hammman]

Rathbone plays a position of organizational strength for the Canucks, and that is the reason why I would be willing to trade him.

We badly need rhd that are good in their own zone. Being big+physical and/or able to move the puck is a bonus..

Canucks also may have a strength at forward IF one of Hoglander or Pod breaks out offensively. In that case I think it would make sense to trade one of Miller or Garland. Preferably Garland. Would Boston have interest in a deal around Garland and Carlo?

Trading a player immediately after signing them to a long term deal isn't a great way to set yourself up for future contract negotiations.

 

[Breakers]

Vancouver is literally talking about trading Juolevi

 

[elitepete]

Trading a player immediately after signing them to a long term deal isn't a great way to set yourself up for future contract negotiations.

It would be after this season. Or around the deadline at the earliest.

 

[Johnsie19]

I wouldn't be surprised if Rathbone is on PP2 and gets more points than OEL this season. I think ultimately he will be traded unfortunately as he is going to be a really good PPP QB and the Canucks have all their money on the left side.

I would want to maximize the asset though. We need Myers out to clear the space and we need a top pairing RD. Rathbone could be dealt to as part of that sequence of trades or signings.

 

[wintersej]

Rathbone plays a position of organizational strength for the Canucks, and that is the reason why I would be willing to trade him.

We badly need rhd that are good in their own zone. Being big+physical and/or able to move the puck is a bonus..

Canucks also may have a strength at forward IF one of Hoglander or Pod breaks out offensively. In that case I think it would make sense to trade one of Miller or Garland. Preferably Garland. Would Boston have interest in a deal around Garland and Carlo?

Not the slightest interest in something around Garland and Carlo. Bruins D is thin enough as it is.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Rathbone plays a position of organizational strength for the Canucks, and that is the reason why I would be willing to trade him.

We badly need rhd that are good in their own zone. Being big+physical and/or able to move the puck is a bonus..

Canucks also may have a strength at forward IF one of Hoglander or Pod breaks out offensively. In that case I think it would make sense to trade one of Miller or Garland. Preferably Garland. Would Boston have interest in a deal around Garland and Carlo?

I have no interest in Garland, nor did I in Arizona.

Rathbone is intriguing but the Bruins need more size.

 

[Hookslide]

Rathbone plays a position of organizational strength for the Canucks, and that is the reason why I would be willing to trade him.

We badly need rhd that are good in their own zone. Being big+physical and/or able to move the puck is a bonus..

Canucks also may have a strength at forward IF one of Hoglander or Pod breaks out offensively. In that case I think it would make sense to trade one of Miller or Garland. Preferably Garland. Would Boston have interest in a deal around Garland and Carlo?

The Bruins are not trading Carlo for Garland period .............Bruins could use a d-man with size and nastiness.........