Roster & Fantasy GM Thread VII || Make The Canucks Great Again

[fancouver]

Like MS said Hamonic has components of his game that are better and Tanev has components of his game that are better. They're essentially going to bring you the same results.

New York has no leverage, treading water in a Hamonic deal should be viewed as a major win for the Islanders, so their fanbase is out to lunch if they turn that down.

Have you seen some of the things Hamonic has been doing right now in the playoffs?

He's big, mobile, physical and brings more to the table than Tanev.

Tanev is a good defenceman, but he's not going to be anything more than a #2 on a good team. Hamonic may not be a #1 right now, but he has all the tools to become one.

Someone in the last thread suggested we could move up two spots from #4 or #5 by including Jared McCann.. would you take that deal in reverse? I sure wouldn't.

That was me, I suggested moving up to the top 3 if we have a top 6 pick and McCann is likely the cost it'll be.

The top 3 is on a whole different level compared to the next 3.

Harmonic is not a great dman. He fits a need and is the right age but no need to trade valuable assets for a piece that is only important if other parts are in place. I am not even sure I would trade Tryamkin for him. As Tryamkin has higher potential than Hamonic even if he is unlikely to be as good. The same goes for Hutton. Edler maybe because of age difference. Tanev no.

Not sure I can agree with this. And you can tell from my previous posts, I am a huge Tryamkin fan (expecting him to finish next season as a regular top 4), but Hamonic is a proven commodity who can play 20+ minutes, providing offense and physicality. Only thing Tryamkin is better at Hamonic right now is being a few inches taller.

 

[dave babych returns]

That was me, I suggested moving up to the top 3 if we have a top 6 pick and McCann is likely the cost it'll be.

The top 3 is on a whole different level compared to the next 3.

Well that's my point! If we won the 2nd lottery would you trade down three spots for a pretty nice prospect?

 

[fancouver]

Well that's my point! If we won the 2nd lottery would you trade down three spots for a pretty nice prospect?

That would depend on who's moving down. Edmonton, I can see them make that move if they were 3rd and we were 5th.

EDM:
McCann
Chychurn (5th)

VAN:
Jesse Puljujärvi (3rd)

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I'd rather see if the screw turns on The Islanders in regards to Hamonic. Why bail them out of a potentially bad situation when the price is so high?

I say we get the popcorn out and wait until Hamonic really demands out.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I'd rather see if the screw turns on The Islanders in regards to Hamonic. Why bail them out of a potentially bad situation when the price is so high?

I say we get the popcorn out and wait until Hamonic really demands out.

We bailed Pittsburgh out of their cap crunch, and paid a premium to do so. What makes you think the same thing wouldn't happen with NYI?

 

[fancouver]

I'd rather see if the screw turns on The Islanders in regards to Hamonic. Why bail them out of a potentially bad situation when the price is so high?

I say we get the popcorn out and wait until Hamonic really demands out.

Yeah, maybe the offer will be lower than.

But I do like the overall package of Hamonic. He's like a more physical, offensive Tanev with a bit more defensive risk.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

If we're targeting Hamonic, then it has to be Edler+. Not point in moving Tanev.

Hamhuis - Tanev
Hutton - Hamonic

Now that would be pretty.

 

[fancouver]

If we're targeting Hamonic, then it has to be Edler+. Not point in moving Tanev.

Hamhuis - Tanev
Hutton - Hamonic

Now that would be pretty.

Edler's not going to waive to NYI of all places.

But that does look nice.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Edler's not going to waive to NYI of all places.

But that does look nice.

Brooklyn is hipster paradise I'm sure Edler would fit in with his look.

I agree with what he's saying though- we should be looking for candidates to add to Tanev.

 

[sting101]

Tanev for Hamonic is utterly pointless.

yes I made this proposal last week but I had the Islanders taking Higgins and his 2.5 and throwing us a 2nd.

My point was to gain cap space an asset and get a bigger heavier body that would hold up better in a playoffs.

Adding McCann is madness. And I agree we need to add to our defense not move laterally. I am an advocate of small improvements though and we have way too many nails and lack hammers. Tryamkin and Pedan could change that but we need a top 3-4 that is a big body shut down and Hamonic and Hutton would be a seemingly perfect balanced pairing.

 

[sting101]

Brooklyn is hipster paradise I'm sure Edler would fit in with his look.

I agree with what he's saying though- we should be looking for candidates to add to Tanev.

Bahahaaha

 

[Ryp37]

Edler's not going to waive to NYI of all places.

But that does look nice.

Edler won't waive period, I thought it was reported he finished having his dream house built recently. Although being on such a bad team with a dwindling crowd probably changes guys mindsets pretty quick

 

[Horse McHindu]

Canucks should still offer Stamkos the "Toews" deal at minimum:

Canucks should still offer Stamkos the "Toews" deal at minimum:

Despite Stamkos' semi-frequent injuries since 2014, I still think the Canucks should do whatever it takes to sign Stamkos........and at minimum, offer Stamkos the "Toews' deal. Here are some of my reasons:

1) The Canucks land a heir apparent to Henrik
2) Stamkos' presence allows the twins (36 years of age next season) to play on the 2nd line where they can dominate.
3) Stamkos' presence will encourage other free agents to sign here, due to the perception that management is serious about competing now.
4) Our 2016 1st round pick can play alongside Stamkos in 1-2 years, with the twins riding shotgun on the 2nd line.
5) Fan interest and marketability. The Canucks need a big sell to their fans right now. The last time interest was this low in the team was at the end of 2005/2006......and then BOOM!......the Luongo deal happened. 10 years later, and the Canucks can certainly use another......BOOM!

McHindu's opinion: Throw the kitchen sink at Stamkos even with his recent injury.

 

[Mr Plow]

Building your team through free agency doesn't work. This isn't the NBA. I wouldn't be against going out and getting a good forward to play with Horvat so he doesn't have to do it all himself again next year but we shouldn't be dropping $10+ million on guys when we're only a year into a rebuild.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Building your team through free agency doesn't work. This isn't the NBA. I wouldn't be against going out and getting a good forward to play with Horvat so he doesn't have to do it all himself again next year but we shouldn't be dropping $10+ million on guys when we're only a year into a rebuild.

The draft should solve that

 

[Horse McHindu]

Building your team through free agency doesn't work. This isn't the NBA. I wouldn't be against going out and getting a good forward to play with Horvat so he doesn't have to do it all himself again next year but we shouldn't be dropping $10+ million on guys when we're only a year into a rebuild.

My view is this: A signing of Stamkos would be very similar to the Luongo trade that we made 10 years ago.

Was the Luongo deal an indication that the Canucks were "building their team through trades/free agent signings?" No. Did the Luongo deal make us an immediate contender? No. Did the Luongo deal prevent the Canucks organization from taking a nose-dive for years on end? I'd argue yes.

I think Stamkos would have a similar effect. While Stamkos wouldn't make the Canucks instant contenders, his presence alone would prevent the proverbial ship from sinking. Stamkos signing would likely guarantee the Canucks squeak into the playoffs over the next 2-3 seasons while their kids developed........and by Year 4, we'd have a legit shot of being a contender.

2017/2018:
Stamkos + your 2016 1st as your first line pivot, followed by the twins as your 2nd line, and ####-Horvat-Sutter as your 3rd line, and that's some pretty damn good depth up front.

The freed up money from Burrows and Miller can be used to re-sign our RFA's and add a Top 4 defenseman.

 

[Horse McHindu]

The draft should solve that

Exactly. In all likelihood, Canucks will draft Top 5 this year. So that's basically Matthews at best, or Tkatchuk at worst (with Laine, Puljiujarvi, and Chychrun as your other potential draftees). All five of these guys should be pretty damned good hockey players.

Add Demko and Boeser to any of the above 5, along with Horvat, Baertschi, Hutton, Tryamkin, and Markstrom to that mix, and I think the Canucks have a decent pool of talent to work with. Virtanen and McCann can obviously still pan out as well.

I know I'm being stubborn here, but the big key for me is Stamkos. I look at the Stamkos injury as a blessing in disguise because this might deter other GM's from making a huge bid.

In terms of positional need (i.e. heir apparent to Henrik), marketability, and preventing the franchise from nose-diving, I think signing Stamkos is an absolute essential.

-2016 1st/Stamkos
-Sedin twins
-Horvat/Sutter

As your top 3 lines in 2017/2018 could be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Mr Plow]

I think Stamkos would have a similar effect. While Stamkos wouldn't make the Canucks instant contenders, his presence alone would prevent the proverbial ship from sinking.

The time for trying to keep the ship from sinking was two years ago. It's time to jump ship.

 

[Bleach Clean]

My view is this: A signing of Stamkos would be very similar to the Luongo trade that we made 10 years ago.

Was the Luongo deal an indication that the Canucks were "building their team through trades/free agent signings?" No. Did the Luongo deal make us an immediate contender? No. Did the Luongo deal prevent the Canucks organization from taking a nose-dive for years on end? I'd argue yes.

I think Stamkos would have a similar effect. While Stamkos wouldn't make the Canucks instant contenders, his presence alone would prevent the proverbial ship from sinking. Stamkos signing would likely guarantee the Canucks squeak into the playoffs over the next 2-3 seasons while their kids developed........and by Year 4, we'd have a legit shot of being a contender.

2017/2018:
Stamkos + your 2016 1st as your first line pivot, followed by the twins as your 2nd line, and ####-Horvat-Sutter as your 3rd line, and that's some pretty damn good depth up front.

The freed up money from Burrows and Miller can be used to re-sign our RFA's and add a Top 4 defenseman.

Well, any time you can sign a #1C to a reasonable contract, for no acquisition cost other than money, it's a good thing. A few points on this though:

1. Is he a #1C? They pushed him to wing in Tampa. He's a shoot first player that has seen a decline in production (sub PPG the last 2 years). Will he be a PPG+ player for the duration of the contract? Is he best at C?

2. The 'reasonable contract' part - Isn't going to happen. VAN would have to break the bank for him to come here. Is he worth it? Does a 10m+ contract devalue him as an asset to the point where he is immovable?

3. Injuries. I think it was said that he no longer has a rib? Broke his leg recently as well. He usually plays the full 82, but it's catching up to his body. Will endure over the length of that investment?

4. It was said on TSN1040 that he wants to win now. Does VAN look like a destination for that type of player?

VAN just isn't in a position to offer him what he wants.

 

[Addison Rae]

Have you seen some of the things Hamonic has been doing right now in the playoffs?

He's big, mobile, physical and brings more to the table than Tanev.

Tanev is a good defenceman, but he's not going to be anything more than a #2 on a good team. Hamonic may not be a #1 right now, but he has all the tools to become one.







.

Yeah I've watched most of the Florida series, pretty sure you're overhyping him. Like we've mentioned Hamonic is more physical and maybe slightly better offensively, Tanev is better defensively, a better possession player and is more positionally sound. They're essentially the same player in terms of results. It's an excellent trade for New York and a poor one for Vancouver.

 

[THE Green Man]

Well, any time you can sign a #1C to a reasonable contract, for no acquisition cost other than money, it's a good thing. A few points on this though:

1. Is he a #1C? They pushed him to wing in Tampa. He's a shoot first player that has seen a decline in production (sub PPG the last 2 years). Will he be a PPG+ player for the duration of the contract? Is he best at C?

2. The 'reasonable contract' part - Isn't going to happen. VAN would have to break the bank for him to come here. Is he worth it? Does a 10m+ contract devalue him as an asset to the point where he is immovable?

3. Injuries. I think it was said that he no longer has a rib? Broke his leg recently as well. He usually plays the full 82, but it's catching up to his body. Will endure over the length of that investment?

4. It was said on TSN1040 that he wants to win now. Does VAN look like a destination for that type of player?

VAN just isn't in a position to offer him what he wants.

Have to agree, while Stammer would be nice, it just really wouldn't make any sense for him to come here unless we are way overpaying him- ie. more than the Toews/Kane contracts. Laine and Stamkos wouldn't work well together as they both are shot first players that play off the left circle. Matthews and Stamkos wouldn't really work either as I don't see them playing Matthews on the wing, and Stamkos will want to be a C wherever he goes. The only way I could see something happen would be if we got Puljarvi, but even then, I really don't buy Stamkos choosing Vancouver. I still have a funny feeling he will end up in Buffalo:

ROR-Stamkos-Reinhart
Kane-Eichel-Ennis

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Not sure if this is even in Benning's plans... but if he were to unload Miller's contract whats the goalie UFA pool looking like this summer?

 

[fancouver]

Yeah I've watched most of the Florida series, pretty sure you're overhyping him. Like we've mentioned Hamonic is more physical and maybe slightly better offensively, Tanev is better defensively, a better possession player and is more positionally sound. They're essentially the same player in terms of results. It's an excellent trade for New York and a poor one for Vancouver.

That's a bit much, Hamonic would bring back what Jovo brought in the early 2000s. A heavy hitter with the offensive acumen of a 4th forward.

Again, I understand the reasoning for not trading Tanev as he's a great defencemen in his own, but it's everything else Hamonic brings that is more valuable. Better defence can be learned, especially at his age.

 

[ginner classic]

Hypothetical scenario as this is all we really have right now.

If Vancouver gets #3 overall, would you trade it for Provorov?

Philly has arguably the best defensive prospect pool in the league with a large shortage in forwards except for Konecny. They're already really deep at center and good use an upgrade on wing. I guess it boils down to Puljujarvi for Provorov.

As a Canuck fan, I'd do it and not regret it in the slightest. But I'm not sure if Philly would despite having The Ghostbear, Sanheim, Morin, Myers and Hagg all showing a lot of promise.

I'd do that so fast as a Canuck fan. Like...so fast.

 

[MS]

That's a bit much, Hamonic would bring back what Jovo brought in the early 2000s. A heavy hitter with the offensive acumen of a 4th forward.

Again, I understand the reasoning for not trading Tanev as he's a great defencemen in his own, but it's everything else Hamonic brings that is more valuable. Better defence can be learned, especially at his age.

a) better defense can't just be 'learned' at 26. If it could be everyone would be doing it. And is as valid as saying that Tanev could just learn to be better offensively.

b) Hamonic had 21 points this year. Comparing him to a prime Jovanovski is just ridiculous.

Hamonic is slightly better than Tanev offensively and slightly worse defensively. They're the same player. And we should have trade leverage because it wouldn't be our player that wanted out.