Rumor: Rutherford re-iterates that Canucks want picks or young players. Halak available?

[UrbanImpact]

In Rutherford's interview with The Province yesterday, he mentions again that despite the winning streak, The Canucks are not looking to mortgage the future to add any players. Any additions will be for draft picks or young players that can help the team win in the next year or 2.

Canucks: Jim Rutherford ready to get aggressive | The Province

“How we’ll look at this in the future is we won’t trade high picks. Anytime we’re making a deal it’s for younger players and we’ll try to bring this team, really make it stronger over the next couple of years, to where it can start to be a regular playoff team.”

- Rutherford

Another side note, Halak's name has been mentioned as possible trade bait. If Halak starts another 2 games for the Canucks, then it will cost the Canucks 1.5 in cap space next year due to bonus incentive. Halak is a free agent after this season and has been outstanding for the Canucks.

It sounds like Rutherford isnt letting the winning streak fool him. He knows the Canucks have a lot of holes and wants to adress those holes with draft picks/ young players that can grow with the core.

To me it sounds like he is willing to be a seller.

Some names that could be moved if thats the case.

Boeser
Pearson
Motte
Halak
Hamonic
Poolman

JT Miller to a lesser extent and it would have to be a massive payment and return for the Canucks for them to move a player like Miller. Only reason I can see Miller moving is its an offer that Rutherford cant refuse and the fact that Miller will be 30 yrs old when he becomes a UFA after next season and will probably demand a contract that will be be over 5+ years in length.


Any draft picks available?

Any young players available that a "win now" team is willing to move. Particularly a young Right Shot D man or young Right Shot C.

Click to read more...

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Moving Bosser would be a mistake

 

[gdsmack267]

Wouldn't shock me to see Pens target Halak at deadline. I think a veteran backup is easily their biggest need followed by a depth D man

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't understand why so many Canucks fans on the main boards seem to think that anyone is trading pieces of value for the awful contracts Benning handed out.

Boeser has legit value, and I imagine that Hamonic would bring back something decent if he comes back healthy soon. But the rest of them? Nobody is taking on the contracts for guys like Pearson and Poolman, let alone trading a young NHLer to do so.

Edit: oh wait, Hamonic's contract runs through next year as well, I thought he was a pending UFA. I think that probably hurts his market.

 

[UrbanImpact]

Moving Bosser would be a mistake

Depends for what?

I'd move Boeser for a young Dman.

Boeser's qualifying offer next year as RFA is 7.5 mil.

Canucks can certainly lock him up long term before that but thats a lot of money for a sniper winger imo.

Dont get me wrong, I think Boeser is a fantastic player, pure sniper.

but I have concerns about his durability, consistency and skating to a point that i wouldnt want to pay him more than 7ish mil a season.

When everything is aligned, no doubt he is a game breaker tho.

 

[UrbanImpact]

I don't understand why so many Canucks fans on the main boards seem to think that anyone is trading pieces of value for the awful contracts Benning handed out.

Boeser has legit value, and I imagine that Hamonic would bring back something decent if he comes back healthy soon. But the rest of them? Nobody is taking on the contracts for guys like Pearson and Poolman, let alone trading a young NHLer to do so.

Edit: oh wait, Hamonic's contract runs through next year as well, I thought he was a pending UFA. I think that probably hurts his market.

did you sleep on Foligno getting a 1st and a 4th at last years deadline?

 

[Empoleon8771]

did you sleep on Foligno getting a 1st and a 4th at last years deadline?

Foligno was a pending UFA and didn't suck. Pearson and Poolman both have term and both suck.

Again, Benning got fired for handing out a ton of bad contracts and basically running the Canucks into the ground. Why would any of his bad contracts he handed out have any value? He did such a bad job that he got fired, but somehow the acquisitions he made and the contracts he handed out that greatly led to his firing still have value?

 

[Bettman Returnz]

I least want to move Boeser but it feels like he’s the only one that would bring back anything substantial…

what younger (ideally RHD) could he fetch? Can’t imagine many teams will be wanting to move a potential top 4 D for a top 6 winger.

 

[UrbanImpact]

Foligno was a pending UFA and didn't suck. Pearson and Poolman both have term and both suck.

Again, Benning got fired for handing out a ton of bad contracts and basically running the Canucks into the ground. Why would any of his bad contracts he handed out have any value?

Nobody is saying Pearson and Poolman would return much. You're arguing with yourself.

I just listed players that I feel Rutherford would be willing to move if nothing else but to create cap space.

Pearson is good for 15-20 goals a year and is signed for 3 mil for 2 more years and has Stanley Cup experience.. Hardly an anchor of a contract. Would he return a high pick or stud player, probably not but doesnt mean we wouldnt move him.

 

[UrbanImpact]

Foligno was a pending UFA and didn't suck. Pearson and Poolman both have term and both suck.

Again, Benning got fired for handing out a ton of bad contracts and basically running the Canucks into the ground. Why would any of his bad contracts he handed out have any value? He did such a bad job that he got fired, but somehow the acquisitions he made and the contracts he handed out that greatly led to his firing still have value?

lol Foligno had 7 goals before being traded to Leafs and came off a 10 goal season the year previous. How did he not suck? He was also 33 yrs old. Yes he was a free agent.

He still returned a 1st and 4th. Teams every year go crazy at the trade deadline, this isnt even debatable.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Nobody is saying Pearson and Poolman would return much. You're arguing with yourself.

I just listed players that I feel Rutherford would be willing to move if nothing else but to create cap space.

Pearson is good for 15-20 goals a year and is signed for 3 mil for 2 more years and has Stanley Cup experience.. Hardly an anchor of a contract. Would he return a high pick or stud player, probably not but doesnt mean we wouldnt move him.

And that wouldn't work because no one is trading for a guy like Pearson or Poolman without sending money back, because both of those guys have bad contracts.

Older and underachieving players with decently sized contracts with term aren't attractive trade pieces. That's why the Canucks got Pearson for Eric Gudbranson in the first place.

 

[Cogburn]

I'd prefer to keep Boeser. And Horvat. And Miller.

Motte and Pearson could be available, although I, personally, am in zero hurry to move them.

Halak, Hamonic and Poolman should be considered for a trade, but we need replacement players by hook or by crook.

Now is not the time to sell off, like it would have been pre-Benning-firing. If a futures piece is available for a tertiary piece, let's rock and roll though.

 

[UrbanImpact]

I'd prefer to keep Boeser. And Horvat. And Miller.

Motte and Pearson could be available, although I, personally, am in zero hurry to move them.

Halak, Hamonic and Poolman should be considered for a trade, but we need replacement players by hook or by crook.

Now is not the time to sell off, like it would have been pre-Benning-firing. If a futures piece is available for a tertiary piece, let's rock and roll though.

I dont know what the right answer is on what to do with Miller, what I do know is what the wrong answer is and thats letting Miller walk for nothing as a free agent.

So we either need to re-sign him to an extension next year, or if he indicates he wants to test the market then we gotta move him. Miller would return us a kings ransom.

If we get that indication NOW from Miller that he is going to test free agency no matter what, then we move him NOW because it would cost even more for a playoff team to have Miller for 2 playoff runs instead of 1 as a rental.

 

[UrbanImpact]

And that wouldn't work because no one is trading for a guy like Pearson or Poolman without sending money back, because both of those guys have bad contracts.

Older and underachieving players with decently sized contracts with term aren't attractive trade pieces. That's why the Canucks got Pearson for Eric Gudbranson in the first place.

k so i guess wait till Pearson is a pending UFA then trade him

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

I'd prefer to keep Boeser. And Horvat. And Miller.

Motte and Pearson could be available, although I, personally, am in zero hurry to move them.

Halak, Hamonic and Poolman should be considered for a trade, but we need replacement players by hook or by crook.

Now is not the time to sell off, like it would have been pre-Benning-firing. If a futures piece is available for a tertiary piece, let's rock and roll though.

Taking the passive approach you advocate for here is not his style. Brace yourself.

 

[Empoleon8771]

k so i guess wait till Pearson is a pending UFA then trade him

Uh yeah, that is exactly what you can do. He would be tradable as a pending UFA because teams like adding depth that doesn't add financial commitments beyond the year. Just like Hamonic would be a really easy sell for legitimate value if he was a pending UFA this year.

 

[Cogburn]

Taking the passive approach you advocate for here is not his style. Brace yourself.

Who said I was advocating pacifism?

Selling off contributors, aggressively or otherwise, isn't the right direction. I'd almost be more onboard with buying as opposed to selling, if the upward trend continues.

 

[Cogburn]

k so i guess wait till Pearson is a pending UFA then trade him

I mean, we have a long, proud history of doing that under previous regimes.

 

[franste Perreault]

First we need to see Where the Canucks will be in a month (in standing). A lot of team in their division pass a hard time. they are only 3 pts back of the 2 wild card spot. But if they are not even close to make playoff in a month I can see Colorado Avalanche make a trade for Halak (Goalie security).
All depend of the price.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

First we need to see Where the Canucks will be in a month (in standing). A lot of team in their division pass a hard time. they are only 3 pts back of the 2 wild card spot. But if they are not even close to make playoff in a month I can see Colorado Avalanche make a trade for Halak (Goalie security).
All depend of the price.

I agree that Colorado would be a good option… keumper/Francouz are both injury prone so another veteran option for cheap would be good insurance.

 

[ManofSteel55]

In Rutherford's interview with The Province yesterday, he mentions again that despite the winning streak, The Canucks are not looking to mortgage the future to add any players. Any additions will be for draft picks or young players that can help the team win in the next year or 2.

Canucks: Jim Rutherford ready to get aggressive | The Province

“How we’ll look at this in the future is we won’t trade high picks. Anytime we’re making a deal it’s for younger players and we’ll try to bring this team, really make it stronger over the next couple of years, to where it can start to be a regular playoff team.”

- Rutherford

Another side note, Halak's name has been mentioned as possible trade bait. If Halak starts another 2 games for the Canucks, then it will cost the Canucks 1.5 in cap space next year due to bonus incentive. Halak is a free agent after this season and has been outstanding for the Canucks.

It sounds like Rutherford isnt letting the winning streak fool him. He knows the Canucks have a lot of holes and wants to adress those holes with draft picks/ young players that can grow with the core.

To me it sounds like he is willing to be a seller.

Some names that could be moved if thats the case.

Boeser
Pearson
Motte
Halak
Hamonic
Poolman

JT Miller to a lesser extent and it would have to be a massive payment and return for the Canucks for them to move a player like Miller. Only reason I can see Miller moving is its an offer that Rutherford cant refuse and the fact that Miller will be 30 yrs old when he becomes a UFA after next season and will probably demand a contract that will be be over 5+ years in length.


Any draft picks available?

Any young players available that a "win now" team is willing to move. Particularly a young Right Shot D man or young Right Shot C.

How does this incentive work for other teams? If someone trades for Halak and plays him two more games, will that team then get the 1.5M penalty next year?

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

I could see Pearson getting some looks at the deadline. He's having himself a decent year. Problem is you're not gonna get a haul for him, and it leaves us desperately dry on LW.

 

[UrbanImpact]

How does this incentive work for other teams? If someone trades for Halak and plays him two more games, will that team then get the 1.5M penalty next year?

yes i believe so, but whats 1.5 mil in cap space in exchange for a legit goalie and stability in net. Its obviously not necessary for Canucks as they have Demko.

 

[ManofSteel55]

yes i believe so, but whats 1.5 mil in cap space in exchange for a legit goalie and stability in net. Its obviously not necessary for Canucks as they have Demko.

Well for teams up against the cap, that 1.5M next year is a pretty big deal. I assume there is an actual dollar value bonus that would need to be paid out as well, not just in cap, which could make it harder for teams looking at stability in a backup to make that move.

 

[BWJM]

This is refreshing.

Jim Benning:

"Ummm yeah we are going to evaluate come trade deadline umm if we think were in a position for the playoffs umm we'll make the right moves"