Proposal: Weegar for Lekkerimaki

[Johnsie19]

Calling him 24 when his birthday was later that month is a bit of a stretch Andersson is still 27 yet you are counting him as 28 so a bit hypocritical no? Yes he had 3 years left vs 2 but he also demanded a trade which hurts his trade value. Not to mention he had quite an extensive injury history so even though he was younger it was not at all a guarantee he would play.

Again he only played 36 games that year for Arizona and the Coyotes were shopping him all year so he was given almost strictly favorable match ups leading up to the trade. The year before he had a season like Andersson just did. Calgary could very easily do the same this season if they wanted to boost his value.

I don't think Hronek is a bad comparable but he was far less proven when he was moved and that was still for a pick in the mid/high teens. If you are dead set on Chychrun being worth more then I am on Andersson being more than Hronek. Split the difference if you must but don't ignore the location of those picks when they were traded.

Haha my apologies. I pulled Chychruns age from memory (and I got it right) so ya no hypocrisy here. I definitely mentioned the injury history, though it may have benefitted him almost as people kinda wonder what he might be capable off if he were healthy for a stretch of time.

I'll take your word for the matchups I guess. Not sure it really makes any difference to his value overall.

Didn't quite understand the last paragraph you wrote but yes I would say Chyrchrun value at the time of the trade to Ottawa was the highest because he still had no. 1 dman upside. Hronek and Andersson dont really have that. They're no. 2 dmen.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Haha my apologies. I pulled Chychruns age from memory (and I got it right) so ya no hypocrisy here. I definitely mentioned the injury history, though it may have benefitted him almost as people kinda wonder what he might be capable off if he were healthy for a stretch of time.

I'll take your word for the matchups I guess. Not sure it really makes any difference to his value overall.

Didn't quite understand the last paragraph you wrote but yes I would say Chyrchrun value at the time of the trade to Ottawa was the highest because he still had no. 1 dman upside. Hronek and Andersson dont really have that. They're no. 2 dmen.

Andersson is a #1. He's just on the lower end of #1's around the league. He is 21st in scoring by defensemen over the last 3 seasons, plays on both special teams, and averages over 23 minutes a night. That is by definition a #1 defenseman. If there is a better #1 on a team then sure he gets pushed down to the #2 role by depth. It's no different than Sergachev being the #2 guy in Tampa and a #1 now in Utah.

 

[Fatass]

Andersson is a #1. He's just on the lower end of #1's around the league. He is 21st in scoring by defensemen over the last 3 seasons, plays on both special teams, and averages over 23 minutes a night. That is by definition a #1 defenseman. If there is a better #1 on a team then sure he gets pushed down to the #2 role by depth. It's no different than Sergachev being the #2 guy in Tampa and a #1 now in Utah.

So Anderson becomes the #3 on Van? Weegar would be the three there too. Can’t see the Canucks moving Lekkerimaki for either guy, considering they’d be a #3.

 

[Double Dion]

Really, what data are you using for that? I kinda just considered him an ok defender, nothing special but can hold his own. Maybe capable of more, especially than he showed this last yr.

I think Chychrun had no. 1 dman upside at the time of the trade given the goal and point production he'd shown at such a young age. Andersson is more of a no. 2. I also think Andersson's value you might have been higher two yrs ago given he was on the up where as now he seems to have settled into who he is.


He's 30 yrs old he hasn't exactly hit the steep part of the aging curve

He's been part of a top 5 pairing analytically in terms of defense in 3 of the past 5 seasons. Granted, Hanifin was a large part of that.

You can't make any sort of cogent argument for Chychrun evening being in the same league defensively as Andersson. Chychrun is a bottom half defender despite getting really soft minutes. Andersson has had tough deployment and still is vastly better analytically. It's like comparing a Honda and Hyundai.

You CAN make an argument that Andersson hasn't been the same since he got hit on the scooter, but at the time of the trade Andersson was vastly better.

So Anderson becomes the #3 on Van? Weegar would be the three there too. Can’t see the Canucks moving Lekkerimaki for either guy, considering they’d be a #3.

Weegar would not be a 3 in Vancouver. Pre scooter accident Andersson wouldn't be either.

 

[Fatass]

Imo

He's been part of a top 5 pairing analytically in terms of defense in 3 of the past 5 seasons. Granted, Hanifin was a large part of that.

You can't make any sort of cogent argument for Chychrun evening being in the same league defensively as Andersson. Chychrun is a bottom half defender despite getting really soft minutes. Andersson has had tough deployment and still is vastly better analytically. It's like comparing a Honda and Hyundai.

You CAN make an argument that Andersson hasn't been the same since he got hit on the scooter, but at the time of the trade Andersson was vastly better.


Weegar would not be a 3 in Vancouver. Pre scooter accident Andersson wouldn't be either.

Weegar could play the 3 role ahead of Soucy or Meyers. Vancouver definitely doesn’t move Lekkerimaki for a guy who is playing behind Soucy and Meyers.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

So Anderson becomes the #3 on Van? Weegar would be the three there too. Can’t see the Canucks moving Lekkerimaki for either guy, considering they’d be a #3.

Weak bait man

 

[Coffee]

So Anderson becomes the #3 on Van? Weegar would be the three there too. Can’t see the Canucks moving Lekkerimaki for either guy, considering they’d be a #3.

Anderson would be #1

 

[Fatass]

Weak bait man

So Weegar would play ahead of Hughes and Hronek? Imo Weegar would bump Meyers down to the third pair and play second pair with Soucy. But he’d be the guy expected to carry that second pair, so the #3.

 

[Johnsie19]

Andersson is a #1. He's just on the lower end of #1's around the league. He is 21st in scoring by defensemen over the last 3 seasons, plays on both special teams, and averages over 23 minutes a night. That is by definition a #1 defenseman. If there is a better #1 on a team then sure he gets pushed down to the #2 role by depth. It's no different than Sergachev being the #2 guy in Tampa and a #1 now in Utah.

Ya sure, if you want to say there are 32 no. 1 dmen in the league but the definition I like is how many teams have their undeniable no. 1 guy? That's kinda what I mean by no. 1 dman. You need to be able to run a powerplay at an elite level, munch minutes and drive play. Andersson just doesn't score enough to meet my definition.

Andersson isn't even clearly no. 1 on his team. Weegar is a better player in my mind. And he's never truly been the it guy. On a championship quality team he's a no. 2.

This is a fan vote to be fair but

 

[Johnsie19]

He's been part of a top 5 pairing analytically in terms of defense in 3 of the past 5 seasons. Granted, Hanifin was a large part of that.

You can't make any sort of cogent argument for Chychrun evening being in the same league defensively as Andersson. Chychrun is a bottom half defender despite getting really soft minutes. Andersson has had tough deployment and still is vastly better analytically. It's like comparing a Honda and Hyundai.

You CAN make an argument that Andersson hasn't been the same since he got hit on the scooter, but at the time of the trade Andersson was vastly better.

Which numbers do you use for that?

We're comparing Chychrun at the time of his trade to Andersson now. Chychrun was still on the up. He was 24, had paced huge numbers and looked to have no. 1 upside potentially. Andersson is what he is, a good no. 2 can fill in on pp but not ideal there.

Didn't hear about this scooter accident, I'll have to look it up.

 

[PettersonHughes]

How are the Canucks supposed to afford to add $6.25 million for several more seasons? Asset wise we definitely shouldn't be trading Lekkerimaki when (if Boeser leaves or gets moved) we may need to slot him in as a top-6 scoring winger.

Our top guys are Miller/ Petey (#1/ #2 C), Hughes/ Hronek (#1 LD/ #2 RD), Demko (#1 G), probably DeBrusk now (top-6 wing) and they're already eating up so much cap space). With $13 million and change for next season, we'd have around $7 million next year if we add Weegar, with Boeser, Hoglander and others to re-sign.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

So Weegar would play ahead of Hughes and Hronek? Imo Weegar would bump Meyers down to the third pair and play second pair with Soucy. But he’d be the guy expected to carry that second pair, so the #3.

Hughes is arguably if not a guaranteed top 10 defenseman in the league. It would be difficult to make an argument he isn't. I am not debating any defenseman on Calgary being near as good as him.

Hronek on the other hand isn't even close to as good as Weegar. You can make the argument their offensive games are similar but defensively the difference is astronomical. Weegar is undeniably a top 20 defenseman in the league. Hronek might crack the top 40

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Ya sure, if you want to say there are 32 no. 1 dmen in the league but the definition I like is how many teams have their undeniable no. 1 guy? That's kinda what I mean by no. 1 dman. You need to be able to run a powerplay at an elite level, munch minutes and drive play. Andersson just doesn't score enough to meet my definition.

Andersson isn't even clearly no. 1 on his team. Weegar is a better player in my mind. And he's never truly been the it guy. On a championship quality team he's a no. 2.

This is a fan vote to be fair but View attachment 906858

Just like how there are true contenders and contending teams (ie Dallas was a true contender last year and Toronto was a contending team) there are true #1's and there are lower end #1's. For example Bouchard is a liability in his own end a lot of the time but is a monster on the PP (albeit playing with 2 other superstars), so I would not call him a true #1 in the same way guys like Makar, Josi, Fox, Hughes, McAvoy, Hedman, and Heiskanen are. But I would also be hard-pressed to call Bouchard a #2. 3 seasons ago when Calgary was a pretty legitimate contender Andersson was absolutely viewed as a #1 in the same way Bouchard is now. Would they both play as the #2 role behind those aforementioned true #1's? Absolutely, but that does not mean they can't be #1's in their own right on a contender. Take Florida just this year for example. They won with Montour as their #1.

 

[Johnsie19]

Just like how there are true contenders and contending teams (ie Dallas was a true contender last year and Toronto was a contending team) there are true #1's and there are lower end #1's. For example Bouchard is a liability in his own end a lot of the time but is a monster on the PP (albeit playing with 2 other superstars), so I would not call him a true #1 in the same way guys like Makar, Josi, Fox, Hughes, McAvoy, Hedman, and Heiskanen are. But I would also be hard-pressed to call Bouchard a #2. 3 seasons ago when Calgary was a pretty legitimate contender Andersson was absolutely viewed as a #1 in the same way Bouchard is now. Would they both play as the #2 role behind those aforementioned true #1's? Absolutely, but that does not mean they can't be #1's in their own right on a contender. Take Florida just this year for example. They won with Montour as their #1.

Ya I think we are essentially saying the same thing. He's an excellent player. Not what you ideally want as your no. 1 dman but if you have enough firepower elsewhere he could hold his own.

Bouchard I think is a no. 1, I know we've all seen a few of the errors he makes but his underlying numbers are actually quite good and the points he's putting up are all world. But you do wonder where he'd be if he was on say Calgary, would he be ahead of Andersson? I don't even know, I do know that Andersson can't do what Bouchard does on the PP though. Almost no one can.

I think Forsling would undeniably be the no.1 dman in Florida. It's a rare dman who can be a no. 1 but not really be relied on meaningfully for pp time. Slavin and Spurgeon come to mind.

I agree Andersson's value was more 2-3 yrs ago when he was still on the up. Now that he's kinda settled in as a good all arounder, but still hasn't grabbed pp1 and made it his own despite marginal competition I think it limits his value (from where it was)

 

[Fatass]

Hughes is arguably if not a guaranteed top 10 defenseman in the league. It would be difficult to make an argument he isn't. I am not debating any defenseman on Calgary being near as good as him.

Hronek on the other hand isn't even close to as good as Weegar. You can make the argument their offensive games are similar but defensively the difference is astronomical. Weegar is undeniably a top 20 defenseman in the league. Hronek might crack the top 40

Wasn’t Hronek a plus 40 or something while putting up 50 points last year.
As for Hughes he won the Norris do that ranks him #1, right?
Weegar is a good player who stands out on a very bad team. He’s the #3 on Vancouver. And because he’s only the 3 no way Canucks management give up an elite prospect for him. Heck, Zadorov only cost a third round pick.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

A high end center prospect would no doubt be the main focus for Conroy if a Weegar deal was ever to be entertained. The guy is a top 20 defender in the league - signed at a wonderful cap hit.

Lekkerimaki is a quality prospect but not a need.

I wouldn't either but it would not be for the OP's offer of Lekkerimaki straight up. They would target a center prospect, picks and a roster player

​

Vancouver cannot afford to trade Lekkerimaki for a RD that buries Willander with too much term

You cant add 7 yrs of a heavy contract unless the plan becomes trade Hronek. Shuffling deck chairs at that point

Who is as good as Weager making less on the Canucks?

Hronek is the sand in their cap structure Vaseline.

On the other hand, vets are important especially for mentoring a high potential prospect. Look at what Tanev did for Hughes, I would rather Parekh have a mentor like that and develop into a star than tarnish that for another 2nd line potential prospect

The Flames are definitely in the hunt for a #1 center. They don't have one now on the team and they don't have one in their prospect pool.

i got it:

1. trade lek for weegar

2. sell high on hronek and get back a center prospect as good as lek

3. trade that center prospect to calgary to get lek back

4. (optional) next summer, trade myers to calgary for mentorship; let boeser walk and promote lek; use the cap space opened up by myers and boes to sign a capable tanev-style 2LD to pair with/babysit willander

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

But they have pretty decent defensive prospects in Wallinder and Pettersson. They need to groom them to become top 4 Ds in 2 to 3 years time and I think that would be a good timeline to compete when all 3 prospects are still on ELC.

You're putting a lot of stock on two players who haven't proven anything yet. Willander seems likely a given to make the NHL, eventually. Whether that's in a consistent top four role or more on the low end, remains to be seen.

Pettersson has a much longer way to go. Unless he takes some pretty massive strides, he's nowhere near ready any time soon. It's far less likely he's reaching the NHL level in two years. Even three may be a stretch.

Either way, this is putting Miller at 33-34. Assuming he defies time a little longer that's not exactly a huge window for our cup potential. All that being said, Weeger just isn't a realistic option for us even if we did want to entertain the trade. We can't fit him under the cap.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Wasn’t Hronek a plus 40 or something while putting up 50 points last year.
As for Hughes he won the Norris do that ranks him #1, right?
Weegar is a good player who stands out on a very bad team. He’s the #3 on Vancouver. And because he’s only the 3 no way Canucks management give up an elite prospect for him. Heck, Zadorov only cost a third round pick.

Only a moron would ever take Hughes over Makar. Makar is the best defenseman in the NHL since Lindstrom, and only Duncan Keith comes close after that. Yes Hughes won the Norris but he hasn't really been in the Norris running at all ever besides that. His 2nd best in voting after that is 9th with 5.15% of votes.

Hronek was +33 and had 48 points. He did a great job collecting secondary assists with 29. That's what happens when you are the 4th or 5th best player on the ice for your team. Weegar by the way had 52 points on a far weaker team and 20 of them were goals.

Maybe this will give you a better idea

 

[Fatass]

Only a moron would ever take Hughes over Makar. Makar is the best defenseman in the NHL since Lindstrom, and only Duncan Keith comes close after that. Yes Hughes won the Norris but he hasn't really been in the Norris running at all ever besides that. His 2nd best in voting after that is 9th with 5.15% of votes.

Hronek was +33 and had 48 points. He did a great job collecting secondary assists with 29. That's what happens when you are the 4th or 5th best player on the ice for your team. Weegar by the way had 52 points on a far weaker team and 20 of them were goals.

Maybe this will give you a better idea
View attachment 906908

I guess there were a lot of “morons” who voted for Hughes as the best D man last season. Didn’t he get 90% of the best D man votes in Norris balloting?
As for Weegar vs Hronek, imo Hronek would pkay the two role and Weegar the three. So, again, zero chance Vancouver pays a steep price for a guy to play as their #3.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I guess there were a lot of “morons” who voted for Hughes as the best D man last season. Didn’t he get 90% of the best D man votes in Norris balloting?
As for Weegar vs Hronek, imo Hronek would pkay the two role and Weegar the three. So, again, zero chance Vancouver pays a steep price for a guy to play as their #3.

Hughes was better than Makar last year. If we extrapolate from larger sample size like last 3 years Makar is better.
Having a great top 4 is how many strong contenders build, is lekkermaki in your team’s window? As doesn’t matter how great a prospect is if he won’t make a difference while jt and petey are at their best.

 

[Johnsie19]

Hughes was better than Makar last year. If we extrapolate from larger sample size like last 3 years Makar is better.
Having a great top 4 is how many strong contenders build, is lekkermaki in your team’s window? As doesn’t matter how great a prospect is if he won’t make a difference while jt and petey are at their best.

to jump in on your back and forth, you could call Weegar a 2 or 3 it doesn't really matter. He'd be asked to be a big part of the team. As for Lek he could be putting up 50 points in a yr on an ELC.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

I guess there were a lot of “morons” who voted for Hughes as the best D man last season. Didn’t he get 90% of the best D man votes in Norris balloting?
As for Weegar vs Hronek, imo Hronek would pkay the two role and Weegar the three. So, again, zero chance Vancouver pays a steep price for a guy to play as their #3.

Are you dense? Matthews won the Hart in 22 and MacKinnon won the Hart in this year. That doesn't make them better than McDavid, who has only finished outside the top 5 in Hart voting once in his entire career so far (and that was his rookie year).

If your argument is they would play Hronek with Hughes because Hronek needs to be carried whereas Weegar doesn't that doesn't make Weegar a #3

 

[canuckslover10]

I definitely wouldn't be opposed but it does seem like a steep price for someone who would play on our 2nd pairing unless he can play RD then I'd seriously contemplate this.

 

[samsagat]

Weegar's a good defenseman, but he's actually 30 (born January 94) and his contract runs untill '30-'31.

His contract is a risky one and I personally don't see a team paying a blue chip prospect for him.

If he gets traded, the return is gonna be a little more risky as well.

Expect something like a late first, a b prospect and an average young NHL player.

 

[Coffee]

Weegar's a good defenseman, but he's actually 30 (born January 94) and his contract runs untill '30-'31.

His contract is a risky one and I personally don't see a team paying a blue chip prospect for him.

If he gets traded, the return is gonna be a little more risky as well.

Expect something like a late first, a b prospect and an average young NHL player.

He’s been getting better every year though