Proposal: Weegar for Lekkerimaki

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
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.
If that's the best Calgary can get for a long term team friendly deal on one of the top defensive defenseman in the league, that is also capable of getting 50+ points a year then they simply won't trade him. Unless he asks out (and all reports say he doesn't want to leave) the Flames are under no pressure to move him. He should and probably will be a fantastic mentor for Parekh next year in the 25/26 season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Qwijibo

bringbacktheskate604

Registered User
Jul 20, 2022
1,472
1,664
Actually I think he's a replacement for Boeser.
Nah, I think the more snipers the better, especially one on his ELC. Trading or letting Boeser walk for what would likely be a 2-2.5 million raise unless he's really bad this year would be such a bad move. We lose JT's best winger, who is also our longest tenured player who is extremely close to the core. If he has another good and healthy season, give him term like 6+ years at 8 8.5 million which is only a couple million more than he makes now. Lekkerimakki can be with EP,
I mean you can't have enough elite goal scorers.
 

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,970
23,477
Bay Area
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.
Obviously the contract won't provide value the last year or two (all long contracts signed in a player's late twenties end that way) but Weeger is a late bloomer with not that many miles on his body who has been quite healthy over his career. I don't think it's a terribly risky contract.
 

LickTheEnvelope

Weird time to be a Canucks fan 2024
Dec 16, 2008
39,161
6,200
Sidney, formerly Vancouver
Nah, I think the more snipers the better, especially one on his ELC. Trading or letting Boeser walk for what would likely be a 2-2.5 million raise unless he's really bad this year would be such a bad move. We lose JT's best winger, who is also our longest tenured player who is extremely close to the core. If he has another good and healthy season, give him term like 6+ years at 8 8.5 million which is only a couple million more than he makes now. Lekkerimakki can be with EP,
I mean you can't have enough elite goal scorers.

Sure but I'm talking in 3 years or more
 

Johnsie19

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
2,561
363
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.
It could solidify our dcore having Weegar anchoring the 2nd pair. Perfect foil for Hronek and or Willander/Myers. Soucy becomes 5th dman.

Obviously the contract won't provide value the last year or two (all long contracts signed in a player's late twenties end that way) but Weeger is a late bloomer with not that many miles on his body who has been quite healthy over his career. I don't think it's a terribly risky contract.
He's at about 650 pro games going into yr 2 of 8. Plays big physical minutes. Its a considerable risk. Then again it's prob an LTIR into retirement too.
 

Some Other Flame

Registered User
Dec 4, 2010
8,024
10,306
Doesn't look like he's going anywhere anytime soon

"It's easy to get out of all whack when you see guys trying to leave or wanting new contracts," the 30-year-old from Ottawa said at last week's NHL/NHLPA player media tour in Las Vegas. "I just focus on where I am and where I want to be, and that's Calgary.

"I believe in this team. The city has taken me in right away. I feel like I owe it to them to stick around and grind through these years and get a Stanley Cup."

 
  • Like
Reactions: Figgy44

Nuckler

Registered User
May 7, 2013
240
110
I think the Canucks would target andersson over weegar just based on age and contract short term. Plus Andersson could bump hronek to the second pair so he can drive offence away from hughes
 

bringbacktheskate604

Registered User
Jul 20, 2022
1,472
1,664
Sure but I'm talking in 3 years or more
You don't think we sign Brock to a longer term deal?

I think just given everything Brock has gone through with injuries and his stated desire to be here, he's a prime candidate to take less in exchange for term which is what I hope is the case, assuming he continues to play well this season.

I could also see an argument for a two to three year deal which sets him up for a big payday but for us, giving him term in exchange for a lower AAV, fits better for our window.
Especially since we have Quinn to sign in 3 years along with hopefully a big contract for 50 goal guy Lekkerimakki 😁

He plays LD which is what we need. Right handed though. Trade would happen closer to deadline once we've accrue the necessary cap room.
If he shoots right wouldn't it be likely he's left-handed? Just speaking for myself since I shoot right and am left-handed.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Haatley

bringbacktheskate604

Registered User
Jul 20, 2022
1,472
1,664
I
He does play the right side. Cap reasons wouldn't work however.
Would love either one from Calgary especially since it takes a player(s) oilers fans seem to think they can land for a song and a dance and Kane and a couple of doctors commiting fraud.

Rasmus would be easier to fit in dollar wise since we would only be a million over the cap after either moving Poolman in the trade or putting him on LTIR and gaining a million by waiving whatever d is the odd man out.

Weeger would require likely Garland being moved which would be an option if Lekks comes into camp and earns a spot.

Ironically, Lekks earning a spot straight away making losing Garland palletable might actually hasten a trade for a top four dman since we would have a chance to allocate more cap for the defence.

I guess the only question is can a deal be reached without losing Willander? Would the nucks even move him? I know flames fans would insist on him in any deal but I still think a package like Hronek got with maybe a conditional extra 1st over a 2nd and another small plus is still in the ballpark for Rasmus. Weeger not so much as he's clearly the better of the two flames d imo.
 

Johnsie19

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
2,561
363
He plays both sides and has done so in Calgary, and previously in Florida. He's just as good on the right as he is on the left
He was significantly worse when they tried him on the right oddly given he shoots right. Anyway as I say the Canucks need a LD more than a RD anyway.

If he shoots right wouldn't it be likely he's left-handed? Just speaking for myself since I shoot right and am left-handed.
Hahah I can't speak to his actual handedness but he play the left side and shoots right handed with a hockey stick.
 

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
He was significantly worse when they tried him on the right oddly given he shoots right. Anyway as I say the Canucks need a LD more than a RD anyway.
That's just not true at all. When Tanev went down and Weegar and Zadorov were paired together they were extremely dominant. Calgary has just been so deep on the right side his entire time on the team that him playing on the left was more beneficial to balancing. It was far more effective to run Weegar and Tanev 20 minutes a night than run 3 pairs and have Gilbert or DeSimone play 17+ minutes paired with Tanev
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haatley

Three On Zero

HF Designated Parking Instructor
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2012
32,479
31,399
I never understood the Lekker pick by the Canucks other then they thought he is BPA. He always reminded me of a carbon copy of Pettersson and a bit redundant for the team.
He doesn’t play anything like Pettersson, much different player
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killer Orcas

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
23,840
15,494
Zero chance Vancouver would make that trade. Weegar on the Canucks is their three guy behind Hughes and Hronek.
 

Three On Zero

HF Designated Parking Instructor
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2012
32,479
31,399
Zero chance Vancouver would make that trade. Weegar on the Canucks is their three guy behind Hughes and Hronek.
Weegar would be 2nd to Hughes. Still wouldn’t give up Lekkerimaki for him though
 

Figgy44

A toast of purple gato for the memories
Dec 15, 2014
13,888
9,202
Weegar would be 2nd to Hughes. Still wouldn’t give up Lekkerimaki for him though

Agreed he'd be 2nd. But factor in that he could easily step in for either Hughes or Hronek on the top line in case of injury and he could anchor and pair with whoever on the second line depending on who is available (ie: LD or RD) and he's an amazing piece to have. Even some Flames fans may not realize how awesome he could be in terms of our top 4 stability in times of trouble (albeit we haven't had to utilize him in that manner yet). The Flames shouldn't be looking into moving Weegar.

I think it's fine that Canucks fans or any fans aren't certain how to fit Weegar onto their roster. But The idea that there's concerns on his contract are ridiculous. He can play LD or RD so could play anywhere on the second and third pairing and the cap is going to rise. Weegar's contract would age just fine on any roster IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuuk

Three On Zero

HF Designated Parking Instructor
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2012
32,479
31,399
Agreed he'd be 2nd. But factor in that he could easily step in for either Hughes or Hronek on the top line in case of injury and he could anchor and pair with whoever on the second line depending on who is available (ie: LD or RD) and he's an amazing piece to have. Even some Flames fans may not realize how awesome he could be in terms of our top 4 stability in times of trouble (albeit we haven't had to utilize him in that manner yet). The Flames shouldn't be looking into moving Weegar.

I think it's fine that Canucks fans or any fans aren't certain how to fit Weegar onto their roster. But The idea that there's concerns on his contract are ridiculous. He can play LD or RD so could play anywhere on the second and third pairing and the cap is going to rise. Weegar's contract would age just fine on any roster IMO.
I have no issues with his contract or the player, I just think for the organization Lekkerimaki has the potential to be something they need more than Weegar. I would take Weegar in a heartbeat but he’s also not exactly what Vancouver needs.

Weegar would be an upgrade on Hronek, but that would also necessitate a need to trade Hronek for a defenceman with a different skill set. Lekkerimaki has potential to be a cost controlled middle 6 forward which this team desperately needs. I like Hoglander, Garland and Boeser but they are not the best players and you should actively be looking to improve on them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Figgy44

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
I have no issues with his contract or the player, I just think for the organization Lekkerimaki has the potential to be something they need more than Weegar. I would take Weegar in a heartbeat but he’s also not exactly what Vancouver needs.

Weegar would be an upgrade on Hronek, but that would also necessitate a need to trade Hronek for a defenceman with a different skill set. Lekkerimaki has potential to be a cost controlled middle 6 forward which this team desperately needs. I like Hoglander, Garland and Boeser but they are not the best players and you should actively be looking to improve on them
I don't get this. Weegar is one of the best 2-way defenseman in the league, he's basically an identical player to Devon Toews. How exactly does that justify a need to trade an offensive defenseman like Hronek? If we take Colorado's D-core for example, they traded Byram because he was a luxury. But that's not because of Toews, but instead because of Girard, who would be the comparable to Hronek.

I get the idea of having a cost controlled asset that may slot into the top 6 in few years but nothing about Weegar makes Hronek redundant. It's also the difference of pushing for that cup now vs in 2-3 years. If I'm Vancouver and I could fit him under the cap this is a no brainer 1 for 1. Obviously that's not the case though as the Nucks clearly don't have 6.5M cap space available.
 

Three On Zero

HF Designated Parking Instructor
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2012
32,479
31,399
I don't get this. Weegar is one of the best 2-way defenseman in the league, he's basically an identical player to Devon Toews. How exactly does that justify a need to trade an offensive defenseman like Hronek? If we take Colorado's D-core for example, they traded Byram because he was a luxury. But that's not because of Toews, but instead because of Girard, who would be the comparable to Hronek.

I get the idea of having a cost controlled asset that may slot into the top 6 in few years but nothing about Weegar makes Hronek redundant. It's also the difference of pushing for that cup now vs in 2-3 years. If I'm Vancouver and I could fit him under the cap this is a no brainer 1 for 1. Obviously that's not the case though as the Nucks clearly don't have 6.5M cap space available.
Hronek would be a luxury with Weegar, he’s someone you can replace or improve on for cheaper.

It’s actually not a no brainer for Vancouver as a 1 for 1. Or would stir conversation but it’s not a slam dunk trade
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad