What Would You Do Thursday: Navigate the Trade Deadline

It’s time again for a mid-week favourite: What Would You Do, where we put you in charge of the Vancouver Canucks and ask you to figure out how to solve a problem facing the team in the comments section. This week though, we’re giving you total control of the hypothetical Canucks and asking you to be Jim Benning on NHL trade deadline day.

So what would you do on Monday? Read past the jump to join the discussion!

We have so far taken stock of the Canucks assets and needs, looked at reasons why this team may be a deadline buyer, and examined why Jim Benning should simply stand pat on Monday. We favour a fairly uneventful day for the Canucks on March 2nd, but you already know that. However, we want to know what you would do if you were given total control of the Vancouver Canucks over the next few days and how you would shape the short and long term future of this franchise.

Would you be a buyer or a seller on Monday? Which teams would you buy from, and how much would you pay? Who would you sell to and what prices would you demand? If you want to make “hockey deals,” tell us which players you’re trading, and who you’re trading them for.

We invite you to go full HFBoards in the comments section. Got a fair trade you think the Canucks should make? Propose it. Have a wishlist of players you’d like the Canucks to go after? Let us know. Looking to discuss the hottest new rumour? We’re all ears.

This What Would You Do is entirely open ended, so we’re looking forward to your great/funny/insightful/thought-provoking responses. We’ll include our favourites in an article on Sunday as part of our final lead-up to deadline day, so be sure to put your best and/or most delusional foot forward. Let us know how you would navigate this year’s NHL trade deadline!

  • Dirty30

    Trade NM00 to the Oilers for Kevin Lowe, a bag of pucks and some hockey tape.

    Oilers Nation can thank me in small bills sent to:

    Problem Solved
    C/o Drance’s House
    Look it up yourself
    Vancouver, BC

  • Ragnarok Ouroboros

    I don’t know who I would trade for, but I would keep Kassian and trade Vey…
    Perhaps Canucks don’t need to make a trade at all, given how Kenins is playing. He is like finding a 100 dollar bill in your jacket pocket.

  • Spiel

    I like the idea that has been floating around of acquiring Wiercioch. Canucks could use a powerplay guy like that. Not sure of the price, but apparently the Sens have soured on him.

    I wouldn’t be trading any 1st or 2nd round picks in the upcoming draft, and would be trying to acquire additional picks.

    Sbisa, Kassian, Richardson, Higgins would all be made available. Matthias too if someone is willing to give me a Sekera kind of deal.

    First things first, I would need to find a team to take Sestito.

  • Spiel

    I met Tom Topsixtito at a bar and we had a few drinks together. he was really approachable, and truly a nice genuine character. i would love for the canucks to find him a home at least at the AHL level if no NHL clubs have the need for him. a 7th round pick or something of little consequence so the guy gets at least a chance to play somewhere.

    If i’m making a trade at all, we seem to have a surplus of middle six/bottom six forwards. a team that could use some centre depth might take a chance on Vey who i am more willing to give up than anyone else on the current roster. if he gets us a 2nd rounder or package him with someone who is having a down year (Jensen/Shinkaruk) at the prospect level in Utica for top 6 help. May seem a bit of a stretch but that’s the deal i’d be excited about.

  • Ragnarok Ouroboros

    Since the team is likely to make the playoffs but unlikely to make it passed round 1 I would look to move any piece that isn’t part of the 2-3 year plan but only if it speeds up the re-build process. The Canucks have a couple veteran depth guys that would be useful on a contending team that – if moved – wouldn’t hurt the teams’ chances down the stretch *cough Higgins/Bieksa cough* They could fetch a 3rd rounder for each. Miller’s injury basically guarantees a goalie doesn’t get moved until the draft and prospect trades can happen now or at the draft with no consequence to the teams’ on ice success.

    Stand pat unless a really good deal comes along.

  • It all depends on the returns but…

    I would see what I could get for Higgins, Bonino, Richardson and one or two of our bottom pairing D. When the team is healthy, there will be lots of extra bodies; move a couple and keep a couple for insurance.

    Kassian and Matthias seem to be improving so let’s keep them. Hansen is another guy I am torn on…he brings speed and the Canucks don’t have that much of it right now.

    If the offer was right then I’d deal Vrbata. He might get you a type A prospect and a pick.

    One of the goalies has to go but I’d deal with that over the summer.

  • At most, I’d look at moving maybe one depth winger and one right-side defenceman for some picks and prospects. Make a few calls and see what you could get for Yannick Weber or Derek Dorsett – if a team is willing to give a decent pick or prospect back, move them, but for the most part, I’d stand pat unless a really good deal is offered.

    It would be foolish to mortgage the future for a team that probably isn’t going deep, but it would send a bad message to the players if the team went on a selling spree.

    I’d also hold off on making an goalie moves until the off-season. If Markstrom looks solid in a few games while Miller’s out, see if you can move Miller and his $6 million contract to Edmonton or Dallas.

  • Thefreshpots

    Benning has to strike a delicate balance here. While it would be foolish to pick up any expensive rentals and try for a run, I think this team has surprised people with it’s depth. Having a fire sale would be massively disappointing after the way the team has performed so far. That having been said, it appears we have a logjam at forward when everyone is healthy. I would hate to see someone like Kenins or Kassian scratched in place of Brad Richardson. If we can find a buyer for someone like Higgins or another middle-6 forward then that’s a deal we should make. If not, stand pay. Benning should only be making moves from a position of strength. Deal with the goalie situation at the draft where teams are typically more aware of their goaltending needs and willing to give up more for one.

  • Gunnar

    What would I do if I were GM of the Canucks? My favourite hypothetical, makes me giddy just thinking about it. ok here goes, all UFA’s must go.

    Derek Dorsett, Brad Richardson, and Shawn Matthias must be moved for something.

    I love Matthias and really want the Canucks to resign him, 3 years for the money mentioned on this site earlier this week is about right, but they can not let him walk for nothing. If he doesn’t sign by monday they have to move him and really he is the only asset the canucks have to move to get something of value.

    Richardson and Dorset are the type of players whose value will never be higher then it is now. Playoff teams looking for depth really like these type of players. Think 3rd to 5th round picks, maybe if things break right a B level prospect. Neither of these guys are in the canucks long term plans (or shouldn’t be) get something for them now.

    I do not think that the canucks are a Stanely cup threat, hand on a bible and shot up with truth serum I don’t believe the canucks can beat the kings 4 games in a row. Thats who their opponent is going to be, as GM I’ve got to be realistic so I’m thinking future and I’m going to cut into this “stale core” now.

    Chris Higgins traded to NYI, he’s from there, they are damn good, east is wide open, and it’s the last ride of the immortals in Uniondale Arena. I’d like to believe that all of the above would make him lift his no move and go home. As GM I’m looking for a prospect back, Scott Mayfield (D) would be pie in the sky return and it wouldn’t hurt to ask you never know. NYI has a deep prospect pool with guys close find something that matches up.

    Now here’s were I get really unpopular. As GM I look to move Alex Burrows. He is 33/34, not part of the future and his value is only going to decrease. The Canadiens or Rangers are teams I believe he would lift his no move each team has got to think they can come out of the east and Burrows could put them over the top, he is a good forward. There are prospects that are close in both organizations depending on the quality of the prospect ( Jarred Tinordi, J.T. Miller) I’d retain salary. If I can’t get something I like I do not move Burrows, but I’m working hard to make it happen by monday.

    So thats what I would do for Trade Deadline. Move out all the drift wood for something, move out some of the core that is clearly not part of the future while they still have value (I call this the anti flames way of doing things) plug in the replacements and call reinforcements up from Utica to fill out the roster and have at it for the rest of the season. What the canucks have left combined with the lead built up in the standings probably still gets them into the playoffs (though if the Hockey Gods are just they’ll make it so the canucks miss the playoffs and win the draft lottery) get their heads kicked in and move to the summer.

    • Gunnar

      So you want Burrows, Higgins, Matthias, Dorsett, and Richardson moved? Basically you are advocating that we gut almost half of our forwards for picks and prospects for a team that is sitting in a playoff spot right now. They would be left without a top-six winger and no fourth line. Who steps in to replace those guys? Vey and McMillan? What kind of message does that send to Desjardins and the remaining players?

      • Gunnar

        You do know that are fourth line is all UFA next year right?

        Richardson and Dorsett should not be resigned, there are younger and cheaper and almost assuredly better players available everywhere. I want to get something, anything for these “assets” if its possible then letting them walk for nothing.

        I want Matthias to play for the canucks but if he isn’t signed by monday I want something for him then let him walk for nothing. Thats just good asset management or the exact opposite of how the oilers go about their business.

        As for Higgins and Burrows, well I’m more from the Bellicheck school of thought as a GM. I’d rather sell high a year early then low a year later or in the case of the flames 3 years late and almost no value. The canucks are not winning the cup, hell they might be lucky to win a game. That is just the cold hard reality. As a GM you can’t be a fan, if you have a chance to flip a diminishing asset, and Burrows and Higgins are most assuredly diminishing, for picks and prospects for a better future you have to do that.

        The organization has to do everything to be first class and treat players great while they play here. But the plan is to win the cup as often as possible. You flip players on the decline for players on the rise or the chance to get said players every time. If I’m in charge I run the team with cold ruthless logic with the only goal being cups. Thats what i tell my coach and my players, if they disagree I ship them out asap.

        • Johnny TM.

          I disagree. Shipping out veteran players for draft picks or prospects that you hope will be better in the future is exactly what the Oilers do all the time. Perron and Petry are the latest of many examples.

          I have already posted on here that I would like to see them trade Dorsett as I think that Kenins has made him redundant, but no one else has stepped up in the lineup to show that they would be a better option than Matthias or Richardson. Unless you really think that Vey and McMillan could do a better job. Chances are good that a UFA might walk away this summer for nothing but chances are just as good that Benning signs someone else to replace them. That’s just how the business works.

          And if you really wanted to trade Higgins and Burrows, why do it now instead of in the summer? Unless it’s an elusive ‘hockey trade’ it just doesn’t make sense to weaken your forward group so much.

          Winning needs to be a priority now and in the future. Trading away almost half of your forwards for picks and prospects is just not what a playoff team does so I think you’re going to be disappointed on Monday. Regardless of whether the Canucks are a true Cup contender or not, they aren’t just going to throw in the towel because they might face LA in the first round.

          • Johnny TM.

            “I disagree. Shipping out veteran players for draft picks or prospects that you hope will be better in the future is exactly what the Oilers do all the time. Perron and Petry are the latest of many examples.”

            Using Edmonton is a bad example because the Oilers are run by a bunch of idiots that can’t figure out how to draft a decent player outside of the #1 pick. Even then, they’ll figure out a way to screw their development.

          • Johnny TM.

            No arguments there but I was just responding to another poster who used the Oilers as an example. The Oilers are always good at stockpiling draft picks, they just don’t know how to use them but the Canucks can’t just expect that every mid-round pick will work out either if they trade all of their veterans away.

          • Gunnar

            Agreed Winning is the priority, making the playoffs and getting bounced in the first round and getting middling 1st rounders while are players get older and less valuable is the opposite of winning. Thats how the Flames and Leafs and way to many teams operate.

            The numbers show forwards peak by age 25/26 maintain levels till 30, rare cases some go to their early 30s. Major drops begin after this. Guess were Burrows and Higgins ages fall.

            As fore why now and not the summer. The east is wide open, there are 5 teams that have got to think they have a legit chance to make it to the finals. Higgins and Burrows just might give them the depth/grit garbage teams believe will get them over the top. Teams also over pay at this time of year, look at the deals made already this past few weeks. Prices seem high, Benning could get a great return better then in the summer.

            lets say that Benning does all the trades I’ve suggested and the reinforcements from Utica and trade returns screw it up and the canucks drop out of the playoffs. In such a deep draft as this and with a chance, almost non existent, but a chance to win the draft lottery would that be so awful compared to watching us have our lunch money taken from us by the kings in 5.

            I want to see the canucks win a cup in my life time, more then one if possible. Doing things your way is the old safe and really wrong way to accomplish that goal.

          • Canuck4Life20

            Unreal. This just keeps getting better, unlike your spelling and grammar.

            You are so certain that the Canucks will face the Kings in the first round and lose that they should just tank for a shot at winning the lottery? No team has ever won with anything lower than the 8th pick going in, but the Canucks have a shot at winning Daly’s behind-closed-doors draft lottery when they would hold the 13th or 14th pick and a 1% or 2% chance of winning? Right. That’s a great plan but the reality is they would pick a couple spots higher than if they did get bounced in the first round.

            I’m sure most of the other veterans would want out pretty quickly too if that’s the route that Benning took and they would be competing with the Oilers and Sabres for a real shot at the first overall pick next season. But as I said already you are going to be disappointed on Monday when he does things the ‘old safe and really wrong way’ because there is no way he trades away half of his forwards when they are sitting in second place in the division just for a hope and a prayer that they will be better at some point in the future.

          • Fortitude00

            The reason you do it now is because you might get a cup contending team to throw a first rounder for Burrows. In the offseason he will have little value.
            Same with Bieksa some cup team might look at him as a top4 RHS d man who can help them make a deep run. In the off season Bieksa is an over the hill d man with a 4.6mil cap hit.
            The reason so many trades happen at the deadline is because teams don’t have to take the big cap hit. They can go over the cap by renting players who couldn’t fit on their team all year round. This is why we see ridiculous trades like Jagr for a second rounder.

      • Fortitude00

        The other side is hold onto everyone make the playoffs and get no value for vets. Vets rarely bring back any return as they do at the deadline. So you would rather make the playoffs, lose in 4 or 5 games and slowly decline with aging players?

  • Fortitude00

    I think we need to be more patient with Vey. He’ll be an excellent middle six forward. At the AHL and junior levels, he’s demonstrated that he can be a good offensive player, if you look at his stats and highlight clips.

    Best to read some optimistic LA Kings fan reactions to the trade, this is from a thread at HFBoards in the LA Kings section:

    – “I liked Vey, but he was never going to crack the top six and he’s a top six skill player.”

    – “NHL ready and has been for about a season now. He is quick and shifty, an excellent playmaker with good vision and hockey IQ, and he is defensively responsible along with being able to win important draws. He isn’t very physical and is more of an offensive player and belongs more towards the top 6 than the bottom 6, but can be a good third line center.”

    – “He’s a facilitator with great vision. Not the best skater, not a great shot, but no slouch at either of those either. He’s your prototypical playmaking forward. Can play center, but has more of a winger skillset, IMO. He’s also responsible and knows where to go both ways on the ice. He looked lost at times on the Kings, but once he got comfortable he looked good. I have a feeling if he gets his confidence going he’s going to be a solid 2nd/3rd line tweener. Not sure of a comparison, he kind of reminds me of Boedker.”

    And I love their honesty:

    – “Vey is terrible on Draws, Awful. Why do people keep saying he is good at it?”

    He definitely needs to work on getting stronger, developing defensive capabilities and become more aggressive offensively but what do you expect from a rookie with on 74 games experience?

    • Steampuck

      Vey is as described a skill first player not big, will never be a banger but he does have above avarege skill and real high IQ and vision. The problem is Vcr doesn’t have any other players with a similar skill set other than Henrik. Vcr prospects seems to me are mostly hustle and muscle. Vcr as a team have difficulty in the face off circle and Vey is 42% and Henrik is 46%. Vey is what 23 ? and Henrik is 34. Vey will improve Henrik will decline. Here’s a difficult fact, Vcr has no skill post the Sedin era….name ONE first line centre, name one with vision and skill as his first defining asset. Vey being in his FIRST NHL season is the closest player to that player. I hope he comes back next season a better player with a better understanding…if he doesn’t Vcr is screwed 🙂

  • Fortitude00

    Looking at what Carolina got for Sekera, I would trade Hamhuis to an Eastern contender that needs a veteran D. He only has one year left on his deal, and once Edler/Tanev are back he’s a bit redundant. I think it’s important to keep one of the veteran D to help the next generation of players develop, but that guy is Kevin Bieksa and not Hamhuis in my mind (partially because Bieksa is a better leader, and partially because his trade value is probably nothing). If Sekera gets a 1st in this draft and McKeown, I don’t think it’s crazy to think that sending Hamhuis to Pittsburgh would get Pouliot (or maybe Depres) and a similar pick. If the Islanders want to load up and have an insurance policy for losing Boychuk next year, maybe they would give up Reinhart. Before yesterday, I would never have thought those kinds of returns would be realistic but that Sekera deal set a lofty precedent for defensemen.

    • Having an elite defenceman on your second pairing is not “redundant”, it’s depth. And where do you get the idea that Hamhuis is not a leader? From everything I’ve heard he’s a valued and respected presence in the locker room.

      Hamhuis took a significant discount when he signed in Vancouver and by all accounts likes the city and wants to stay.

      All that aside, he has a $4.5 million cap hit and a year left on his contract, which means he’s not likely getting moved at the deadline anyway because he’d cause cap problems for any team he went to.

      In short: No, the Canucks are not moving one of their best two defencemen.

      [edit] also, just…. why!? You want to trade from a relative position of weakness – Stanton and Sbisa are fine third pairing guys, but if you move Hamhuis your left side depth is Edler, Sbisa, Stanton, with basically no one after that if an injury happens – to add another middle-six winger, which the Canucks have an abundance of? I don’t understand the thinking behind this at all.

      • Johnny TM.

        Not sure if you follow the teams I was talking about at all, but none of the players I mentioned are wingers. They’re all young defensemen who project to be top 4 to top pair within a couple of years. Also, all 3 of them are left handed, so that would address the problem on that side of the ice. The idea is that you get a guy who can play now but will get better as the rest of the team’s youth develops. The Canucks have zero defensive prospects that project to be top pairing guys, and if you’re looking at 3-5 years down the road you should probably do something to get one. Hamhuis will not be here in 3-5 years, and likely won’t even be here after next year when his deal expires.

        Obviously there are cap implications with another year remaining on his deal, but his cap hit is not ludicrous and for a player of his quality any of those teams would gladly make the moves in the off-season that would allow them to fit him in for next year.

        Also not questioning his leadership abilities, but I think it’s obvious that when compared with Bieksa, he’s slightly lower on the team’s interal leadership chart. That’s why the club elected to give Bieksa an A and not Hamhuis (barring the current period of injuries where they’ve given him an A since Bieksa and Burrows are out).

        Lastly, the whole “position of weakness” argument is a crock. The Canucks are exactly the type of team that would be expected to move out a couple of veterans, it’s not like that kind of move would be perceived as a panic trade. Hamhuis is a good player, but he’s not nearly the player he was 2 years ago and I think the rest of the league still sees him as the Olympian and essential cog to the 2011 cup run. Asset management dictates that you should consider moving people when their perceived value is higher than their actual value, providing they’re not in your long-term plans.

        The question to me is, do you think Hamhuis is better than Sekera and would be worthwhile to an Eastern contender trying to separate themselves from the pack? If so, he’s probably worth more than what LA gave up, and that means we can get someone who helps us later and doesn’t hinder us now.

        • Ugh, I was reading too fast and got my Pouliots mixed up. Sorry about that.

          Three to five years down the line (lets split the difference and say four), Alex Edler will be 32 and Chris Tanev will be 29. Barring any catastrophic injuries, they’ll both still be playing at a high level.

          Hamhuis had a slow start to this season, but since coming back from injury he’s been fantastic. He may have declined a bit, but to say he’s “not nearly the player he was two years ago” is hyperbole. He remains a legitimate top-pairing defenceman.

          Yes, I think Hamhuis is better than Sekera and could net a significant return. But while the players you’ve mentioned may one day develop into top-four guys, but they’re not there now – they’re third pairing guys, and the Canucks sans Hamhuis have *one* top-four left defenceman. Shipping out Hamhuis for another bottom-pairing guy, regardless of what he might become in the future, really does “hinder us now”.

          If the Canucks were in full-on rebuild mode, it might make sense to ship Hamhuis out. Next year if it’s clear that Hamhuis will not resign with the team (unlikely, IMO), it might make sense to ship him out. The Canucks are not in a full-on rebuild, though, and are trying to remain competitive and restock on the fly. Moving Hamhuis out would be a huge blow to the team and would remove even the small chance they currently have of going anywhere in the playoffs.

          There are lots of off-ice reasons to keep Hamhuis, too – he’s a good leader and role model for younger players, he’s heavily involved in the community, he’s a local boy – these things matter when you’re trying to build a successful team.

    • Johnny TM.

      I’ve been hoping Benning moves Ham or Bieksa but it would probably be Ham if anyone; Bieksa is hurt and wants to stay here – I can imagine him telling Benning I’m not moving. Period.

      A few teams want D and want them bad. Dealing Ham to Pitt for Bennet and Depres may work.

      The Canucks will have too much invested in the back end if they keep all of their D and re-sign Tanev and Sbisa. Someone has to go.

  • Steampuck

    Do absolutely nothing. The Canucks are trying to make the play-offs. A number of players are expected back in the next week or so. The team is playing well and a trade at this point will only serve to disrupt the chemistry this team has established. If you want to trade some players do so after the play-offs

  • Steampuck

    Strangely, I still don’t want to do much. Maybe I buyout Miller to free up some cash at the end of the season (I know, I know). This, of course, is predicated on the notion that Markstrom translates even a modicum of his AHL success to the NHL this time.

    I’ll happily wait and see on Vey, Horvat, and Kassian. Vey lacks Horvat’s strength—and it’s probably why he doesn’t appear to be adjusting as quickly—but the skill set is there. I’m also happy to see out Bieksa’s and Burrows’s contracts. NTCs make that inevitable. I’d see what re-signing Hamhuis next year costs, but I’d seriously think about it.

    The real challenge will involve decreasing minutes for the vets by turning minutes over to youth. We complain about the absence of first line talent that isn’t a Sedin, but WD’s handling of their minutes has been real good. More of that (gentle reduction to reduce fatigue and enhance efficiency), and at the blue line, too. Best case: Stanton, Sbisa, and Clendening make progress and Bieksa and Hamhuis play ~2-3 fewer minutes a game next season. You can see the Sedins finishing their careers with very productive second-line minutes if we can find/develop the personnel to eat the first-line minutes and scoring load.

    Forget about projections and elite status, can you imagine rolling three lines that consist of Virtanen, Kassian, and Jensen on the RW? That’s some big guys with wheels. Add in a Matthias, etc., and you have a big team that can grind you down. Neither Kings Stanley Cup team had a thirty-goal scorer, but they had a bunch of big, strong, fast guys, all of whom pitched in. The superstar model (à la Penguins) is predicated on overpaying the top end of the roster. And the Blackhawks are realizing that that isn’t sustainable at the moment. What made the 2011 Canucks special was that they had impressive top-end talent and depth at the same time. I hate folks talking about the Boston model, but look at the LA model. I’m not sure we’re far off that. Assuming everything goes to plan. And if it does, I’d also like a pony.

  • Steampuck

    Berglund + Rights to Sobotka + Lindbohm for Weber + Higgins + Jensen + Andersson

    Only reason I would do this know is that Shattenkirk is out for a few more weeks and Weber could be R shot on PP until he comes back.

  • peterl

    I think the Canucks need to move out a middle-six forward. The emergence of Kenins and Horvat has really stabilized their bottom six. They now have a glut of middle six forwards: Higgins, Burrows, Hansen, Richardson, Matthias, Dorsett, Kassian, and Vey.

    The three in particular to watch are Richardson, Matthias, and Dorsett since they are incoming UFAs. Richardson and Dorsett have been extremely effective in their limited minutes.

    Kassian and Vey may have higher ceilings and it is a bit early to give up on either of them.

    Hansen has distinguished himself with Horvat/Kenins or Horvat/Dorsett this year and I don’t think he should be moved. Burrows would be hard to move with his contract. He still has some value playing with the Sedin twins. He gives them a familiar linemate and a left-handed shot.

    I think Higgins makes for great trade bait. He is not a rental so he does command some return. He has playoff experience. He can add depth to scoring if needed and has shown some clutch potential in 2011. He is great on the PK. If another team makes a decent offer for him, I would move Higgins for a bit of financial flexibility moving forward knowing that team depth at forward can replace him.

    I’m in favor of moving Richardson or Matthias as a rental to another team. Matthias has the size that JB likes. Matthias is a great sell high right now. Richardson is great on the PK. I think either player demands a decent return as well. Again, forward depth can stabilize the team for now.

    If the Canucks add, it would obviously be a D-man. But the price is too high. Maybe next year with expiring Bieksa/Hamhuis contracts they can revisit trading their players as rentals for huge returns.

  • Steampuck

    Also Richardson to a contender for a 3rd? Late 2nd? Hope that Matthias doesn’t think he’s worth top-6 money and resigns for reasonable dollars.

    I wanted to trade Miller but that will have to wait until the summer. Additionally, acquiring Wiercioch (if available) can wait.

  • Johnny TM.

    I’d sit tight. You can’t be shipping out players like Higgins while in the middle of a playoff run wait until the draft to move them.

    Really the only trades to be made at the deadline would be moving 1 or 2 of our depth d-men for mid-late round draft picks guys like Stanton, Weber, Sbisa (fingers crossed) then focus on moving vets at the draft and during the off-season

  • Johnny TM.

    Get younger while targeting a future top 6 winger who can play right now, give up a couple vets to get that done which obviously would be to a true contender who could use a couple vets to round out their depth.

    Matthias agent sounds pretty much like he wants $$$, more than giving the Canucks a decent deal type anyway so he can bolt for the cash and leave via UFA.

    So selling high could be ideal this TDL, packaging him up with another vet to get a good young winger for the long term is in the best interest to this retooling on the fly team.

    My ideal Matthias + Higgins for Emerson Etem, ask Bonino how Etem was/is with the Ducks to get some valuable intel.

  • Johnny TM.

    Higgins Eller (Habs get similar quality player with term + lower cap hit)

    Wierioch Sbisa (exchange of unwanted dmen – similar age/cap hit)

    Weber + Richardson Stalberg (NSH retain 40%) + 5th + 7th (Preds get depth for a run and get rid of unwanted fwd)

  • Johnny TM.

    Nothing.

    The returns are not worth it.

    PS some of these proposed trades are nuts. Also, many of the players mentioned are injured. They aren’t being traded.

  • RandomScrub

    There have been several comments on here to move players like Higgins or Burrows in the off season but these posters evidently fail to realize that they don’t have nearly as much value then, as the point for other teams to acquire them is to have them for the playoffs this season. Another issue, though, is that to my knowledge neither of them are on expiring contracts so they’re more than rentals at this point, and the salary commitment will likely not be what the contenders want. I mentioned in an earlier thread that the Canucks wanting to both make the playoffs and get younger ultimately means TDL inactivity, but I would personally move the impending UFAs that our younger depth has shown capable to replace. If Richardson and/or Dorsett can fetch picks/prospects, then do it.

    Keep Kassian and Vey except in hockey deals for other equally young players.

    And, a decision on Matthias has to be reached by the deadline. Sign or trade.