WWYDW: The Expendables

wwydw

Hey, some things happened. The Ottawa Senators and New York Rangers completed a trade. The Vancouver Canucks announced another pair of signings. That’s all so very neat.

Now we’re just waiting for that big trade to happen. You know, the one the Canucks are rumoured to be exploring the market for. Rumour has it, they want to land a second line winger in specific. Now, to do that, they’re going to have to part with somebody. Maybe even a few somebodies and the odd draft pick. There’s only so many roster spots, after all.

So, I’m asking you, which player(s) are you most willing to part with to land that marquee name in a trade. As always, try to be reasonable. You’re not landing Gabriel Landeskog for Jannik Hansen.

Last week I asked: So, if you were tasked with drawing the Canucks lineup on the white board, how would your second line look? Now, just to make this interesting, you can sign someone in free agency or execute a (realistic) trade to suit your needs. But remember, this is just your second-line. Let’s save the other three for another day.

Red Moon Rising:

The ideal second line? With what the organization has available it would have to be Sedin/Sedin/Hansen. Hell, I could live with Horvat/Baertschi/Eriksson if Sutter is there to back them with a strong third. Count me as one of the many who feel that it’s the future of the first line that has me concerned. Boesser does have the look of a budding first-liner and I’m confident at least one of our young players or prospects will grow into the role so….I like where the team is going but unless a trade is made for a bona-fide top six LW it’s going to be a couple of seasons (and a #1C) before our second line is our main concern.

Just to throw out there: Tavares is UFA in two seasons and will be only 28 (I admit to wanting this player on the team since he was 16). If I remember correctly his uncle was not only Box Lacrosse’ best player of the last few decades but played into his 40’s at a dominating level.

Jyrki21:

Derek Dorsett and two other guys

…is what Willie Desjardins would probably say.

Steamer:

Agree with Bud Poile – Burrows – Sutter – Hansen – but probably a pointless exercise as Desjardins is a coach who is constantly changing his lines. Perhaps this is because the results continue to be unsatisfactory? Some coaches are always mixing, some prefer more stability. Certainly the players prefer regular linemates but not always possible + coach may be attempting to match certain players vs opponents.

domo:

The Canucks will have 3 second lines, and 1 energy/grinder line.

Our defense will be better at moving the puck, which will help on the PP as well as helping all the young forwards get comfortable.

The Canucks will have to figure out what they have on their hands this season, in terms of skill and chemistry.

There’s a lot of new players. I’ve never seen Rodin play. I’ve hardly watched Sutter play. There will be guys that transformed over a good long off-season.

After next season is when you have to become a lot more specific in identifying a new 1C, making room for Boeser, making room for Subban, who is expendable but valuable for trading

krutov:

i can see the canucks starting out with a sutter second line and generally trying to act like a veteran team bringing along young players carefully.

but the clock is ticking. if burrows-sutter-hanson stays as the second line, the team is toast. it will mean none of the young guys have progressed to top 6 status and that the canucks are headed off a cliff.

Buula:

If 1st line =Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson then 2nd line = Baertschi-Sutter-Hansen//Rodin?

If 1st line = Sedin-Sedin-Hansen then 2nd line = Baertschi-Sutter-Eriksson

If 1st line = Sedin-Sedin-Sutter then 2nd line = Baertschi-Horvat-Eriksson

Baertschi might swap out with Burrons as others are suggesting as well..

brian:

Kilhorn Horvat Eriksson

Trade Sbisa 50% retained, Gaunce and our 2017 2nd for Kilhorn.

TheRealPB:

My vote for the 2nd line would be William Nylander flanked by Valeri Nichushkin and Matt Tkachuk, aka the CA Dream Draft lineup.

I think our real 2nd line will be a mainly shutdown one that provides a modicum of scoring — likely Sutter with Hansen and Rodin or Burrows. I think this would give great protection to a 3rd line of Horvat with Baertschi and either Virtanen (if he stays with the team) or Etem. I think Gaunce is the spare part with Granlund and Dorsett. I think Burrows and Etem slide up and down the lineup. Etem is actually my pick for dark horse; he was a very highly regarded prospect, was so-so in Anaheim was both unlucky and poorly used in NY and really came on in the last part of the year. Great wheels, great hustle. Lots of teams adopt a scoring by committee approach for their bottom 9 and I think that’s what we’ll likely do. Would be nice to get some more scoring from the D too — I am hoping that Gudbrandson actually starts using the heavy shot we’ve heard about instead of getting buried for the vast majority of his starts in the D-zone.

JFR:

Bo has shown he can play with multiple forwards so I would have Sven play on one wing and as for the other??

If Jake come into camp in shape with a serious attitude, I would give him a shot. Sutter and Jake would be big bodies that will give Sven room to be creative. Also Sutters faceoffs will give the second line more possession time.

BIG D, little d:

I’m not sure the Canucks will have a traditional second line. With Willie’s penchant for rolling four lines I think it will be difficult to identify who the “second” line is. The most productive line will be the Sedins + someone, and second most productive line will be Sven, Bo + someone. Maybe if Rodin comes as advertised Baertschi/Horvat/Rodin will be the second most productive line while Burrows/Sutter/Hansen gets the second most ice time.

nas19ua:

I think everything points at Virtanen’s destined to go to Utica this season. Dors & Etem can both play LW, so, I’d try:

Sedins – Eriksson Baertschi – Horvat – Rodin – 2a Etem – Sutter – Hansen – 2b Dorsett – Granlund – Burr

Edler – Tanev Hutton – Gudbranson Sbisa/Tryamkin – Larsson

  • JuiceBox

    I don’t think Kane will come overly cheap as I would bet there is still a number of teams willing to take a flier on him. Might cost them Guance, Pedan and a 3rd pick.

    Landeskog would be a great pick up but quite pricey. Starting point would likely be Tanev, Gaudette(or prospect in the same range) and a high round draft pick. Tough call but may be worth it

    • JuiceBox

      Landeskog for Tanev + a 2nd round pick would be a great deal for the Canucks. We’d have to suffer through some poor shot suppression for a couple of years but Juolevi will probably be as good as Tanev by then, and Landeskog would only be 25 and probably our next #1LW.

  • JuiceBox

    Benning has replenished the talent pool to the point of legitimate job competition on d and the bottom six.

    Now there is a chance that one or two players surprise to the upside,giving the Canucks opportunistic leverage when the league is deep into injury season.

    Trade from strength and not weakness.

  • crofton

    I highly doubt this will happen but one can dream. ( Value wise I’m trying to make it as even as possible so if I’m off just let me know ). Anyways, if I was Benning I’m looking at flipping Sbisa for a draft pick, get rid of his cap and clear up the back end, leaving space for Larsen and Pedan. Let’s say we get a 3rd rounder in either 2017 or 2018 ( From whatever team it maybe) . Now we have another asset to add to a trade, a minor one but something to sweeten a deal. Now we look at Detroit, look at Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Mantha or Pulkkinen. Let’s say we try for Tatar, We trade the 3rd we got from whichever team ( 3rd is conditional, if Jurco signs With us they receive a 2nd rounder) and possibly Gaunce , giving that our bottom six is filled with players. Either way we give up some player, maybe Hansen? I would’ve offered them Sbisa n pick but I believe they have a logjam on the backend too.

    Or if that doesn’t work, Collin Wilson, Hartnell, E.Kane, Palat ( due to Tampa possibly not able to re-sign all their core players ), we most likely overpay on a trade that brings as a LW.

  • Bro Horvat

    There’s not a heck of a lot that excites me in the trade market beyond Landeskog, unfortunately he’s likely going to take a lot to bring in. Short of giving up 1st rd picks the biggest trade chip is easily Tanev. I don’t think he alone is going to cut it for the Avs, so we’ve likely got to throw in another roster player (Burr/Beaker) and a relatively high pick.

    It’s a lot, but if we’re serious about making it happen how about this:

    Landeskog for Tanev/Burr/2nd Rounder

    It also creates some cap space to bring in another right handed dman short term (Wiesnewski, Boyle, etc), assuming that Larsen isn’t already that fill in guy.

      • JuiceBox

        And let’s not forget Hansen is 30 years old and will probably never score more than 20 again in his career.

        If the Canucks are looking at a young top 6 winger the price is Hansen and a 1st at a minimum.

  • JuiceBox

    I would be willing to part with Tanev (although VERY reluctantly), Hansen (his value will never be as high as it is right now), Miller (probably more valuable at the TDL), Etem, Baertschi, Dorsett, Sbisa, Granlund or Gaunce, Subban, Cassels and any draft pick.

    • crofton

      Re: Hansen

      I think his value is really high in VAN circles right now but I have my doubts that he’d actually be able to net a return on the open market. I’d like to be wrong, but I don’t think most teams in the league would value Hansen as high in a trade as his actual worth to this Canucks team.

      • crofton

        Agreed.
        Hansen is a leader and a core guy here, but would be seen as a run of the mill 3rd line grinder to most other teams.

        I hope Benning sees him the same way. This is the guy who decided Dorsett, Sbisa and Miller were so desired by other teams he needed to overpay by 20% to lock them up. I’m not convinced he has a good grasp on the way players are perceived around the league.

  • BarryBadrinath

    In a move that saw brassard get traded for zibanjed.

    I would be happy to see this type of trade facilitated in vancouver.
    Im not sure edlers value is as high as it was two years ago, but i think to a contending team, we could send edler for someone like julius Honka. Picks would be needed to help facilitate this and, of course, the no move would have to be addressed on edlers end.

    A future dcore with
    honka,tanev,gudbrannson,hutton and juolevi should be a great start.

    Also wouldnt mind seeing hutton go for a top 6 forward.

  • BarryBadrinath

    You don’t want to plug one hole only to create another. I think parting with Tanev would be costly but could potentially be viable if the return was right. Fringe players/prospects should also be considered in a deal such as Gaunce, Pedan, Granlund, Subban (who may not offer as much now that Stecher has arrived). Nevertheless, if a deal does get done for this top 6 forward, it will likely end up costing more than this fan base would like.

    But please no Evander Kane, he’s not a team guy (something which Benning values) and has had many chances to prove otherwise. The talent is there but the mindset isn’t.

  • crofton

    If Vancouver is trading anyone away, I want it to be someone whose perceived value in the league is higher than their actual value to this team, not the other way around. So for that reason, these are the players I’d be fine with us moving:

    Edler, Sutter, Etem, Granlund, Sbisa, Dorsett, Biega.

    For other potential targets, I think the value to this team is actually higher than any return they would get. For example, Horvat actually scores at a 2nd line center rate at even strength, yet he would not net that type of return on the open market. Same for guys like Baertschi, Hansen and even Gaunce in my opinion. The problem with most of the guys listed above, is their contracts are almost all unfavourable on the trade market. I really don’t see the Canucks making a move unless they slightly overpay in assets and sign a UFA at the same time to fill the resulting roster hole.

  • crofton

    If Hall = Larson, and Hall>Landeskog, and Larson>Gudbrandson, a shrewd negotiator could make Gudbranson for Landeskog work in this trade market for D.

    I’d go as high as Gudbranson + Virtanen for Landeskog and call it a Canuck win, though I’d try to push Hansen first then fall back to Virtanen if Colorado doesn’t bite.

    I would imagine most Canucks fans would be ok with what would effectively be a McCann/Virtanen + picks for Landeskog offseason.

    • crofton

      That is an insane trade proposal. Insane. Landeskog didn’t score 50 goals last season. He scored 20 on a team that has a lot of guys who can put up points. Tanev alone is pretty close to fair value for Land. Adding Virtanen is insanity.

      Honestly, the guys I would like Benning to look at are Landeskog and James van Reimsdyk. Both young and effective. Trade chips: Tanev, Edler, picks etc. I’d prefer to deal Edler and Sbisa and hang on to Tanev – but his NTC does kick in next summer.

      • crofton

        I wouldn’t move Tanev, I have them moving Gudbransen for Landeskog. Virtanen as the kicker if you need to. Landeskog is the exact player you hope Virtanen could turn out to be, but it is still a significant gamble as to whether he ever can.

  • JuiceBox

    The occasional trade is fine, but you are not going to build a first-rate team by outwitting other teams. The best you should expect in a trade is to exchange equal value in a way that addresses both teams’ weaknesses.

    Instead the Canucks should seek to out-draft and out-develop other teams, a long-term strategy that plays into current management’s strengths.

  • JuiceBox

    We cant move Tanev for a forward as he is the most reliable and proven Dman in our system, without him and nothing to replace him with (and now with Hammer gone too) our D looks like the bad news bears.

    Gudbranson is an interesting consideration, But I still want to see him play for us.

    Doesn’t Edler have a NTC? If so that will take convincing to trade or it’s a moot point.

  • JuiceBox

    Somehow, I’m not sure why everyone who is on the “ZOMG we need a top pairing Dman” hype train is so eager to trade Tanev and Edler. Everyone basically admits that Tanev is underrated and any trade out would not encompass his true value (unless it’s a ridiculous trade, and we’re not talking ridiculous trades here). And Edler’s stock has never been lower since Torts. That’d be like doing Garrison again. Oh hi Vey.

    Who do we really have to offer then? Then we’re looking at Hansen, whose value might not be AS high to other teams, but still never higher and likely never will be higher. Sutter, but the Canucks like them foundational pieces. And of course you can add Dorsett and Sbisa and all of the vendor trash the Canucks have, but they amount to nothing of value AT BEST. Otherwise, we basically traded Hamhuis for Sbisa at free agency.

    Sutter and Hansen won’t get Landeskog, and I have my doubts about Kane. Yeah, I got nothing and I fail at this. :>

  • TheRealPB

    Since the question is who is expendable and the criteria is let’s be realistic, for a marquee player by which it sounds like you mean a young proven talent going into the prime of their careers who’ve been rumored to be available (Landeskog, Kane, Drouin), I think the following are who I’d be willing to part with:

    No one. I think it would be a terrible move. Since we’re being realistic, none of the dregs mentioned in previous posts would even begin that conversation if I’m Colorado, Buffalo, Tampa or whoever. Why would I give up a young player for a semi-good older one? Not a prospect for a vet, but a proven young player? People are acting as if they could land Landeskog for Tanev and Hansen — that is patently ridiculous. He has the highest point total of anyone taken in 2011 with RNH slightly behind and no one else even close. He plays on a crap team and is a solid two-way player and a great team leader. Kane I don’t think we should go for for off-ice reasons but if we did it would cost a hell of a lot — he was traded last year for basically Roslovic, Armia and Lemieux, three highly touted prospects. After his playoff performance I think Drouin costs the most.

    Getting any marquee player would mean parting with one or more of Horvat, Demko, Boeser, Juolevi, or Virtanen. I think those should be non-starters.

    Let’s just deal with the reality that we will sign either Pirri or Gagner close to the start of training camp as the “upgrade” LW.

    • crofton

      Pirri isn’t and upgrade on Sven B, imo. They are about the same size, are roughly 0.5 PPG for their careers, neither are particularly gritty. Sven comes cheaper and probably has a better shot.

      I’d rather see Burr switch sides and play LW to begin the season and if Sven comes out of the gate doing well put him in. Barring some major trade of course.

      • crofton

        Pirri isn’t an upgrade on Baertschi. They are comparable, but Pirri can play center and has a slightly larger body of work so you can have more confidence in his performance level. If you brought in Pirri I think he’s more insurance in case Baertschi takes a step back, and he and Baertschi are 2a and 2b on the left side. So the question is more, “is Pirri an upgrade over Gaunce, Granlund or Etem?” which I think is a definite yes.

      • TheRealPB

        I completely agree — I think that Pirri is kind of lazy defensively too which I don’t think Baertschi is and I also think doesn’t have as high an upside offensively. I am just speculating as to who the Canucks might add. The reality of the current CBA, cap and currency rate situation means that while the big name free agents sign right away and the coveted young players get locked up early, there are an awful lot of solid pros who are going to have to go to PTOs just to get a chance at another contract. I think I’m most surprised that Versteeg, Vrbata, Schenn and Carle haven’t gotten signed.

        • TheRealPB

          Hudler for a year? That seems like a disappointment waiting to happen too. Prust 2.0.

          Not surprised at all about Vrbata. He’s 35 so any contract money sticks to the cap if he retires, and that decline last year was pretty bad. Shows you how exceptional the twins really are.

          Baer seemed to find a bit more toughness in the 2nd half and he seems hungry.

          The only team I see that still has top 6 winger depth to trade is Edmonton. Would you trade Tanev fro the Nuge? Sutter-NH-Virtanen could be a nice 2nd line for us.

  • crofton

    If you’re getting Barrie or Lindholm back you can trade Tanev or Edler. We can’t afford to give up a top pair d without replacement.

    In terms of forwards, trade anyone who’s not the Sedins. Not sure what gets you a high end young centre like Trocheck though. There’s no one prospect who’s too good to trade, but you wouldn’t want to be giving away more than one. Our 1st rounders are going to be too valuable for the foreseeable future.

  • crofton

    Realistically the Canucks trade chips are Tanev and Hansen, both of whom are likely undervalued by the rest of the league so you’re probably not going to get full value for them.

    Given management’s stated intent to build out from goal and defense I doubt that they would move one of their top defensemen even for a “marquee” left winger. Moving Tanev leaves a big hole on the Canucks blueline that I have no confidence the depth defensemen can fill.

    Hansen’s had the one good year with first line-ish type numbers. I doubt that’s enough to establish him as the centerpiece of a trade for a “marquee” player. Still, he’s on a value contract so maybe if someone is looking for performance/dollar and not just absolute performance….

  • TheRealPB

    Boesser does have the look of a budding first-liner and I’m confident at least one of our young players or prospects will grow into the role so…

    Joker is wild