62
Photo Credit: NHL.com

8 Under-The-Radar Free Agents That Could Be Fits For The Canucks (Part 1)

Yesterday, I took a look at some young free agents that might be wise buy-low bets for the Canucks to place. Today, I’ll be looking at some more free agents that should be available for little in the way of money and term, but who don’t quite fit the bill as “reclamation projects”, either because they are already established, or lack the pedigree of the players that were featured in that series.

Related: 8 Under-The-Radar Free Agents That Could Be Fits For The Canucks (Part 2)

Jiri Hudler

When a team takes a flier on a bargain-bin free agent, there’s always a certain amount of risk involved. While teams still have a long way to go towards properly evaluating players, there’s generally a reason why these guys are available for cheap, whether it’s lacklustre production, inconsistency, or in Jiri Hudler’s case, injury trouble.

It’s easy to see why teams might shy away from Hudler, who played only 32 games with the Dallas Stars last season, and hasn’t come close to playing a full season since 2014-15. But when he’s been in the lineup, he’s still produced at a level consistent with a first-line forward.

Hudler played some of the best hockey of his career in Calgary alongside two young forwards in Sean Monahan and Johnny Gaudreau. Obviously Bo Horvat and Sven Baertschi aren’t at quite that level, but there’s enough similarity between Monahan and Horvat to see the outline of a strong trio. Hudler’s also a natural right winger who could slot in beside Henrik and Daniel Sedin in a combo that has potential to be effective if their role is scaled back.

Hudler netted the Flames a second and a fourth round pick in 2015, and it’s likely The Canucks could get a similar return at the trade deadline if he stays relatively healthy. He could also help take some of the offensive load off of some of Vancouver’s younger players who may not yet be at a point in their development where they can be counted on to produce consistently.

PA Parenteau

If you’re looking for a dirt-cheap right-handed shot to play with Henrik and Daniel Sedin, here’s your guy. PA Parenteau is far from the sexiest player in this year’s free agent class, but he can score goals, which the Canucks have struggled to do for the past two seasons.

It’s hard to think of a player that’s been as consistently undervalued as Parenteau, who’s scored at a 0.6 point-per-game pace for his career, but has never been able to find a long-term home. What might keep the Canucks away is that his perceived value is at an all-time low, and he was only able to net the Devils a sixth-round pick at the trade deadline this season. Still, the Canucks could use some insurance on the right side, and Parenteau would be a good stop-gap option.

Radim Vrbata

Hear me out on this one. We all know Vrbata had an awful end to his time in Vancouver, but his 20-goal, 55-point 2016-17 campaign should go a long towards dispelling the notion that Vrbata was solely to blame for his disastrous second season with the Canucks. He wasn’t at his best towards the end of the season, but a combination of bad deployment, low quality of linemates, and poor shooting luck made his season look worse than it was. A bounce-back season was an inevitability.

It’s unclear if Travis Green and Newell Brown will have the same obsession with having a right-handed shot on the power play, but Vrbata will be one of the best cheap options available, and outside of his down year in Vancouver, he’s shown he can be counted on to pot 20 goals on a consistent basis.

They say familiarity breeds contempt, so it’s easy to see why Vrbata signing with the Canucks might be unpalatable for both sides, but the Canucks need goal-scoring and Vrbata can provide it for cheap. If Vrbata can rekindle some of the magic we saw in his first season in Vancouver, he could be worth a lot to a contender at the deadline, and that would give the Canucks a mulligan on the 2016 trade deadline debacle.

Paul Postma

Throughout his career, Paul Postma has posted strong underlying numbers, but he’s been buried under a Jets right side that features Dustin Byfuglien, Jacob Trouba, and Tyler Myers, giving him one of the funniest HERO charts in recent history:

Postma could really shine on a team’s third pair if given the opportunity, though he may not get a chance on a Canucks team that’s set on the right side for the time being. Not that you can have too many right-handed defenders. If there’s one thing the last year or so had taught us, it’s that right-shot defensemen are a license to print money. For the Canucks, signing Postma could net them some assets at the trade deadline, or give them the depth on the right side to be comfortable trading away Erik Gudbranson or Chris Tanev.

That’s it for today, stay tuned for Part 2, where we’ll look at another four bargain-bin free agents.

  • TheRealPB

    That’s a hard pass on every one of these. Vrbata only makes sense if you’re constructing a team in EA not with actual human beings. Bad for everyone involved. The mantra of getting vets to flip at the deadline also only makes sense if the goal is simply accumulating draft picks. The goal of this season cannot be playoffs or more lottery tickets — it has to be on development. For that reason alone getting a bunch of retreads is a terrible idea as it would stunt the opportunities for development for the young players we already have.

    • Dirk22

      Canucks fans, both those who support Benning’s moves over his 3 years and those who don’t, are as optimistic as they’ve been since he took over. Why? Because they seemingly had a good draft. Why did they have a good draft? Because they had two second round picks – bear in mind this was a weak draft year. Imagine if those two picks came the year before, we’d all be parading around. Point it, why on Earth would you not want to have the same opportunities next draft year by taking on some one year deals and flipping them at the deadline? You’ve been a huge advocate for ‘mentorship’ or ‘sheltering’ (whatever you want to call it). You get some stop-gap players that can shelter the youngsters and then add a couple picks at the deadline. How can you argue against that?

      • Bud Poile

        He’s had four good drafts.
        Benning had to fill the 21-26 year old roster gap vacated by abysmal drafting under Gillis.
        The Baertschi and Guddy acquisitions sped up the process of manning a young roster with second round picks.
        Adding Guddy and Baertschi also suggests you can flip them at the TDL,if need be.
        Taking on FA’s as a theory doesn’t mean they will come to Vancouver,sign one year deals or have good enough seasons for anybody to want them at the TDL.
        Canucks have plenty of mentors now.

        • Pat Quinn Way

          FFS – just thinking how great it is not to have this loser and his dozen fake accounts ruining the board today and here he is with the same tired old BS…

          Guys, feel free to examine the drafting legacy of the following Canucks GMs… it’s clear to see that Benning the clown has given us NOTHING despite having the best draft positions in franchise history!

          THE LEGACYS…
          Pat Quinn – Trevor Linden, Pavel Bure, Mattias Ohlund (wow)
          honorable mentions Gino Odjick, Mike Peca, Aucoin, Sopel, Scott Walker

          Brian Burke – Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Ryan Kesler (wow)
          honorable mention Bryan Allen

          Dave Nonis – Alex Edler, Cory Schneider, Jannik Hansen (9th rd!) (wow) honorable mention Luc Bourdon

          Mike Gillis – Bo Horvat, Ben Hutton (still nice on a perennial contender)
          honorable mention Chris Tanev (signed by MG undrafted!)

          Jim Benning – Jake Virtanen, Jared McCann, Juolevi, Elias Petterssen
          honorable mention Brock Boeser (this is BRUTAL drafting anyway you slice it) Drafting Guru my a$$

          There it is in black n white guys, hands down the WORST draft legacy of all the above given the high picks he has had is BENNING – only a troll would deny it!

          • Bud Poile

            Speaking of B.S.losers in loser-land.
            It’s Knobby.
            Guys,guys,guys?

            93 draft picks

            11 first round picks

            12 picks in the top 30

            16 picks that played more than a half season for the Canucks = 17.2% success rate

            Benning’s 1st draft picks are 20-22 years of age.
            3 have played 65+ NHL games apiece.
            Forsling has played 38 as a 20 year old.
            Demko is slated to have an NHL career.
            That is 5 of 7 picks that have had or should have NHL careers.
            70% sucess rate.
            Pat Quinn drafted 24 out of 93 total picks that played a half season or more in the NHL.
            26% success rate.
            Of Quinn’s 93 draft picks (11 first round picks,12 picks in the top 30) only 16 picks went on to play more than half a season for the Canucks.
            17.2% success rate.

          • Pat Quinn Way

            How many times do you have to be told it’s about CANUCKS draftees PLAYING for the VANCOUVER CANUCKS and no one else dumba$$.

            The fact that a clown like Benning drafts Forsling and then gets rid to a better team where he thrives makes him even WORSE you utter fool!

            The fact that Benning has ONE draft pick out of 20 on the Canucks roster makes it embarrassing.

            The fact that the above legacy list shows Benning to be a laugher compared to his peers who drafted the likes of Bure, Linden, the Sedins, Kesler and Bo Horvat compared to Virtanen, McCann and 161 lb Petterssen (i am not ready to play in the NHL) proves you are an idiot and a TROLL.

            “Only a troll would come here everyday and say everything is fine” – Freud

            “Bud makes the forum an uncomfortable place for both the writers and commenters” – Jackson McDonald

            Go away little man – even the writers don’t want you here. Your act is as stale as your breath mate!

          • Doodly Doot

            Well laid out PQW. Jim has been a slave to a particular philosophy of size, grit, blah, blah, blah. I didn’t like the Virtanen pick, and really didn’t like the McCann pick. The Penguins and Team NA from the WC proved what I’ve been blabbing about to my friends for years: speed and skill above size and grit IS THE WAY. The last 18 months have changed hockey forever. JB isn’t great, but at least this draft, whether it was his philosophy or someone elses, the Canucks are at least responding to the obvious. Thank God!

          • Doodly Doot

            One more thing: we do have to give JB a little wriggle room because his picks are still super green. This past draft and perhaps the next may in fact put him in good standing when looked at 10 years from now. Boeser may have put together the better part of a HHoF career by then. Hey, it’s plausible!

        • Chris the Curmudgeon

          Just to be clear, you think 2014 was a good draft? Virtanen and McCann both played in the NHL but both look like busts (and busting on your 1st rounders is one of the bigger mistakes you can make in any given draft, especially when forwards taken right after both picks are first liners on other teams). Demko has yet to play one NHL game, before we denote him the second coming of Patrick Roy. Tryamkin played one season on the 3rd pairing of our D and bolted back to Russia. Forsling looks like he might be good but the point is moot if you’re going to trade him away. In other words, for all of his “great drafting”, none of the guys from 2014 are going to play for the Canucks this year, at least not above the 4th line, and only one (Demko) is still a prospect of any note. In 2015, Boeser was a solid pick, no argument here. No other player from that year is even close to the NHL, and only Gaudette looks like he ever could. 2016 is still too early to tell, but the guy taken right after our 5th overall choice got 3-5th place Calder votes last year (for the record, I happen to like Juolevi, but we’re talking about 5th overall in a strong year: getting an NHLer should be a given). No one else from last year is anywhere close to the NHL, though it’s admittedly too early to tell. This year I liked the picks but it’s too early to say.

          So, in summary, one terrible draft, one probably bad draft, one questionable draft and one “too early to say”. Not sure where you get “four good drafts” out of that.

          It’s pretty easy to declare a draft a success if your only measure is “has he played in the NHL” and your team is so awful that anyone with a pulse and a contract can get out there for a few shifts. Except Jordan Subban, who was one of the biggest bright spots for the Comets but who was unfortunately for him, drafted by Gillis.

          • Elliot McKenzie

            I don’t get what this bud dude is trying to achieve other than just being an annoying troll. His bizarre comments make no sense whatsoever and I can’t recall any Canucks fan slating Pat Quinn. Could do with an ignore feature on this site tbh.

          • DJ_44

            I would suggest it is still way too early to call Virtanen or McCann busts. They spend a year in the minors, which is where they should be. Suggesting that top picks should be able to jump to the NHL right away or they are busts is absolutely stupid. You have demonstrated solid hockey knowledge through past posts and I respect your opinion, but this is beyond ridiculous.

            Bennings 2014 draft class will yield 5 NHL players (200+ games), with at least 2 of them have chances to be absolute steals (Demko in the 2nd and Tryamkin in the 3rd). Yet you declare this to be a terrible draft.

            The 2015 draft is going to be better than the 2014 draft Boeser, Briesbois, and Gaudette; with still Jasek and the Russian kid developing overseas. This is your bad draft?

            Then you have Juolevi and Lockwood in 2016. True we did not take Tkachuk and his massive 13 goals, and 3 – 5th place Calder votes. What do you think the Over/Under is on Boeser potting 13 this year? To suggest that a top five selection in a strong draft year should make the NHL is equally stupid. PLD is a bust? Puuljarvi a bust? No. They are 18 year old kids that are growing and developing. You do not draft for their 18-yr old production. You draft on their future success, be it immediate or 3 to 5 years down the line.

            The only thing I agree with is 2017, way to early to tell. But I loved the picks.

            Raise your game Chris; you (and Dirty30) are way better than this other tool that has shown up under many names lately. You guys know hockey.

      • Killer Marmot

        I think that’s getting too clever.

        To make a UFA “flippable” you have to give him ice time, very likely at the expense of younger players. In other words, UFAs could well clog up the development pipeline when rebuilding is a declared priority.

        And when you do give the UFA lots of ice time, if they don’t perform well then they will have no value come the trade deadline.

        • Naslund

          What’s with all the abusive language? If you disagree with someone, that’s fine, but all of the personal insults are tiresome. Why are people so rude and disrespectful of one another just because it’s the internet?

      • TheRealPB

        Dirk22, that’s a pretty reductive way of evaluating whether or not the Canucks had a good draft, just because they had 2 picks. And us having 2 picks in the 2nd round had nothing to do with signing veterans and flipping them. There’s also zero evidence that most of these players would provide actual mentorship. I’d think Hudler would have the most to offer in that regard but I’ve never heard Vrbata mentioned either in Vancouver or Arizona by any young players as being a good mentor. I also think there’s a difference between deciding at the deadline that you want to sell off some decent veterans — as Calgary did in getting rid of Hudler to FLA — and actually going out and signing fringe UFAs with that purpose in mind. That worked for Toronto but then I think they sold Winnik, Matthias and a few others (mostly Ontario-born if I remember) on that for a season that they set out to be crap in. I’m always so frustrated by the Toronto comparison; it’s as unrealistic and unhelpful as the Boston-Detroit-LA models. Last year when the Canucks management finally got the go ahead to do a sell-off it did so, recouping a 2014 1st rounder and a 2016 2nd rounder for two aging vets. If at the deadline this year the Sedins or Edler decide they want to move on then that’s something to consider I guess. But I think getting these marginal UFAs isn’t going to move the program forward.

        • Dirk22

          PB – you would agree everyone seems to be pretty upbeat about the draft. Take away Lind and Gadjovich and that’s not going to be the case. Canucks haven’t had a 2nd rounder in 3 drafts is my point and here’s a reasonable opportunity to get some players that can fetch extra picks at the deadline. Happens every year.

          • TheRealPB

            Yes, I’d agree that it was a decent draft and that having more picks rather than less is good (though I would still probably rather have held onto the extra 4th than flipped it for the extra lower picks). My point is more that this doesn’t seem like a good way of accumulating them. In order to actually get value for such picks you’d need to play the UFAs in positions where they’d succeed and improve their stock. What Toronto did in that instance does make sense — they kept all of their young players in the minors and let their NHL team be complete garbage. But their prospects were very young, mostly first-year pros. What adding any of these players would do would be to block the path of young players who are unseasoned but not as young as that — I am thinking of people like Boucher or Goldobin in particular. I would much rather that we play guys like that (or Rodin or Virtanen) ahead of a Hudler or Vrbata. You would necessarily have to play the latter in a top-six role in order to get any value from them at the deadline. Remember, that’s what got us those extra picks last deadline — Hansen and Burrows played in top six or top 9 roles, not as fourth liners over the preceding two years. And the pick that got us the most extra value this year was as you point out because of Tortorella, not because of signing UFAs.

          • Dirk22

            You realize the Sedins played all those shifts with the likes of Megna or Sutter, etc. Grab a free agent on a one year deal, plunk him in there instead of one of those guys, then try to flip him for a pick. No one’s development is being compromised. This was a team that had Skille, Chaput and Megna all in the same line-up. Surely there’s room for a free agent AND the youngsters that are emerging.

  • Killer Marmot

    I find it a strange that CA keeps pushing bargain-basement UFAs and reclamation projects when the Canucks have a log-jam of young players on both forward and defense who deserve a shot at a full-time roster spot. Goldobin, Dahlen, Molino, Boucher, Juolevi, Subban, even Virtanen if his fitness has improved.

    The Canucks are supposed to be rebuilding, right? Let the kids play.

    • tyhee

      If your point is intended to be wondering why CA is suggesting players over 30, then I agree the Canucks shouldn’t be putting undue roadblocks in the way of the kids. If your point is that the Canucks should sign nobody so that the youngsters have an open road to playing time, I don’t agree.

      The Canucks are not deep in good young players and good prospects. Having to beat out the likes of Chaput and Megna for a spot in the lineup shouldn’t be such a high bar that a young player can’t earn a spot.

      Further, some of those youngsters won’t work out. We don’t know yet which they will be, but prospects don’t have a high success rate. Imo it makes perfect sense to look for players who have shown in the past they can play, consider why they haven’t been showing it lately and to seriously consider those that have the best chance of helping the team in future years.

      Imo the worst kind of signing for the Canucks is an aging player with a high enough profile that he’ll command big money, a lengthy term or both. Those make no sense whatsoever for a team in the Canucks’ position and I’d much rather see them sifting through the bargain bin trying to find the player with the best chance of becoming the next Devan Dubnyk. Lest I be misunderstood, my use of Dubnyk as an example isn’t related to the position he plays but because he was a successful reclamation project for 2014-15, going from 3.5 million per year to only being offered $800K on a one year deal at the ripe old age of 28, then earning himself a six year deal the next summer.

      Otoh, I don’t mind if the Canucks look for cheap players who may work out. They still have to ice a team for the next couple of seasons and while they shouldn’t do anything to harm the future, having competition in camp can be a good thing and I don’t see that the competition right now is so tough that a young player has too many roadblocks to being able to play.

  • wojohowitz

    Postma has been mentioned by speculators as a target – as a number 6 or 7 D-man – along with Rasmussen as a third line center. Both make sense if they are cheap enough. Michael Haley as a fourth line center would add some toughness and support for Dorsett. Green`s views on a lineup is pretty much unknown – like can he live with Goldobin`s half a game but potential offense. I suggest they take the pressure off the twins by splitting them up. Something like this;

    Eriksson-Henrik-Goldobin

    Baertschi-Horvat-Boeser

    Daniel-Rasmussen-Granlund

    Gaunce-Haley-Dorsett

    Leftovers; Sutter and Chaput. Wild cards; Rodin, Boucher.

    • I don’t understand why would you play Rasmussen over Sutter at 3C. For example, over the last two years, the PPG has been 0.15 vs. 0.43 and FO% is about 45% to 53%, respectively. Sutter can win face-offs and score goals. Rasmussen is inferior in almost every single way. He’d come cheap but you’d get what you pay, for which is not a lot.

      • wojohowitz

        I have a really low opinion of Sutter. I see a fourth line center who can kill penalties and win faceoffs and that`s it. I don`t even see leadership abilities which is why he was acquired. The irony is that he is probably the highest paid member ever of the Sutter clan while his uncles and his father were true warriors, leaders and captains but with that contract the Canucks may as well keep him as they would probably only get a third round draft pick for him.

        • 17 goals last year puts him with veterans like Karlsson, Zetterberg, Stepan, and Backes, and next-gen players like Galchenyuk, Larkin, Reinhart, and Mantha (#125 to #141 in goals). You gotta give him credit for that.

        • Killer Marmot

          Sutter’s numbers were easily third-line caliber last year. Add to this the facts that he was Desjardin’s go-to man for defensive-zone faceoffs, and did a ton of penalty killing, and he looks nothing like a fourth-line centre to me.

          • wojohowitz

            It`s just my opinion of course but here is what I saw last season. The first line (the twins) expected to play with Eriksson and when that did not happen they became demoralized and probably questioned Willie`s deployments – only among the Swedish players – leading to their worst season since being rookies. The fourth line did it`s job but could not score. The third line – mainly being Eriksson and Sutter – was non-functional and accomplished almost nothing. The second line (Horvat and Baertschi) played as well as a couple of young guys could but they were the only line working and you just can`t win with one line playing well. The Canucks really needed the third line to step up and they did not do the job expected from a couple of veterans players and I lay that all on Sutter.

          • Killer Marmot

            wojohowitz:

            Well yes, the Canucks needed the third line to step up and play like a second line because they didn’t have a premium first line. Instead the third line played like a decent third line. Sure. But playing like a decent third line doesn’t make it fourth-line caliber, if you get my line.

    • Missing Lou

      Don’t break the twins up now, I say find a third for the twins and play them in the second slot. They can mentor the young guns and show them what it takes to play in the NHL. I hope (REALLY HOPE) Green will bring a breath of fresh air to the deployment of all players and I think we can all expect his AHL stand outs to show up this season.

    • Rodzilla

      Sutter on the sidelines? Yeah ok. You can dream

      And why does everyone have granlund on the 3rd line for some reason? He was the top scoring winger last year.

      And at -27 last year, I think Henrik is done as a 1st line center.

  • apr

    Yes, on all accounts as long as they are cheap on one year deals. There is nothing wrong in making the Goldobins, Boesers, Virtanans, and Bouchers earn and win jobs over veterans. However, the veterans must be productive (not like Megna and Chaput). What killed last year was that Boucher was productive while Megna and Chaput were totally useless. Gifting spots to young players may do more harm than good (see Virtanan and McCann) but making them earn it (ie Stecher over Larsson) can have a meaningful impact on their development. So yes, sign tradable veterans at low cost and either flip them at the trade deadline or force the kids to play better. But my god, don’t give them the Megna and Chaput rope.

    • Dirk22

      Not playing doesn’t necessarily mean hindering development if players aren’t ready. Rebuilding is about accumulating a young talent pool. Whether they’re ready to play or not right now doesn’t really matter as the objective is to be competitive in 3-4 years.

      • Jackson McDonald

        Thank you. Assuming all your prospects will be ready to play and not signing free agents as insurance is how you end up with Gilbert Perrault.

        If Goldobin or Boeser or Dahlen are good enough to play, then let them play. I’m not suggesting any of these FAs should play ahead of any of them. But assuming Boeser, Dahlen, Goldobin, Boucher, Molino, etc. can ALL play 82 games next year would be incredibly reckless.

        • Killer Marmot

          The problem is this: there is no shortage of decent players already in the system to fill out the bottom of the Canucks forward lines, even without assuming that every decent prospect is NHL ready. In fact, there is an over-abundance of possibilities. Adding to it with average UFAs doesn’t buy much, and uses up contract space that is needed for young prospects or opportunities later on. The only exception might be Rodin.

          So far as defense is concerned, the case for signing a UFA is better. But still, I have difficulty believing that of the six or so good defensive prospects in the system, two of them won’t make serviceable third-line Ds next season.

          There is, I grant you, and excellent case — even an urgent one — for signing a quality net minder.

        • TheRealPB

          Jackson, I am assuming you mean Gilbert Brule and not Perrault. Because anything that would guarantee us Gilbert Perrault I’d do. I don’t in any way think that we should gift young players positions. Nor should we turn down a really better player if we have them as possibilities. But stocking up on retreads and reclamation projects dooms us to a perpetual rebuild.

  • Neil B

    If we can sign a relatively useful vet for an ’empty slot’ (ie: playing with the Sedins, bottom-pairing D), then I’m all-in, so long as they don’t sign him for more than $1.97 mill on a 1-year deal. I’d rather not take more than a $1 mill hit for burying a contract if a kid steals the job.

    But that is predicated on the assumption that we get serious about player development and stop rushing kids into the NHL. To steal from Marmott’s list, Dahlen, Molino, Boucher, Subban, & even Virtanen should be going to Utica unless, and only unless, they have elevated their game to potential Calder nominee levels. Learn to be a pro away from the big magnifying glass. Having a couple undervalued pros on 1-year deals would help us to do exactly that.

    Goldie is a different case, BTW. He’s been in the minors long enough that he should be ready to fight for an NHL job. Not gifted a job, mind; but an honest competition to take the position.

    • apr

      I agree with Goldy – he needs to be put into a situation where he can succeed as he’s proven himself in the AHL. I just people would give Virtanan time to develop – or else we could regret letting him go early like the Islanders (Bert), Montreal (Leclair), and uhm – the Nucks (Neely).

  • Braindead Benning

    I still shake my head when I see a player like Vrbata being talked about as still being useful, unless you include a player that can step up a notch when it doesn’t count. If anything, this is the time old Jimbo and co. should sway away from signing second tier UFA”s or reclamation projects
    and just live and die by icing THEIR product that has taken managment basically 4 years to develop.

      • Braindead Benning

        Lol… you right there… but I doubt he would have performed at that pace had he be playing for the Canucks. IMO, I just don’t think highly of the player and one could argue whether he is a good mentoring type veteran for a young group.

      • TheRealPB

        You mean the same Vrbata who refused to accept a trade at the deadline out of Arizona last year, after the year before refusing to consider a trade out of Vancouver at the deadline? That’s who you think would make a good mentor after sulking the second half of his second season when placed with Horvat and Baertschi? That’s the person you think we could flip at the next deadline?

        There are lots of examples of players who can score at a decent clip on a terrible team. That’s not necessarily a reason you want to put them on yours.

  • defenceman factory

    Looking at the “under the radar” and “reclamation” UFAs is intriguing and makes interesting reading. I just don’t see the need or the roster space to do that with a forward. Maybe there is room for one Dman UFA in this category.

    Who kills penalties next year? Burrows fetched Dahlin at the deadline because he was still a serviceble penalty killer. The UFAs being discussed/suggested here all have some enticing potential on offence. They don’t kill penalties and neither do the younger players they would supplant for ice time. Canucks were 28th on the PK last year. How does it get better without Hansen and Burrows? I know the PP was also poor but with a new coach and more Brock, Bo and Loui and less Branden it will be at least somewhat better.

    Canucks have some cap space. Get higher end, maybe older UFAs who can kill penalties. Burrows only had 20 points in 55 games and yielded a high end prospect at the deadline. The cost is less important than a shorter term.

    • Killer Marmot

      Molino was an excellent penalty killer at Western Michigan. He has the quickness and agility — even by NHL standards — needed for the role, and seems to enjoy it.

      Of course the NHL is a big step up, but he’s most certainly worth consideration.

  • East Coast Smooth

    BC born and raised, lived in New Jersey for 15 years and moved back to Vancouver 2 weeks ago. Met Kyle Quincey, lived in my building. Became friends, watched him play a lot with the Devils. Would be a cheap pick up to mentor the young guys on D, he loves Vancouver, and he is one of the most solid, mature hockey guys I have ever met. He understands what it takes to be a pro, all season.