Jeremy Hronek

True, but Schneider was nothing but class (well.....other than those cheesy Jannik Hansen imitations I guess, lol).

True but keep in mind that this was for a stacked 2023 draft. That + elite prospects (i.e. players that had a very impressive D+1 year and looked all but guaranteed to be Top 6 forwards/Top 4 d-men.....with potential to be much more. But anyways, I'm glad we didn't go that route.

Trust me, I 100% understand your perspective. I feel like this is going to be difficult for me to explain without looking like a crackpot (am already likely coming across as one), and I'll so I'll try and explain it. Basically, I want to create a scenario for the Canucks in which...... 1. They retain 90-95% of their farm prowess over the next 3-4 years even while "going for it." 2. They continue 'filling the pipeline' of prospects as to avoid another post 2013 fall off a cliff. 3. They add a key piece to the current core and make a legit attempt at going for the cup 4. They add a 'win now' core piece signed for multiple years as opposed to a rental 5. They clear long term cap obligations so that they can offer both Pettersson and Hronek long-term 7-8 year deals instead of the rumoured 3-4 years deals to a lack of long term cap space (i.e. they could focus primarily on Pettersson and Hronek instead of being obligated to spend a sizeable portion of the freed up Myers/Beauvillier money on a Top 3 defenseman). Based on all of the above, I feel like the only way to achieve all of the above would be in using Willander as a "mini-sweetener" to move Conor Garland in a legitimate 'hockey deal' which would land us that #2A/#3 calibre defenseman. Yes, losing Willander would suck, but if moving Willander would allow us to 1. Move Garland in a hockey deal without needing to retain 2.Bring in a "win now" piece like Rasmus Andersson 3. Allow us the future cap space to sign both Pettersson and Hronek to long term 7-8 year deals 4. Allow us to keep the rest of our picks and prospects since the "go for now over these next 3-4 years" requirement will have been met Then I think it's a good deal to make. My biggest concern with some of the other proposals that have been mentioned are as follows: 1. Chris Tanev is not only aging and breaking down, but he won't come cheap. Ask any Flames fan right now and they'll tell you the same thing. Tanev, god bless the guy, has been a warrior, but he hasn't looked the same this year. He's a #4 calibre dman at best. The asking price for Tanev is Hoglander.....a guy who has late bloomer written all over him. 2. Neither Podkolzin nor our 2024 1st will have much value. Given where the Canucks are in the standings, combined with where they would be projected to finish IF they made a 'go for it now' type deal, that 2024 1st could likely be anywhere from 23-32. Secondly, Podkolzin is a D+4 player that still hasn't made the NHL. While you and I might think the world of Podkolzin (I actually think Podz will figure it out eventually and become a decent 2nd/3rd line tweener for us), other teams probably view him as a reclamation project at this point, and would likely try and buy low on him. They aren't going to give up a premium asset with Podkolzin being a centre-piece in said deal. 3. Silovs and Lekkerimaki. Now outside of Willander, Silovs and Lekkerimaki will have some significant value and should be able to garner some significant interest. However, we need to consider the following: A. We will likely need to choose between Boeser and Kuzmenko at some point. Hence, the importance of having JL in your system so that he can step in on ELC as a replacement. B. We will likely need a heir apparent to Thatcher Demko at some point (Demko will be a 30 year old UFA in 3 years and doesn't have the best track record of staying healthy). And so the way I see it, moving either of Silovs or Lekkerimaki is an absolute no-no. And to one of your earlier points, I don't think Andersson will get offered an 8*8 when he becomes a UFA in 3 seasons. Andersson is a great player but he's not a superstar. He'd probably get offered a 4-5 year deal at most (maybe I'm wrong?). Given our "Swedish Penguins" culture, I could definitely see Andersson wanting to stay here if guys like Pettersson, Hronek, Hoglander, etc. are around. Also agreed with you that Willander will likely become a better player than Andersson at some point, but will he become better than Andersson over the next 4 seasons? (during our 'window'?). In my scenario, the way things would play out is that we'd sign both Petey and Hronek to 7-8 year deals, have Andersson on board, and then have both Raty and Podkolzin (two ELC contracts) replacing Garland and Beauvillier next season. Now in conclusion, do I actually THINK that Alvin is going to package Willander with Garland in a "hockey deal?" Absolutely not. Will be interesting to see what transpires however.

Haha, yeah. Again, sorry for earlier. I had a bizarre cathartic moment and really should have stopped typing after I said I would (and then proceeded not to). Obviously, you guys are right. There is never an acceptable circumstance in which a man hits a woman. I just don't understand why Cory Schneider was referred to as a "loser" by this woman. Her issue was with Schneider's GF and not Cory himself. Fuck me. If Cory Schneider is a loser in life, then I feel bad for 99.999% of the population, including myself. God forbid if someone becomes a fucking pro athlete, dedicates himself to his craft, and then eventually becomes elite at his position. In what fucking world can ANYONE call a guy like that a loser? Just makes no fucking sense. Completely and utterly unprovoked nonsensical attack on a man who is nothing but class. But anyways - hope Lucic and his GF/wife are able to work out there issues and I also hope that Lucic's GF has grown up and gained some perspective since 2012.

Agreed, I don't know what got into me. While those comments from 2012 are upsetting, it's no reason for a woman to get beaten. Apologies to those that were upset by my comments. Agreed.

I'll admit that I don't want to see Lucic's girlfriend get assaulted again. I regret my earlier comments. Just livid about her idiotic comments regarding Cory.

She insulted Cory Schneider for no reason whatsoever. Her argument was with Schneider's girlfriend.......not Cory. Cory is not a loser (or "looser" as she wrote at the time) at all. Cory was a professional athlete that busted his ass and made the big leagues....and eventually became an elite goalie for 5-6 years. Cory is someone that I watched grow as a Canuck and was a part of that 2011 cup team. That bitch had absolutely no right to insult Cory. So yes, I am absolutely glad that a 240 lbs Milan Lucic quite possibly physically assaulted her. I hope he does it again. https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2012/04/02/milan-lucics-girlfriend-brittany-carnegie-in-twitter-fight/ "Carnegie went on to call Schneider, who played college hockey at BC, the “Canucks loser back up goaltender.’’

What makes me absolutely livid about Lucic's wife, is how she disrespected Cory Schneider back in 2012. If you recall, Lucic's wife (GF at the time) and Schneider's girlfriend got into some kind of weird argument. Weird, but that's fine. That's life sometimes. What was completely unacceptable however was how Lucic GF/Wife brought up Cory's name by calling him a "looser (loser) back-up goalie." So let me get this straight - a guy, who worked his butt off in life, became a professional athlete, and eventually became an elite NHL goalie for a good 5-6 years, is a "looser?" I'm getting livid just typing this and so I'd better stop typing before I say something stupid. I'll go on record as saying that I'm glad Milan knocked this cunt out of if that is in fact what happened. Fuck her for disrespecting my boy Cory.

@IBatch, Hey, I think a few days back, I seem to recall you mentioning the Chicago Blackhawks as an example somewhere (with regards to how they managed their cap from 2008-2015). I can't find that post but I think you mentioned something along the lines of Chicago won all of those cups because their top players were on cap friendly bridge deals. The Kings also followed this model when they won their two cups, and the Penguins indirectly fell into this model once the salary cap started to rise (which, in effect, brought down Crosby, Malkin and Letang's overall CF% from "premium contracts" into steals). You are absolutely correct by the way - those cost-controlled cap hits were a big reason why Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh enjoyed those multiple cup wins. Unfortunately for the Canucks, that window has already passed. Benning already sold Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko on the idea of "taking one for the team" so that they could build a winner. That's why Boeser's initial RFA deal was 5.8 million, while Petey's was 7.3 (and Hughes = 7.8, Demko = 5), and so on. Even Bo Horvat's initial deal was only 5.5 million, while JT Miller was specifically brought in since he had a sweetheart cap. In 2019, Benning had anticipated that we could sign our core players to sweet heart deals while simultaneously being able to get rid of our "expensive veteran leadership" contracts when our young core were ready to be the leaders. For various reasons, this plan didn't work out as planned (I won't get into a lengthy discussion about this). My point remains however - Pettersson already "took one for the team," with his current 7.3 million deal. Unfortunately, this time around, we will have to pay the man and that's fine. Last decade, it was impossible for teams to win with 10 million dollar cap hit players on their team but more and more teams are being forced to use this model (i.e. far less 'bridge' deals to superstar players after ELC's). Those 2010-2015 Chicago and LA models are being phased out now as top players everywhere will get paid sooner than later.

Hey IBatch, Good post. Here's my thought. I'm NOT interested in trading assets (with a plural) to cater to our 3-4 year window as you put it. Why? Because - I believe there are strength in numbers. The more picks you have, the more likely it is that you hit find a gem in the haystack (i.e. like Tampa did with Braden Point). Now, even if said picks don't become elite players, I think there's something to be said about guys that can make your bottom 6/3rd pairing and significantly exceed their values. Next season for instance - would it be farfetched to believe that Raty, Podkolzin, and Silovs could step into our line next season on ELC's? What if Raty, Podkolzin, and Silovs all successfully replaced Bluegar, Beauviller, and DeSmith? What about on defense? Even if on a 3rd pairing, what if one of Hirose or McWard made the #6 spot? Now all of a sudden, you're quietly saving a ton of money on these fronts which could allow the Canucks to invest heavier on top end talent. Now, having said ALL that, while I'm not interested in trading AssetS (with a plural), I would be interested in trading our most prized asset (asset as in ONE), Willander, with Conor Garland, in a "hockey deal," if it landed us a "win now" #2A/#3 calibre RD like Rasmus Andersson (or someone similar to that). 1. It helps the Canucks go for the cup within the 3-4 year window that you describe 2. With Garland off the books, combined with Myers and Beauviller in the Summer, it would give the Canucks more cap options in terms of signing both Pettersson and Hronek to 7-8 year deals at higher cap hits (as opposed to the 3-4 years that has been rumoured.....since it would be a lower cap hit). 3. The Canucks wouldn't have to sacrifice their 2024 1st and 2025 1st in order to make a significant push. Trade Willander - that's it. So while the Canucks would be 'making a push for the cup' over these next 3-4 years', you can continue filling the pipeline with your 2024 1st, 2025 1st, and so forth, while continuing to groom and nurture guys like Hoglander, Podkolzin, Raty, Lekkerimaki (Boeser/Kuzmenko replacement), Silovs (DeSmith....and possibly Demko replacement one day), Hirose, Hunter B, and McWard.

Packaging Willander with Garland would help the Canucks both short term AND long term: I think you nailed it in many ways with your post. In all likelihood, getting rid of Garland would not only cost one a draft pick, but the return for such a deal would be little to nothing (since our trading partner, in theory, would be doing the Canucks a favour by taking Garland's contract off of us). So essentially, you'd be depleting your asset pool to get rid of a contract........which is where my Willander + Garland solution comes in. If the Canucks were to package Garland with Willander (i.e. a premium prospect that would have likely gone Top 10 in a normal draft), not only would you successfully get rid of Garland, but you'd probably be able to create a legitimate "hockey deal." And so that's why the idea of packaging Willander + Garland appeals to me (in trading for a guy like Rasmus Andersson if Calgary decides to rebuild). 1. The Canucks, with the addition of Andersson, make an aggressive push to win the cup during their 3-4 year window (i.e. now until Hughes becomes a UFA). 2. By getting Garland off the books, combined with Myers and Beau coming off the books in the Summer, it gives the Canucks more cap options. For example, instead of being 'cap challenged' and only being able to sign both Pettersson and Hronek to 3-4 year deals (as is the current rumour), the Canucks would have more cap space available to sign both Pettersson and Hronek to 7-8 year deals. So, in theory, as counter-intuitive as this would sound, a hypothetical deal involving Willander as a mini-sweetener to move Garland (to Calgary, for Andersson) would indirectly help set up the organization LONG TERM as well as the short term. 3. Losing Willander would suck, but we could keep all of our other assets that Alvin and Rutherford have built and acquired. Hoglander, Podkolzin, Raty, Lekkerimaki, our 2024 1st, Hunter B, Hirose, McWard, Silovs, etc........ALL of these guys can stay put in our system. Now, here is my most important point. Even if these players/prospects that I mentioned do NOT have the ceiling and potential that Tom Willander has, they can still be extremely valuable to us......why? because........even in bottom 6 roles or 3rd pairing roles, they can step into the line-up and contribute while still being on ELC's........and hence, potentially exceeding their cap hit values in a significant way. For example, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if BOTH Raty and Podkolzin made the team next year on ELC's. And in the following year, maybe Lekkerimaki would replace one of Kuzmenko or Boeser while being on an ELC. Maybe Hirose and McWard, even if they end up being 3rd pairing calibre guys, can potentially join the team on ELC's. Ditto for Silovs if he replaces DeSmith next season. Given that OEL's cap penalty will reach its peak in 2-3 seasons, we are going to need these types guys. Now - are ALL of the aforementioned prospects going to make the team? Hell no. BUT - by having a higher quantity of good prospects in our system, we can increase our chances. THAT caters to the long term. For the short term however, yes, you bite the bullet, trade Willander (with Garland), and bring in a guy like Rasmus Andersson that can help us win NOW. I know many posters on here have this fantasy of trading any variation of Podkolzin, our 2024 1st, etc., but these assets don't have as much value as we think. Podz is a D+4 pick that still hasn't made the team. Teams aren't going to give up a premium asset with him being the center piece. Furthermore, if the Canucks continue their current winning ways, their 2024 1st would likely be somewhere between 16-32.

No. 1. Willander + Garland in a hockey deal would actually significantly lessen our long term cap burden since the subtraction of Myers and Beauviller from the books in the Summer would give us the money to sign BOTH Pettersson and Hronek to LONG TERM deals (7-8 years) as opposed to shorter term 4 year deals (as is being rumoured) since a large chunk of that money could be spent on both players (as opposed to us signing both players to shorter term deals, saving some cap, and then using that freed up cap to sign a top 4 defenseman). Given our cap situation over these next 3-4 years, being able to get Garland off the books AND bringing in a 'win now' #2A/#3 calibre d-man would be a huge win for both the short term AND long term. 2. Every other proposal suggested on here has some kind of package involving some variation of Podkolzin, Hoglander, Raty, 2024 1st, Lekkerimaki, Silovs, Hunter B, and Hirose. Under my plan, all of those assets would stay here. Even if all/most of these guys don't become superstars like Willander might (per se), having those guys being able to potentially step into the line-up on ELC's and contribute (even on bottom 6 roles / 3rd pairings) would be a massive win......especially in a couple of seasons when OEL's buyout hits its peak. That is what I had in mind.

I completely understand where you're coming from and you're right, we probably aren't trading Tom Willander 99.999% guaranteed. My only thing is this - IF we are going to 'dare to dream' about bringing in a legit #2A/#3 calibre defenseman (and no, Andrew Peeke isn't that guy), then that's probably the price you'll be looking at. I know many people on here having been creating proposals involving any combination of Podkolzin, Hoglander, Garland, and our 2024 1st, but those assets don't have as much value as people may want to believe. Lekkerimaki would be an attractive piece for other teams, but we'll likely need him since we're probably going to have to choose between Boeser and Kuzmenko at some point. If the Canucks are destined to be a Top 10 team this year, then our 2024 1st isn't going to hold massive value. Secondly, while someone like Podkolzin still has a lot of promise (imo), he's a D+4 player right now that still hasn't cracked the league. Teams aren't going to be giving up a premium asset with Podkolzin being one of the center pieces in said deal. Trading for a legit #2A/#3 is wonderful in theory, but it's not going to be easy. Podz + 2024 1st isn't going to cut it. You and I both know what the potential cost for an aging and soon-to-be-UFA Chris Tanev would be (Hoglander). Hoglander has slowly and steadily gotten better and has late bloomer written all over him (i.e. could be a half-decent 2nd line player one day). Would it make sense to give up a guy like Hoglander for what may very well be an aging rental? My other thing with Willander is this: IF you can trade Willander, AND package him with a long term bad contract (Garland) and STILL get a good #2A/#3 calibre defenseman in return that is signed for 3 seasons (Andersson), then I think it's a pretty good deal. Not only do you cater to the 'compete now' philosophy, but you also significantly reduce the cap burden. With Myers and Beauviller slated to come off the books in the Summer, ALL/most of that money could go towards signing both Pettersson and Hronek to LONG TERM deals (7-8 years) instead of the rumoured shorter term deals they might be looking to get (due to our cap complications). In this scenario, we could offer them more money because we would no longer be looking for a #2A/#3 calibre defenseman to add. Losing Willander would suck, but getting out of Garland's contract would be a big win. Furthermore, we'd still have a plethora of prospects on the farm that could realistically step into the line-up on ELC's if need be (i.e. Raty, Podkolzin, Lekkerimarki, Hirose, Hunter B, etc). So - maybe we wouldn't have that massive blue chip prospect anymore (Willander), but we'd have a lot of depth pieces (at low cost) that could potentially step up and help us. So - in a weird sort of way, packaging Willander with Garland for someone like Andersson might actually help us both short term AND long term (long term in the sense that Garland would be off the books + you wouldn't be sacrificing half the farm for short term gain - just one guy). And keep in mind with Andersson, we'd have him for this season + 2 more seasons until he would become a UFA at age 30. Sign him to a 4 year deal afterwards and you'd then have Andersson (at or close to his peak) for 7 years.

Sorry to keep 'butting heads' with you but the trade is kind of 'meh' for me. First of all, Phil Kessel is washed up. He *had* 83 points in 100 games. There's a reason why guys like him and Alex Edler haven't been signed as of yet. No idea why some guys on here want to sign either player. Father Time remains undefeated. Peeke would be a nice short-term band-aid until we get healthy again, but still, I don't like the idea of moving a prospect like Hirose for what would essentially be a short-term band-aid until Soucy comes back. At some point, if you want to develop your prospects and get them to the next level, you have to be willing to bring them up and play them when injuries occur. Yes guys like Hirose and McWard will make mistakes while up here but that's the only way they are going to learn and get better. Give your kids NHL exposure on bottom pairings and then sign Bear when he's available. You either commit to having infrastructure and links between your farm and your big club, or you don't (hint - ever since the good ol' days when guys like Burrows, Bieksa, Hansen, Raymond, etc., all came up, we haven't had this!). Given Garland's cap hit + term for two years after this, I'm just not sure if I see Columbus being happy with this deal. Paying Kurlay $2.5 million dollars for this season and next (to be a 4th liner in your projection) wouldn't be very good cap management in my opinion. There are other ways to add toughness without needing to shell out $2.5 million. Just my $0.02.

Hard pass. Zaitsev sucks.

Move Beauviller for low end draft pick if necessary.

What do you anticipate the acquisition cost being?

If Milan Lucic goes to jail over this, I'm going to mail him pictures of him celebrating the cup in Vancouver to his jail cell. That should cheer him up.

He's not the only that is going to have fun with this.

Brittany is another goof. Memories of her chirping Corey Schneider's girlfriend for no reason whatsoever. That being said, I do sympathize with her (slightly) if she was in fact abused in this case.

Good. I hope Milan Lucic gets jailed for 15-20 years (I know it won't happen but a man can wish!) LOL

It's a terrific song. JJ Adams can kindly fuck off.

What about Wolanin? Why not give Hirose a shot at the bigs? In order for young players to improve, they need to see NHL ice. So why not give Hirose a shot up here? He's waiver exempt is he not? You can't be petrified to give your farm prospects some NHL time. Let's see what the kid's got. He looked half-decent for us at the end of last season. Build on that.

Why not just sign him *for free* in the off-season? Yep, you nailed it. Like a Rasmus Andersson calibre player right? (maybe not him specifically per se, but someone of that calibre). I'd be on board with this IF the acquisition cost isn't too beastly, but I can't see it being anything but. People on here seem to think that Podkolzin and a 2024 1st would be a "good package," but would it really? Look at it from others teams' perspectives. The Canucks are tracking to be a Top 10 this year.....and so that 2024 1st would likely be low. Podkolzin is a D+4 player that still hasn't cracked our line-up. While I think Podkolzin still has a lot of potential, teams aren't going to pay a premium price for him since he's probably almost viewed as a reclamation project. Lekkerimaki will likely be needed to replace one of Kuzmenko or Boeser when we'll likely have to choose one of them, while Silovs is projected to be our Demko replacement. Most other organizations already have young players/prospects like Hoglander, Hirose, Raty, McWard, etc. I mean, look at the rumoured acquisition cost for a past-his-prime Chris Tanev for instance (UFA at the end of the season). The conversation *starts* with Hoglander+. That's too high a price in my opinion. If you're looking for a "cost controlled established asset that we can add to our core with," the conversation likely starts with Willander or Lekkerimaki. Last but not least, I hate to be the one to say this, but I agree with @VegasCanuck. This Canucks team, while good, likely isn't an elite team just yet. Their current shooting percentage is unsustainable (although I'd be interested to see if they can adjust when it inevitably comes down a bit). Furthermore, Thomas Drance has pointed out that even with Pettersson and Miller on the ice, the Canucks are giving up territorial advantage for the most part 5 on 5 (for the last 7-8 games). As impressive as our current record is right now, we aren't at 2011 levels just yet. The twins line and Kesler's line absolutely dominated possession and territory during their heyday. To me, this current Canucks team looks like an exaggerated/better version of the 2006-2007 team and/or the 2014-2015 team. Our lack of size come playoff time might also become an issue. I still prefer "slow and steady," rather than 'busting a nut' to try and win the cup this year.