fanofvan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 9 minutes ago, Coconuts said: How much do you want to pay for a rental? The Canucks already gave up a boatload for a rental; 1st, 4th (or 3rd), 2 prospects, and Kuzmenko. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 5 hours ago, Bob Long said: its a lateral move tho, we need to add to our top 6 not take anything away. Well maybe Mik but he's really more of a top 9. Well my original statement said Brock or Garland. I think Mike can get traded as well.We should then have the cap room but for sure one has to go as the cap should go up 4 mill. That only covers the oel buyout.Wuth so many to resign plus adding a couple from Abby only makes sense to trade 2 of the three in the summer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 14 minutes ago, Bardown said: too many important future pieces there. We are also not at a stage where we should be going "all in" like that when you've been knocking on the door of the finals for multiple years that's when you shove your chips in...we have to learn to win in the playoffs first before we start throwing away multiple potential future core assets imho... Yeah, I understand. But that's not it feels like with this management group. Feels like chips are all in this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, fanofvan said: The Canucks already gave up a boatload for a rental; 1st, 4th (or 3rd), 2 prospects, and Kuzmenko. yeah, there comes a point where it becomes too much. I'm also worried about too much on the roster. chemistry is just as important. And the last piece management has acquired hasn't seemed to find chemistry with the rest of his linemates just yet. Will he? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, fanofvan said: The Canucks already gave up a boatload for a rental; 1st, 4th (or 3rd), 2 prospects, and Kuzmenko. Would not trade another 1st for him. I was hoping for Toffee but I would not be happy for JG if we trade a 1st. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 16 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Why would you offer more value in a trade by saying you wanna re-sign him? My guess is if JR and PA trade for him they’re relying on their past relationship to get a deal done. I have my reservations about management getting Guentzel. I hope they have backup plans in place. Like who would they pursue if Guentzel simply costs too much and it would more than likely cripple the organizational depth than help it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: Would not trade another 1st for him. I was hoping for Toffee but I would not be happy for JG if we trade a 1st. but that's probably what Dubas is asking for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, N4ZZY said: but that's probably what Dubas is asking for. Of course. But that’s overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 For a rental. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardown Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 minute ago, Sharpshooter said: For a rental. he's basically asking for the same package as Horvat Horvat was pretty much willing to sign an extension was 4 years younger and a center who is very good in the circle Overpriced for sure 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, Bardown said: he's basically asking for the same package as Horvat Horvat was pretty much willing to sign an extension was 4 years younger and a center who is very good in the circle Overpriced for sure That’s why it’s a no-go 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 10 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: I have my reservations about management getting Guentzel. I hope they have backup plans in place. Like who would they pursue if Guentzel simply costs too much and it would more than likely cripple the organizational depth than help it? Sens supposedly want a 2nd and a prospect for Tarasenko 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 No to Guentzel, especially if Pittsburgh is demanding prospects. We need cheap contracts from our up and coming players to manage future cap space. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 9 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: Of course. But that’s overpriced. as most aquisitions are during this time of year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Going into the TDL and playoffs before the Lindholm deal, we had a few needs - top-6 forward was the key one. I'd argue a depth defenceman is always nice considering the fact that we had 2 AHL defencemen playing in the last game, so we can see what injuries can do to this team very quickly. We only wanted a center because the Lotto line was together but now that they're split up we've got Petey and Miller on separate lines and Blueger a very solid 3C. We go out and spend a bunch of assets of Lindholm, great, that should satisfy our needs. Why now are we still hunting for a top-6 scorer? We now find ourselves looking for a scoring winger....we just traded one to Calgary? I get the whole point of Kuz not playing defence and Lindholm being a great all-around player but this just seems a bit sloppy on our behalf and quite desperate with throwing our futures around when we could have just made one wise move, instead of swinging for two home runs and missing. If we lose any more top picks or prospects this season we're begging for trouble. It's all about balance - balancing "going for it" and having a sustainable winning culture. I don't mind one big play like the Lindholm deal. Don't forget we also flipped picks (albeit late ones) for Zadorov mid-season. But another deal involving 1sts and top prospects would be irresponsible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, KoreanHockeyFan said: No to Guentzel, especially if Pittsburgh is demanding prospects. We need cheap contracts from our up and coming players to manage future cap space. yea, and our prospect pool isn't deep enough where we can give Dubas what he's asking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 hours ago, Coconuts said: They certainly have the picks to do it, less sure about the prospects but Matthew Wood and Felix Nilsson are their first and second round picks from this past draft Maybe Joakim Kemmel, their top pick from 2022 or Tanner Molendyk, the 24th OA from 2023 Speaking of strictly picks, they have their 1st over the next three seasons as well as Tampa's 1st next season, three 2nd's this draft, a couple 3rd's this draft, and most of their other picks over the next three drafts If Nashville actually wants to pay it's doubtful either Vancouver or Vegas could outbid them, they could use firepower up front, but it comes down to whether Guentzel would extend there Nashville might be the only place that can actually afford to give him the 8+ he's probably looking for. I can totally see this being a fit all around. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said: Going into the TDL and playoffs before the Lindholm deal, we had a few needs - top-6 forward was the key one. I'd argue a depth defenceman is always nice considering the fact that we had 2 AHL defencemen playing in the last game, so we can see what injuries can do to this team very quickly. We only wanted a center because the Lotto line was together but now that they're split up we've got Petey and Miller on separate lines and Blueger a very solid 3C. We go out and spend a bunch of assets of Lindholm, great, that should satisfy our needs. Why now are we still hunting for a top-6 scorer? We now find ourselves looking for a scoring winger....we just traded one to Calgary? I get the whole point of Kuz not playing defence and Lindholm being a great all-around player but this just seems a bit sloppy on our behalf and quite desperate with throwing our futures around when we could have just made one wise move, instead of swinging for two home runs and missing. If we lose any more top picks or prospects this season we're begging for trouble. It's all about balance - balancing "going for it" and having a sustainable winning culture. I don't mind one big play like the Lindholm deal. Don't forget we also flipped picks (albeit late ones) for Zadorov mid-season. But another deal involving 1sts and top prospects would be irresponsible. Which is why a deal for Guentzel hasn't been made yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Sens supposedly want a 2nd and a prospect for Tarasenko He's definitely not the sniper that he used to be, and he's not comparable to Guentzel for sure. Can he still score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure961089 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 18 hours ago, Captain insano said: Dude…. Maybe get your facts straight rather than playing victim after a terrible comment You add nothing of value to any conversation. Your comment lacked a point. Next time when you interject, try to add something substantive. All you have is a "you made a mistake". We all have and we all do, Grow up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 minute ago, N4ZZY said: He's definitely not the sniper that he used to be, and he's not comparable to Guentzel for sure. Can he still score? 17 goals and 41 points in 57 games, he's still a top six forward He could possibly get 25+ with the Canucks 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardown Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 7 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Sens supposedly want a 2nd and a prospect for Tarasenko Depends on the prospect but that's a no brainer for us.... Tarasenko is big too... 41 pts in 57 games +13 on Ottawa 6'1 219lbs Playoff performer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 27 minutes ago, fanofvan said: The Canucks already gave up a boatload for a rental; 1st, 4th (or 3rd), 2 prospects, and Kuzmenko. All signs point to taking a run at an extension for Lindholm not set in stone that he is a rental by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, Bardown said: Depends on the prospect but that's a no brainer for us.... Tarasenko is big too... 41 pts in 57 games +13 on Ottawa 6'1 219lbs Playoff performer He brings some beef, yeah I hate how the Canucks throw around 2nd round picks, but depending on the prospect I'd accept a 2nd+ for Tarasenko instead of giving up a 1st+ for Guentzel I want management to make a habit of actually selecting players with their 1st round picks, they've done a pretty good job when they have thus far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguez Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 minutes ago, Coconuts said: 17 goals and 41 points in 57 games, he's still a top six forward He could possibly get 25+ with the Canucks I've said it before, my targets would be Giroux the Tarasenko. Not sure Giroux would want to leave OTT but if he did he would be a huge add for this team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts