NoCupSyndrome Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, aGENT said: Garland does not fit in our top 6. He drives the 3rd line, precisely because he needs/has the puck. Same goes for guys like Miller and Petey. You can't have 2 guys on a line that both need the puck to be successful. IMO, as good as that line's been, and as good as Garland is, his near $5m cap hit is a luxury we can't afford on our 3rd line next year. Certainly not at the expense of a better top 6 / top 4. That isn't from me, that is from Tocc. He just mentioned in one of his media scrims that he has played with the idea of moving Garland up the line up. Tocc loves him so could see Mgmt holding on to him and looking to add low cost value around him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 22 minutes ago, NoCupSyndrome said: That isn't from me, that is from Tocc. He just mentioned in one of his media scrims that he has played with the idea of moving Garland up the line up. Tocc loves him so could see Mgmt holding on to him and looking to add low cost value around him. Again, why wouldn't anyone love him? He's a spark plug player that's driving our 3rd line to impressive performance. "Played with the idea"...sure. I suppose like with Horvat, Garland could potentially match well with Lindholm as the guy with the puck/play driver on that line, and allow us to put the lotto line together... It's at least an option that wasn't there before though. But if it doesn't work and/or we prefer to keep Petey/Lindholm together, I maintain he's a $5m luxury we can't afford on our 3rd line next year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby James Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 minute ago, aGENT said: Again, why wouldn't anyone love him? He's a spark plug player that's driving our 3rd line to impressive performance. "Played with the idea"...sure. I suppose like with Horvat, Garland could potentially match well with Lindholm as the guy with the puck/play driver on that line, and allow us to put the lotto line together... It's at least an option that wasn't there before though. But if it doesn't work and/or we prefer to keep Petey/Lindholm together, I maintain he's a $5m luxury we can't afford on our 3rd line next year. Would you be fine with Mik being moved out and keeping Garland or if you had to choose would you prefer Garland be the guy moved and we keep Mik? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Just now, Bobby James said: Would you be fine with Mik being moved out and keeping Garland or if you had to choose would you prefer Garland be the guy moved and we keep Mik? If Garland can't/won't fit in our top 6, we're better off keeping Mik who does (and will also be back to full health after knee surgery by next year). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Face Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 6 minutes ago, aGENT said: Again, why wouldn't anyone love him? He's a spark plug player that's driving our 3rd line to impressive performance. "Played with the idea"...sure. I suppose like with Horvat, Garland could potentially match well with Lindholm as the guy with the puck/play driver on that line, and allow us to put the lotto line together... It's at least an option that wasn't there before though. But if it doesn't work and/or we prefer to keep Petey/Lindholm together, I maintain he's a $5m luxury we can't afford on our 3rd line next year. Our rat against Boston rat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCupSyndrome Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, aGENT said: Again, why wouldn't anyone love him? He's a spark plug player that's driving our 3rd line to impressive performance. "Played with the idea"...sure. I suppose like with Horvat, Garland could potentially match well with Lindholm as the guy with the puck/play driver on that line, and allow us to put the lotto line together... It's at least an option that wasn't there before though. But if it doesn't work and/or we prefer to keep Petey/Lindholm together, I maintain he's a $5m luxury we can't afford on our 3rd line next year. Any ways, as I wrote in my original post, it will be interesting to see how mgmt views him. They have shown an ability to be creative so I don't think it is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I am good either way, as long as the team is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Im starting to think if management pulled the plug too early on this trade considering how much Canucks gave up. I don't mind trading away Kuzmenko (he was never going to gel with Tocchet) but, after the last game, I am having doubts whether the team should have went all in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breadnbutta Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 20 hours ago, aGENT said: If Garland can't/won't fit in our top 6, we're better off keeping Mik who does (and will also be back to full health after knee surgery by next year). Garland > Mikheyev Our 3rd line is huge. Why would we break that up? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Breadnbutta said: Garland > Mikheyev Our 3rd line is huge. Why would we break that up? There's a good chance it'll be broken up anyway The cost of individual and team success is guys wanting raises Joshua and Blueger are both due for handsome raises, there's a solid chance only one or none of that third line is baco next season given the raises Pettersson, Hronek, and Lindholm should command Plus, several UFA D who'll need to be replaced or retained, all of whom could get solid raises (or closer to their current deal in Myers's case) given the weaker upcoming UFA pool for D More than likely the Canucks will need to make savvy moves, hard choices, and promote from within Edited February 9 by Coconuts 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 19 minutes ago, iinatcc said: Im starting to think if management pulled the plug too early on this trade considering how much Canucks gave up. I don't mind trading away Kuzmenko (he was never going to gel with Tocchet) but, after the last game, I am having doubts whether the team should have went all in. If you aren't worried about losing Kuzmenko what are you having doubts about? -a 27+ draft pick in a draft that falls off before 20? -Brzustewicz who needs to work on his skating, defensive awareness, refused to sign with us and was hoping to be traded? Oh I know what keeps you up at night... -That ever so valuable 4th round pick AND drumroll please..... -Joni Jurmo 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 15 minutes ago, Coconuts said: There's a good chance it'll be broken up anyway The cost of individual and team success is guys wanting raises Joshua and Blueger are both due for handsome raises, there's a solid chance only one or none of that third line is baco next season given the raises Pettersson, Hronek, and Lindholm should command Plus, several UFA D who'll need to be replaced or retained, all of whom could get solid raises (or closer to their current deal in Myers's case) given the weaker upcoming UFA pool for D More than likely the Canucks will need to make savvy moves, hard choices, and promote from within I would be fine with podz and suter taking over for josh and blue on the 3rd line if it meant keeping Lindholm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 58 minutes ago, Coryberg said: I would be fine with podz and suter taking over for josh and blue on the 3rd line if it meant keeping Lindholm. I think we're gonna have to see what players like Podz and Raty can do The turnover of quality players comes with being a successful team Folks should probably embrace that 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Interesting tid bit... sounds like Canucks management were eyeing Lindholm since last summer.... https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/canucks-in-no-rush-to-sign-elias-lindholm-to-extension-1.2073696 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 6 years, 8mil per. Match Miller's contract. Assuming he gels with Miller. Which sounds like is the route they want to take. Or are at least experimenting with. Miller/Lindholm/Boeser is our version of the Perfection Line. Can score, can defend, is hard nosed. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 All three are having a great season. If we can only keep 1 of the Corollas it has to be Joshua. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakystink Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 hours ago, Breadnbutta said: Garland > Mikheyev Our 3rd line is huge. Why would we break that up? Was one game. They shit the bed but will get it back together. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWestNuck Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 6 minutes ago, Sneakystink said: Was one game. They shit the bed but will get it back together. Agreed. Even Boston had one the night before against Calgary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guntrix Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 11 hours ago, Coconuts said: There's a good chance it'll be broken up anyway The cost of individual and team success is guys wanting raises Joshua and Blueger are both due for handsome raises, there's a solid chance only one or none of that third line is baco next season given the raises Pettersson, Hronek, and Lindholm should command Plus, several UFA D who'll need to be replaced or retained, all of whom could get solid raises (or closer to their current deal in Myers's case) given the weaker upcoming UFA pool for D More than likely the Canucks will need to make savvy moves, hard choices, and promote from within I don’t think we’re re-signing Lindholm tbh. Management’s going all-in this year. Re-signing Lindholm would mean giving up Joshua + Blueger (essentially sacrificing our entire third line) or not re-signing one of Pettersson or Hronek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks curse Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 23 minutes ago, Guntrix said: I don’t think we’re re-signing Lindholm tbh. Management’s going all-in this year. Re-signing Lindholm would mean giving up Joshua + Blueger (essentially sacrificing our entire third line) or not re-signing one of Pettersson or Hronek. Nope Move garland and milkeyev jishua gets 3 mull x 4 yrs bluegger 2.5x 3 yrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 12 hours ago, iinatcc said: Im starting to think if management pulled the plug too early on this trade considering how much Canucks gave up. I don't mind trading away Kuzmenko (he was never going to gel with Tocchet) but, after the last game, I am having doubts whether the team should have went all in. I feel like basing that feeling off of one game (as much as it sucked) might be a bit quick. If this was a series of poorly played games, then maybe. This team has proven to us that it's special all year long, and management can definitely see that too. Believe in the team that's shown up all year long. Getting a feeling they'll show us just this tomorrow morning in Detroit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 15 hours ago, iinatcc said: Im starting to think if management pulled the plug too early on this trade considering how much Canucks gave up. I don't mind trading away Kuzmenko (he was never going to gel with Tocchet) but, after the last game, I am having doubts whether the team should have went all in. So you are judging the trade based on one game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 hours ago, canucks curse said: Nope Move garland and milkeyev jishua gets 3 mull x 4 yrs bluegger 2.5x 3 yrs We don’t need Blueger because we have a ready made replacement in Suter who was actually our 3C before he got hurt. He’s already signed for another year at only $1.6 million. I agree about Joshua. I think he gets $3 million on a 3-4 year deal and I would keep him as he’s our only power forward. As for Garland, I can see either Höglander or Podkolzin take his spot on the 3rd line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: We don’t need Blueger because we have a ready made replacement in Suter who was actually our 3C before he got hurt. He’s already signed for another year at only $1.6 million. I agree about Joshua. I think he gets $3 million on a 3-4 year deal and I would keep him as he’s our only power forward. As for Garland, I can see either Höglander or Podkolzin take his spot on the 3rd line. Garland will be gone in the off season... He's value is at an all time high just now, and while we were talking about sweeteners to get rid of him last summer, we may actually get something in return now... Decisions needs to be made over the summer. Not just for next year, but for the next 3 years to cover serious raises and Cap penalties... Mika likely gone as well and Bluegar as well. Myers and/or Cole likely as well, especially with Juulsen showing he can play 3rd pairing minutes... The best part is, due to the great play of the boys this year, it likely won't have to cost us picks or prospects to trim the squad... win/win Edited February 10 by spook007 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: So you are judging the trade based on one game? I am judging the justification of this trade. If the Canucks were a true contender or a very good team that just needed that one piece to compete with the best teams then the trade is great. It's not just this game it's the losses to Colorado and Vegas. Lindholm was supposed to help the team compete against the best (as the team is on Cup or Bust mode). But, based on the Boston game, there was no noticeable improvement and just as flat playing against true cup contenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 23 minutes ago, iinatcc said: I am judging the justification of this trade. If the Canucks were a true contender or a very good team that just needed that one piece to compete with the best teams then the trade is great. It's not just this game it's the losses to Colorado and Vegas. Lindholm was supposed to help the team compete against the best (as the team is on Cup or Bust mode). But, based on the Boston game, there was no noticeable improvement and just as flat playing against true cup contenders. So you are basing your perspective on one game then. It’s clear we literally gave up nothing to acquire Lindhom. Kuz was a cap dumperoo that cost our first and third in sugar. He was a negative in any trade. As for the two prospects? Bustowitz’s name speaks loudly what he is. And that Jurmo guy is a tough head. So what exactly did we give up? Nothing. We got a top line right shot centre with Selke skills and smarts while dumping a problem and his 5.5 cap hit for next season. Great trade by a great GM for a Great team. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Posted by Jaimito,
Official Trade Announcement
Recommended by Roger Neilsons Towel
10 reactions
Go to this post
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.