Jump to content

[Rumour] Canucks Did a Thing


Recommended Posts

It would have to be add to swap Pachal for Rathbone. 
 

Rathbone has already cleared waivers so is more valuable than a guy who might end up needing to get waived and lost in a few weeks anyways.

 

They can throw in a 3rd round pick to even it out a little.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Provost said:

It would have to be add to swap Pachal for Rathbone. 
 

Rathbone has already cleared waivers so is more valuable than a guy who might end up needing to get waived and lost in a few weeks anyways.

 

They can throw in a 3rd round pick to even it out a little.

It feels more like our style to add picks. We'll send em a 4th and Rathbone and a get a 7th and Pachal back.

  • ThereItIs 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Provost said:

It would have to be add to swap Pachal for Rathbone. 
 

Rathbone has already cleared waivers so is more valuable than a guy who might end up needing to get waived and lost in a few weeks anyways.

 

They can throw in a 3rd round pick to even it out a little.

 

3rd rounder alone is more valuable than rathbone. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Provost said:

It would have to be add to swap Pachal for Rathbone. 
 

Rathbone has already cleared waivers so is more valuable than a guy who might end up needing to get waived and lost in a few weeks anyways.

 

They can throw in a 3rd round pick to even it out a little.

He cleared wavers because he isn’t good. 
The other won’t clear wavers because he is good. 
Van would have to add the pick 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Canadian said:

Carolina also has Coghlan.

 

Columbus has Peeke set to be a 2.5 million 7th defenseman.

 

There are options available

Good island boy. I'd need down for that 

 

4 minutes ago, DeNiro said:


Gotta add an upgrade whoever that is.

 

Playing the wait and see with McWard is a bad idea.

 

Completely agree. McWard has only been decent in my opinion. At his age he would be far better off going and playing huge minutes in Abby.

  • Cheers 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D.B Cooper said:

He cleared wavers because he isn’t good. 
The other won’t clear wavers because he is good. 
Van would have to add the pick 


No, they are both being waived because they aren’t good enough yet.

 

Rathbone is a prospect that now has a year in the minors to develop more while under club control, and then another full

training camp and pre-season to see if he is an NHLer.

 

Pachal is a prospect that “may” be closer and be able to be a 6-8th D.  He also may not and won’t develop sitting in the press box all year or playing a couple of nights.  Ther is no option to give him a year of development. 
 

If someone trades for him, they run the risk of losing whatever asset they trade for him fairly quickly if they end up waiving him.

 

We don’t actually have a 3rd pairing spot available for him, so he would be hard pressed to crack our roster.  We have a top pairing RHD spot and he likely isn’t that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hughes needs a good D partner, but I'm having my doubts they can address that this year. 

 

I have a feeling that whatever thing they're trying to do, will be underwhelming. I suspect another depth D. 

 

Tocchet likely mixes up the D pairings often this season

 

Hughes - Soucy

Cole - Hronek

(for some games)

 

Hughes - McWard/Juulsen

(for some games)

 

Hughes - Cole

Soucy - Hronek

(for some games)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Provost said:


No, they are both being waived because they aren’t good enough yet.

One passed because he isn’t good. 
The other won’t pass because he is better. 

1 hour ago, Provost said:

 

Rathbone is a prospect that now has a year in the minors to develop more while under club control, and then another full

training camp and pre-season to see if he is an NHLer.

Sure. Sounds great.  
We have been watching his development for years now. 
He is an AHLer and that’s all he is going to be. 

1 hour ago, Provost said:

 

Pachal is a prospect that “may” be closer and be able to be a 6-8th D.  He also may not and won’t develop sitting in the press box all year or playing a couple of nights.  Ther is no option to give him a year of development. 
 

Sure, then play him.  He would prob be better than Myers. Lol

1 hour ago, Provost said:

 


 

If someone trades for him, they run the risk of losing whatever asset they trade for him fairly quickly if they end up waiving him.

 

We don’t actually have a 3rd pairing spot available for him, so he would be hard pressed to crack our roster.  We have a top pairing RHD spot and he likely isn’t that.

We do if he can beat someone out. 

Who’s to say he won’t?   
Sure he can’t make the Stanley cup champs team, but he was close.  
Probably be a #2 with us 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Canadian said:

Carolina also has Coghlan.

 

Columbus has Peeke set to be a 2.5 million 7th defenseman.

 

There are options available

If we manage to grab Peeke without giving up too much I'd be over the moon.

2 hours ago, BabychStache said:

Peeke makes a ton of sense if Columbus would let him go. They likely want something hefty in return, and unless they want a winger, Canucks have nothing to offer. 

 

 

Honestly at this point I might be willing to give up Podkolzin for him. It's a gamble, but Peeke fills a much more pressing need 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Diamonds said:

If we manage to grab Peeke without giving up too much I'd be over the moon.

Honestly at this point I might be willing to give up Podkolzin for him. It's a gamble, but Peeke fills a much more pressing need 

 

The nice thing about these situations, is that if they're going to lose him (or someone else they'd prefer to keep, like Bjork) for nothing, they don't have much leverage for sizeable returns (I wouldn't be giving up Podz). The biggest problem with a Peeke trade, is making the cap work. Other than Poolman, we don't have anyone at a similar cap hit, that we'd want to move.

 

There's possibly Beau with retention to even out the cap hits, but that's probably not ideal for CBJ.

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see us requiring to pick up someone else. We tend to get stuck in black and white thinking that our 3 pairings will be consistent all game. McWard could play all his minutes with Hughes, and Myers could play all his minutes with Cole, but both could still only play around 15 minutes a game with Cole getting shifts with Hughes to get them both over 20 while Soucy and Hronek are also over 20. PP and PK time will also differentiate them. So while they may lineup Hughes-McWard, Soucy-Hronek, Cole-Myers doesn't mean Myers or McWard always have to be the RD when Hronek isn't on the ice.

 

They could definitely use another top 4 Dman, but picking up scraps from other teams doesn't offer that. I'd rather see McWard and what he can do or Wolanin stepping in.

Edited by Tower102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

There's possibly Beau with retention to even out the cap hits, but that's probably not ideal for CBJ.

Yeah I think you're right. Peeke is a good target and CBJ have some space, but for Van to fit him in they need to clear his 2.75 

 

Beau would likely be the best option. It just depends on how CBJ feels about their winger situation. Garland is another option, but he has term, so they'd really have to want the guy. 

 

Might need to look elsewhere. 

 

(ohhh or...) 

 

I mean Meyers + a pick? CBJ has just under 4 million in cap space right now. Peeke clears another 2.75 so Meyers should fit. They still have too many RD, but they may be doing it more for the pick then the player coming back (likely needs to be a 2nd). Meyers is only owed $1 million and expires this season, plus he gives them depth in case of injuries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...