(Trade) Sam Lafferty to Vancouver

[-dlc-]

2 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

Why would you think I'd provide a detailed breakdown of my thoughts on him when I do that for work?

 

I give my overall thoughts -- which is that we keep bleeding assets for no results.

You've made this a negative prematurely though.

 

A. That asset could produce "no results"

B. Lafferty hasn't laced them up for us yet to decide that this is a bust/no results.

 

My son also had to look at players/teams for his job and he's usually right about stuff. He's ok with this, so that's ok with me.

[Elias Pettersson]

6 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Joshua - Blueger - Lafferty

 

Can see these two forming the 4th line forward pair, and possibly a PK duo. 
 

If Joshua can maintain his physical/forechecking style, that looks like a decent checking 4th line. 

 

 

That's exactly how I see it.  And Lafferty can also take faceoffs.  He was 51% last year.  So a really good mix on the 4th line IMO.  All 3 guys can kill penalties too...

[Joe King]

I have seen a couple of posts suggesting this is a Tocchet type of player.

If so it means management is listening to the head coach. This if so is a good thing.

[The Lock]

Just now, Master Mind said:

 

Why would you think I'd provide a detailed breakdown of my thoughts on him when I do that for work?

 

I give my overall thoughts -- which is that we keep bleeding assets for no results.

 

Because then it would prove you right or at least show you know what you're talking about.

 

I asked for your opinion on the player and why you thought that way. I literally gave you the ability to defend yourself to better understand your side. Instead you didn't provide any of that.

 

Think of what someone like Sid would do on here. If Sid didn't like Lafferty, he would give his reasons why and people would respect him for it because he's showing he actually understands what he's talking about.

 

Instead, you just give a half-baked opinion and fail to elaborate any further on it. No facts. No evidence, just your opinion. Just you pretending to have a job you probably don't have.

 

[Master Mind]

Just now, -dlc- said:

You've made this a negative prematurely though.

 

A. That asset could produce "no results"

B. Lafferty hasn't laced them up for us yet to decide that this is a bust/no results.

 

We're not in a position to be making this type of move year after year. History has shown us that it does not yield positive results.

[4petesake]

Gotta love being a Canuck fan on CFF at times like this. A trade that at best adds some speed, size and righty to the bottom 6, at worst a lost 5 rd pick, or maybe meh; and here we are at nearly 300 posts in 2 hours.

(Only 167 over at Canucks Reddit for those keeping score)

 

 

[canuck73_3]

8 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

 

All wasted assets that many people knew immediately.

According to the mystery expert here sure. 

[Master Mind]

Just now, The Lock said:

 

Because then it would prove you right or at least show you know what you're talking about.

 

I asked for your opinion on the player and why you thought that way. I literally gave you the ability to defend yourself to better understand your side. Instead you didn't provide any of that.

 

Think of what someone like Sid would do on here. If Sid didn't like Lafferty, he would give his reasons why and people would respect him for it because he's showing he actually understands what he's talking about.

 

Instead, you just give a half-baked opinion and fail to elaborate any further on it. No facts. No evidence, just your opinion. Just you pretending to have a job you probably don't have.

 

 

Nice bait at the end.

 

You're not worth my time.

 

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

[canuck73_3]

Just now, Master Mind said:

 

We're not in a position to be making this type of move year after year. History has shown us that it does not yield positive results.

Jim Rutherford’s history speaks for itself. You’re just a nobody crying on a message board. 

[Master Mind]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

Jim Rutherford’s history speaks for itself. You’re just a nobody crying on a message board. 

 

Just now, Master Mind said:

 

Nice bait at the end.

 

You're not worth my time.

 

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

 

Same to you.

[canuck73_3]

Just now, Master Mind said:

 

Nice bait at the end.

 

You're not worth my time.

 

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

No, why bring it up if you’re gonna chickenshit out of it? 

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

 

We're not in a position to be making this type of move year after year. History has shown us that it does not yield positive results.

The difference with this one is that it was a 5th for an established NHLer who fills a need, whereas others traded for were for reclamation projects, and for higher, more valuable pucks. 

[VegasCanuck]

So, unless the :Leafs have more guys going on LTIR than I'm aware of, they still need to do another trade. They are still more than 1.7 million over what they have in LTIR.

 

 

[-dlc-]

6 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

We're not in a position to be making this type of move year after year. History has shown us that it does not yield positive results.

At some point, you have to face forward and not dwell on the past. 

 

History dealt with different players, etc. so don't assign past failures to groups of players who have no connection to the past. You're jaded and that's your deal and not really properly assessing things on current situation/needs/wants. It's fear based.

 

We're in a position to try to improve the club...from here onward. Not just hoard picks in hopes of better days down the road. Accumulating mass picks in the "hope" of "hitting a gem". We have a couple of real gems and helping them succeed is important.

 

You build toward something you don't just freeze and wait and hope. This club in the here and now matters as much as a pool to fish from down the road.

[MeanSeanBean]

35 minutes ago, dannydog said:

Lmao, great to have a space to voice opinions but why is it with Canuck fans it’s always “the sky is falling “. Chicken little reference. The majority state you never heard of him,so that means he’s garbage?

The last decade of Canucks hockey has been ripe the mismanagement, under  achievement, and sorely lacking in prospects given our position for this long. I think the general fan base has every right to skeptical when we see more assets being moved for players in positions it feels like our team has enough of. 

 

Personally I thought Studnicka showed petty well. Particular after we traded a 5th round draft pick for him last year. Now we are trading another 5th round draft pick for his replacement this year. 

 

It's not necessarily about the player, it's about the principal.

[Master Mind]

1 minute ago, -dlc- said:

At some point, you have to face forward and not dwell on the past. 

 

History dealt with different players, etc. so don't assign past failures to groups of players who have no connection to the past. You're jaded and that's your deal and not really properly assessing things on current situation/needs/wants.

 

We're in a position to try to improve the club...from here onward. Not just hoard picks in hopes of better days down the road. You build toward that you don't just freeze and wait.

 

At some point yes, I don't think we're at that point yet.

 

If we establish ourselves as a playoff team, it'd be understandable to make this type of move.

 

Doing these moves to become a playoff team, I think is us trying to take shortcuts.

[Viper007]

57 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

I watch him and every player in the NHL.

 

He does not move the needle.

Neither does 95% of 5th Rounders.  We are trading for somebody who will help us as suppose to a draft pick that most likely won’t help us.

[Blitz-Pix]

23 minutes ago, Provost said:

This guy looks to be the Tucker Poolman of forwards.

 

The board is cherry picking a couple of stats over a short stretch of play and ignoring his actual career just like Poolman and just like when Poolman was acquired, this guy keeps getting bigger and more physical as the thread goes on.

 

Dude isn’t big.  Dude doesn’t hit (under 2 hits a game average, and less in recent years).  Dude doesn’t block shots.  Used as a winger and not centre.  FO% well under 50% in every year and every stop except for one short stretch in Chicago.  He was 43% in Toronto most recently.

 

He is a waiver wire player we didn’t pay much for and we could pick up an equivalent player for nothing off the wire.

 

….. I guess at least we aren’t paying him millions on a Multi year contract, so it is an improvement over Benning.

 

Pretty acurate description...

 

If you take last years stats out of the equation you'll see he's been a a career tweener or fringe player. We already some of those IMO.

 

We're all seeing what we want and overlooking what we don't wanna see... the shiny new toy syndrome.

Trade doesn't move the needle much for me.. I will reserve judgement however and take a wait and see approach.

Obviously PA and Tocc are familar with the player and may know something that his stats aren't showing.  

[Sophomore Jinx]

13 minutes ago, Joe King said:

I have seen a couple of posts suggesting this is a Tocchet type of player.

If so it means management is listening to the head coach. This if so is a good thing.

Agreed, it is a good thing....except when coaches like Willie D whisper in to GM's ears like Jimmy B - "Hey Jim, there's this kid I coached in the 'Hat, you're really gonna like him. Linden Vey." 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Sophomore Jinx

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Jim Rutherford’s history speaks for itself. You’re just a nobody crying on a message board. 

Character issues and handicapping the team for a decade with his incompetence?  He's clearly demonstrated that he needs to be fired and is reasonable for people to criticize that dirtbag.  He's worse than a nobody and needs to be ran out of town for the good of the franchise.

[J-23]

I like this trade, he is going to look good on that 4th line.

 

 

[canuck73_3]

4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

The difference with this one is that it was a 5th for an established NHLer who fills a need, whereas others traded for were for reclamation projects, and for higher, more valuable pucks. 

And citing previous managements mistakes to criticize a proven winner in Rutherford is disingenuous at best. It’s time to move on from Benning, the rest of us did. 

[Trebreh]

Will there be more waiver wires tomorrow or is this the last day??

[Johnny]

10 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

We're not in a position to be making this type of move year after year. History has shown us that it does not yield positive results.

Relying solely on the draft doesn’t work.

 

This trade was likely done because Toronto needs to shed cap. If that is the case, immediately vancouver is coming out on top

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Neither does 95% of 5th Rounders.  We are trading for somebody who will help us as suppose to a draft pick that most likely won’t help us.

I would say more like 96-98% of 5th rounders any given year.