Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trizzak

2018 NHL Offseason Thread

Recommended Posts

When it comes to Van, I'm slightly curious about Ben Hutton. They've lost faith in him and he has one year left on a ridiculous 2.8 cap hit. Young puck-moving D-man (even if he is RD)...might be worth taking a flyer on, at a discount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Habopotamus said:

I wonder if Molson talks to Mark Hunter, now that's he's available  

I wouldn't be surprised if he goes to NYI to team up with Lou again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 2:39 PM, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

When it comes to Van, I'm slightly curious about Ben Hutton. They've lost faith in him and he has one year left on a ridiculous 2.8 cap hit. Young puck-moving D-man (even if he is RD)...might be worth taking a flyer on, at a discount.

 

You know, I just realized that Hutton is a LD.

 

25 points in his rookie season...25 years old...now he is on the outs, grossly overpaid, and can undoubtedly be had for a song. Plus he will be highly motivated, being on a expiring deal. I would toss a 7th round pick or something and invite him to establish himself as a potentially-useful puck-mover on our D.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Metallica said:

I wouldn't be surprised if he goes to NYI to team up with Lou again.

 

That was everyone's thought originally but Hunter wants to be a GM and everyone knows that Lou is in NYI to train his son to be GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You know, I just realized that Hutton is a LD.

 

25 points in his rookie season...25 years old...now he is on the outs, grossly overpaid, and can undoubtedly be had for a song. Plus he will be highly motivated, being on a expiring deal. I would toss a 7th round pick or something and invite him to establish himself as a potentially-useful puck-mover on our D.

I'd be OK with a deal like that.  I liked Hutton when he first came into the league.  I'd be willing to give a little more if need be.  A prospect that doesn't look like he'll amount to much or something.  McCarron or Rychel if need be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Hutton for McCarron sounds pretty logical. Benning loves his size and grit.

Looks like a good trade for the CH, I would also settle for Gillaume Brisebois

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You know, I just realized that Hutton is a LD.

 

25 points in his rookie season...25 years old...now he is on the outs, grossly overpaid, and can undoubtedly be had for a song. Plus he will be highly motivated, being on a expiring deal. I would toss a 7th round pick or something and invite him to establish himself as a potentially-useful puck-mover on our D.

 

I agree with you 100%.  Ben Hutton grew up close to my hometown;  I have met him a few times and watched him work in the gym.  He's a good kid who works hard....the kind you take a chance on to see if you can get him back on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

That was everyone's thought originally but Hunter wants to be a GM and everyone knows that Lou is in NYI to train his son to be GM.

I don’t think it really matters as far as the Habs go. Any sensible owner would have fired MB by now.  It doesn’t look like Molson is sensible and probably isn’t willing to eat so many years of the idiotic extension he gave MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sbhatt said:

 

I agree with you 100%.  Ben Hutton grew up close to my hometown;  I have met him a few times and watched him work in the gym.  He's a good kid who works hard....the kind you take a chance on to see if you can get him back on track.

 

I definitely think we should acquire him as a low-cost option for LD, but the question is what went wrong for him. He had a sophomore slump - not unusual - but then became persona non grata when new coach Travis Green came in. His work ethic has been questioned; on the other hand, he is known for being super positive and happy-go-lucky, and it may be that Old School Green is confusing a jovial nature with a lack of commitment, which, in NHL circles these days, always means a kind of grim humourlessness. We have a ton of cap space and can carry the bloated contract for one year. I don't really get what MB is waiting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t think it really matters as far as the Habs go. Any sensible owner would have fired MB by now.  It doesn’t look like Molson is sensible and probably isn’t willing to eat so many years of the idiotic extension he gave MB.

 

The rumour right now is Hunter becomes assistant GM in Detroit and replaces Holland when he finally leaves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I definitely think we should acquire him as a low-cost option for LD, but the question is what went wrong for him. He had a sophomore slump - not unusual - but then became persona non grata when new coach Travis Green came in. His work ethic has been questioned; on the other hand, he is known for being super positive and happy-go-lucky, and it may be that Old School Green is confusing a jovial nature with a lack of commitment, which, in NHL circles these days, always means a kind of grim humourlessness. We have a ton of cap space and can carry the bloated contract for one year. I don't really get what MB is waiting for.

 

 

I don't think Vancouver is just ready to give Hutton away yet.  It's not like he's really being blocked out of a spot (yet) with Pouliot being the competition.  If Juolevi is ready and/or Hughes signs, that might force the issue but that may be something that happens closer to training camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

I don't think Vancouver is just ready to give Hutton away yet.  It's not like he's really being blocked out of a spot (yet) with Pouliot being the competition.  If Juolevi is ready and/or Hughes signs, that might force the issue but that may be something that happens closer to training camp.

 

While the general sense among commentators here in town is that the Canucks want to move him and in fact have tried, it may be the case that they'd rather see if he can recover form than give him away at low value. The thing is, if a coach spends most of his season not liking you, it's hard to move the needle on that. So even if you're correct, I'd still keep an eye on the Canucks training camp and circle back if Hutton still looks to be on the outs.

 

(Not that I have any illusions - he's a bit of a long-shot at this point).

 

EDIT: one thing I forgot to mention here is the Quinn Hughes factor. Apparently Hughes will only sign for this season if he can expect significant roster time. This means that if the Canucks want him for this year they will need to move someone at LD. Hutton is the obvious candidate. So there may actually be some incentive to move him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linden is out as President in Vancouver.

 

Most people seem to feel that he disagreed with ownership's 'halfway house' approach to rebuilding (i.e., 'we want to rebuild but also make the playoffs annually' - exactly what the Habs are saying). On the other hand, it could be as simple as GM Benning maneouvering to make him redundant. Or maybe he really does just want to spend more time with his one-year-old kid.

 

One thing that this incident underscores is how ill-defined the role of Team President really is in the NHL.

 

1. Some people think the main role of the office is a PR role - to nurture links with the season ticket-holders, corporate supporters, etc.. This relieves the GM of worrying about this crap.

 

2. Others see the President as a sort of Associate or Executive-GM, an extra hockey mind to strengthen overall decision-making. This is, by all accounts, the role Linden played and wanted to play, but it's a role that invites the accusation of 'too many cooks in the kitchen.'

 

3. Then there's the idea that the President's main function is to serve as a buffer between ownership and the hockey ops people. The idea being that if an owner's primary point of contact is the GM, it will become all too easy for the owner to start influencing hockey decisions on a regular basis. The problem is that if you've got an ownership group like Vancouver's - a very busy-body, interfering ownership - then a Presidency defined this way becomes redundant.

 

I strongly favour model (3), myself. You want an owner who has as little to do with hockey ops as possible IMHO. But I'd also like to see the Habs hire a president who can offer model (2), inasmuch as we have an incompetent GM, and having another powerful voice to counter-balance his could be a very good thing.

 

Anyway, I don't think losing Linden will hurt the Canucks organizationally, but it sure looks bad from a PR perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Linden is out as President in Vancouver.

 

Most people seem to feel that he disagreed with ownership's 'halfway house' approach to rebuilding (i.e., 'we want to rebuild but also make the playoffs annually' - exactly what the Habs are saying). On the other hand, it could be as simple as GM Benning maneouvering to make him redundant. Or maybe he really does just want to spend more time with his one-year-old kid.

 

One thing that this incident underscores is how ill-defined the role of Team President really is in the NHL.

 

1. Some people think the main role of the office is a PR role - to nurture links with the season ticket-holders, corporate supporters, etc.. This relieves the GM of worrying about this crap.

 

2. Others see the President as a sort of Associate or Executive-GM, an extra hockey mind to strengthen overall decision-making. This is, by all accounts, the role Linden played and wanted to play, but it's a role that invites the accusation of 'too many cooks in the kitchen.'

 

3. Then there's the idea that the President's main function is to serve as a buffer between ownership and the hockey ops people. The idea being that if an owner's primary point of contact is the GM, it will become all too easy for the owner to start influencing hockey decisions on a regular basis. The problem is that if you've got an ownership group like Vancouver's - a very busy-body, interfering ownership - then a Presidency defined this way becomes redundant.

 

I strongly favour model (3), myself. You want an owner who has as little to do with hockey ops as possible IMHO. But I'd also like to see the Habs hire a president who can offer model (2), inasmuch as we have an incompetent GM, and having another powerful voice to counter-balance his could be a very good thing.

 

Anyway, I don't think losing Linden will hurt the Canucks organizationally, but it sure looks bad from a PR perspective.

 

Where Opportunity Knocks.

 

Owner is pushing team not to rebuild and go for it. 

 

How about we send Pacioretty out to Vancouver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Where Opportunity Knocks.

 

Owner is pushing team not to rebuild and go for it. 

 

How about we send Pacioretty out to Vancouver?

 

Hmmm...who do we ask for? 

 

(I doubt that even Van's ownership is *this* clueless...but maybe if we agree to take back the Erickson abomination, that opens up a whole lot of possibilities)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Hmmm...who do we ask for? 

 

(I doubt that even Van's ownership is *this* clueless...but maybe if we agree to take back the Erickson abomination, that opens up a whole lot of possibilities)

 

My personal wishlist with Vancouver includes Elias Pettersson, Michael DiPietro, Brock Boeser, Adam Gaudette, and Kole Lind.

 

Boeser and Pettersson are likely untouchable, while they likely want to see if Gaudette is as dominant of a scorer as he was in NCAA. That leaves DiPietro and Lind, and I'm probably biased with DiPietro having watched him a lot. I'd take him over all of our goalie prospects.

 

That said, if they put Pettersson on the table, there's a lot I would add for him. If they were willing to give up Gaudette for Pacioretty I'm for it, but I'm guessing it's more likely a deal around Lind and a first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

My personal wishlist with Vancouver includes Elias Pettersson, Michael DiPietro, Brock Boeser, Adam Gaudette, and Kole Lind.

 

Boeser and Pettersson are likely untouchable, while they likely want to see if Gaudette is as dominant of a scorer as he was in NCAA. That leaves DiPietro and Lind, and I'm probably biased with DiPietro having watched him a lot. I'd take him over all of our goalie prospects.

 

That said, if they put Pettersson on the table, there's a lot I would add for him. If they were willing to give up Gaudette for Pacioretty I'm for it, but I'm guessing it's more likely a deal around Lind and a first.

I'd add Juolevi and Hughes to your list of targets.  However, like Pettersson and Boeser, I'm guessing they're untouchables as well.  I'm right there with you on DiPietro having also seen him guite a bit.  I don't see him as main piece of a trade, but I'd be happy with him as part of a package where he would be a secondary piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Hmmm...who do we ask for? 

 

(I doubt that even Van's ownership is *this* clueless...but maybe if we agree to take back the Erickson abomination, that opens up a whole lot of possibilities)

 

They won't give Pettersson, even Vancouver isn't that dumb. 

 

If you have assurances that Juolevi IS NOT the Jeff Marek prospect addicted to video games, he's an option.  I'd do straight up Patch vs Juolevi.  

 

Jonathan Dahlen is an option. I'd do Dahlen and like a 4th for Patch

 

Gaudette and a 1st. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

They won't give Pettersson, even Vancouver isn't that dumb. 

 

If you have assurances that Juolevi IS NOT the Jeff Marek prospect addicted to video games, he's an option.  I'd do straight up Patch vs Juolevi.  

 

Jonathan Dahlen is an option. I'd do Dahlen and like a 4th for Patch

 

Gaudette and a 1st. 

 

 

 

 

These all seem like reasonable propsals, but the only one that really excites me is Juolevi - in principle - because he fills a glaring organizational need. The problem is that the Canucks have shown every sign of being concerned about his development. The rumour that he was indeed the 'gaming addict' were very strong. I don't take the issue of 'game addiction' too seriously (I think that's just old farts being uncomfortable with Millennials) but the point is that Juolevi's commitment, attitude, and work ethic seem to be dangerously below par.

 

The other guys seem to be quality prospects. Gaudette can play C so that does make sense, and the 1st would definitely make that a good trade. He is heavily pumped in local discourse, though, so I'm not sure if the Canuckleheads would do it. As for Dahlen...do we really want to trade Patches for yet another W - ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I had in mind Patches to VAN for their 1st in 2019, Gillaume Brisebois and Louis Eriksson 

 

I was hoping for Juolevi or one of their better prospects, but Inwould swap for a lesser LW and a good-enough prospect with the 1st pick

Edited by alfredoh2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

 

Best part, " Another Marc Bergevin special "

 

I was going to say the same thing :thumbs_up:

 

That said, Drouin was not put in a position to succeed, being thrown to the wolves as a 22-year-old #1C on a terrible team, despite not being a C. It is hard to imagine a worse strategy for developing a young player. And it's too Drouin's credit that he seems not to have folded.

 

We need to keep in mind that he is a very young player. While I doubt the trade will ever look good, I would declare it "too soon to tell" whether Drouin will fail to live up to his potential as a bona-fide top-line scoring threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×