[proposal] - Willander + Lekkerimaki for a 20-23 year old ELC player

[Jeremy Hronek]

In creating this idea, I'm cognizant of the fact that this will never happen, and am also cognizant of the fact that this is likely a bad idea.  

 

BUT - playing Devil's advocate here for a second, let us pretend that we gave up our two best prospects for one really good young player (aged 20-23) that

 

1. Was still on an ELC

2. Could help us win now

3. Could be a long term asset for us.  

 

So just as an example, lets say you moved Willander + Lekkerimaki to Anaheim for Mason McTavish (if not McTavish, a player, aged 20-23 that would be equal value to Willander + Lekkerimaki).

 

Maybe Anaheim does this because they get an extra premium asset to build for the long term.  So now, in their collection of young talent, they'd have Carlsson (C), Gauthier (LW), Lekkerimaki (RW), and Willander (D).  No guarantees, but there's a chance that one or BOTH of Lekkerimaki and Willander will be better than McTavish one day.

 

And maybe the Canucks do this because they get an asset that could help us both now and in the future. We get a long term core player.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Mikheyev-McTavish-Lindholm

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty

 

Now, is this a realistic idea?  Probably not.............BUT, I will have to admit that it's tempting to think about.  

Edited March 3 by Jeremy Hronek

[Alflives]

Can’t sleep? 

[King Heffy]

I'd do it.

[Jeremy Hronek]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Can’t sleep? 

Living on the other side of the planet my man.

[Jeremy Hronek]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

I'd do it.

Right?  So I’m not *completely* insane for thinking along these lines right?  Yes - we lose two amazing prospects (who will likely turn out to be great players…..but no guarantees) but we get one long term asset back that would help us both short term and long term.  
 

Especially in the case of our short term, this core’s peak just may very well be this year.  We need to find a way to be aggressive this year without technically blowing up our prospect pool and so in an indirect way, my proposal from above would cater to this.

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Right?  So I’m not *completely* insane for thinking along these lines right?  Yes - we lose two amazing prospects (who will likely turn out to be great players…..but no guarantees) but we get one long term asset back that would help us both short term and long term.  
 

Especially in the case of our short term, this core’s peak just may very well be this year.  We need to find a way to be aggressive this year without technically blowing up our prospect pool and so in an indirect way, my proposal from above would cater to this.

I'll take a proven young player that fits our timeline better over two guys who, however highly touted, are not guaranteed to succeed at the next level.

Edited March 3 by King Heffy

[wai_lai416]

lol so who's dumb enough to give you a proven 20-23 year old that is bordering star for 2 unproven question mark that you hope will turn into a star? it's like you won the 1st place prize instead of the jackpot but you rather trade it for 2 more lottery ticket  to see if you can win 2 more times.. lekkerimaki might be doing well in the SHL but doesn't mean anything.. karlsson was dominating the shl 2 years ago.. he still yet to crack the nhl lineup as a regular 2 years later. you don't trade proven commodity for unproven commodity unless you are a seller and it's a pending ufa.. or a player is demanding to be traded

[DrJockitch]

The salary structure is better for this team with Lek and Willander. 
Timing makes sense too. 
With EP’s big deal, JT’s deal, Hronek will be getting pretty big deal and Q is not on a long contract and will get whatever he wants. 
‘Brock is a luxury we won’t be able to afford and Lek is in NA next year so we have a chance to see if he can slide in when Brock’s deal ends and OEL’s -penalty balloons. We need a goal scoring winger that can step in at that time. Not sure there are that many prospects in that position that are much better than Lekk. 
‘Plus a young RHD prospect that is first line potential is something we haven’t had in a while. 
If Bedard demands a trade then fine but otherwise the pieces we have fit for what we need. 

Edited March 3 by DrJockitch

[Ghostsof1915]

You know it's a bad idea, yet propose it anyways.....

[Jeremy Hronek]

36 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol so who's dumb enough to give you a proven 20-23 year old that is bordering star for 2 unproven question mark that you hope will turn into a star? it's like you won the 1st place prize instead of the jackpot but you rather trade it for 2 more lottery ticket  to see if you can win 2 more times.. lekkerimaki might be doing well in the SHL but doesn't mean anything.. karlsson was dominating the shl 2 years ago.. he still yet to crack the nhl lineup as a regular 2 years later. you don't trade proven commodity for unproven commodity unless you are a seller and it's a pending ufa.. or a player is demanding to be traded

 

Agreed.

 

McTavish would very likely be an unrealistic ask but getting back to my idea, would there be a hypothetical scenario in which a team accepts both Willander and Lekkerimaki?  (of whatever equates to equivalent value........and someone that could help us now, but wouldn't just be a rental obviously).   

 

Just wondering which player out there would be the equivalent value of my proposed package (if it's not McTavish), and if it could possibly be worth it from our end (I absolutely loathe the idea of blowing up our prospect pool but would it make sense if an asset came back our way that could help us both short term and long term?)

[Jeremy Hronek]

1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

You know it's a bad idea, yet propose it anyways.....

 

It's definitely an unrealistic idea but in theory, I think it would be worth exploring.  We give up two very good prospects but get a young guy, aged 20-23, that is on an ELC and is proven, but doesn't have the upside that both Lekker and Willander have.  We give up two prospects with a higher ceiling (but higher volatility obviously since there are no guarantees), but we get a 'sure thing' asset right now that could help us both short term and long term even if said player has little to no chance of being a 1st line player or a top pairing defenseman.......with the trade off being that he would help us in the playoffs this year (which could possibly be this core's best chance at a cup?).       

 

Who would be fair and equivalent value for a combined package of Willander and Lekker?   (obviously, not Guentzel because JG is a UFA at season's end).   

 

 

[Jeremy Hronek]

Lawson Crowse?  Rasmus Andersson?  

 

(I wouldn't give up Willander and Lekkerimaki for either of those guys just for the record, since I think the combined value of Willander and Lekkerimaki is greater than those players).     

 

Maybe Columbus would make sense? (they have some players in that 20-23 range, who while solid NHL'ers, likely won't be 1st line players or 1st pairing d-men).  

 

 

[AriGold]

I would do both of those players for Lucas Raymond or Seth Jarvis. That would be it..

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Living on the other side of the planet my man.

Earth? 

[Moeknows]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

In creating this idea, I'm cognizant of the fact that this will never happen, and am also cognizant of the fact that this is likely a bad idea.  

 

BUT - playing Devil's advocate here for a second, let us pretend that we gave up our two best prospects for one really good young player (aged 20-23) that

 

1. Was still on an ELC

2. Could help us win now

3. Could be a long term asset for us.  

 

So just as an example, lets say you moved Willander + Lekkerimaki to Anaheim for Mason McTavish (if not McTavish, a player, aged 20-23 that would be equal value to Willander + Lekkerimaki).

 

Maybe Anaheim does this because they get an extra premium asset to build for the long term.  So now, in their collection of young talent, they'd have Carlsson (C), Gauthier (LW), Lekkerimaki (RW), and Willander (D).  No guarantees, but there's a chance that one or BOTH of Lekkerimaki and Willander will be better than McTavish one day.

 

And maybe the Canucks do this because they get an asset that could help us both now and in the future. We get a long term core player.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Mikheyev-McTavish-Lindholm

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty

 

Now, is this a realistic idea?  Probably not.............BUT, I will have to admit that it's tempting to think about.  

I read this whole post..5 minutes of my life I'm never getting back...why,just why ???? It is not tempting or worthwhile to think about

[Bob Long]

I'm mean sure, anyone is tradable. 

 

So who wants to give up their top 5 pick, cost controlled, superstar kid for our two middle 1st round kids?

 

I'll check back later. 

[TUSK v2.0]

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

The salary structure is better for this team with Lek and Willander. 
Timing makes sense too. 
With EP’s big deal, JT’s deal, Hronek will be getting pretty big deal and Q is not on a long contract and will get whatever he wants. 
‘Brock is a luxury we won’t be able to afford and Lek is in NA next year so we have a chance to see if he can slide in when Brock’s deal ends and OEL’s -penalty balloons. We need a goal scoring winger that can step in at that time. Not sure there are that many prospects in that position that are much better than Lekk. 
‘Plus a young RHD prospect that is first line potential is something we haven’t had in a while. 
If Bedard demands a trade then fine but otherwise the pieces we have fit for what we need. 

Agreed, but I really hope there is some way to afford extending Brock. If they did it now, and then let go a bunch of RFA's and let some elc's come up that would be better.

[Jeremy Hronek]

39 minutes ago, Moeknows said:

I read this whole post..5 minutes of my life I'm never getting back...why,just why ???? It is not tempting or worthwhile to think about

 

But how do you *really* feel?

[Hammertime]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Right?  So I’m not *completely* insane for thinking along these lines right?  Yes - we lose two amazing prospects (who will likely turn out to be great players…..but no guarantees) but we get one long term asset back that would help us both short term and long term.  
 

Especially in the case of our short term, this core’s peak just may very well be this year.  We need to find a way to be aggressive this year without technically blowing up our prospect pool and so in an indirect way, my proposal from above would cater to this.

Anaheim wouldn't do it and neither should we. Even though I really like McT he only has one more season of ELC then he's getting a big payday same time we eat 4.7m on OEL. 

 

[Hammertime]

Just now, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

But how do you *really* feel?

I feel like using an asterix in place of quotation marks is *insane*

[Jeremy Hronek]

30 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I'm mean sure, anyone is tradable. 

 

So who wants to give up their top 5 pick, cost controlled, superstar kid for our two middle 1st round kids?

 

I'll check back later. 

Maybe not a superstar kid (McTavish was an unrealistic ask on my part), but perhaps someone that is just..........solid?  (i.e. someone in that 20-23 range that is NHL calibre, but likely won't become a 1st line forward or top pairing defenseman).   What I'm asking is probably too unrealistic...........ehh....was worth a shot?   

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Maybe not a superstar kid (McTavish was an unrealistic ask on my part), but perhaps someone that is just..........solid?  (i.e. someone in that 20-23 range that is NHL calibre, but likely won't become a 1st line forward or top pairing defenseman).   What I'm asking is probably too unrealistic...........ehh....was worth a shot?   

 

I don't think so, because we already have our "core" guys in place, what we need are what Allvin called the puzzle pieces that fit around the Petey's and Hughe's. 

 

Which is where Lekkerimaki and Willander fit it. These guys should provide excellent complimentary value through the OEL buyout years. 

 

 

[Komodo0921]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

In creating this idea, I'm cognizant of the fact that this will never happen, and am also cognizant of the fact that this is likely a bad idea.  

 

BUT - playing Devil's advocate here for a second, let us pretend that we gave up our two best prospects for one really good young player (aged 20-23) that

 

1. Was still on an ELC

2. Could help us win now

3. Could be a long term asset for us.  

 

So just as an example, lets say you moved Willander + Lekkerimaki to Anaheim for Mason McTavish (if not McTavish, a player, aged 20-23 that would be equal value to Willander + Lekkerimaki).

 

Maybe Anaheim does this because they get an extra premium asset to build for the long term.  So now, in their collection of young talent, they'd have Carlsson (C), Gauthier (LW), Lekkerimaki (RW), and Willander (D).  No guarantees, but there's a chance that one or BOTH of Lekkerimaki and Willander will be better than McTavish one day.

 

And maybe the Canucks do this because they get an asset that could help us both now and in the future. We get a long term core player.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Mikheyev-McTavish-Lindholm

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty

 

Now, is this a realistic idea?  Probably not.............BUT, I will have to admit that it's tempting to think about.  

I'm not seeing the balance in value here.

Both Lekkerimaki and Willander are turning a lot of heads.

I'd have to say Willander is one of our untouchables.

Lekkerimaki, on the other hand, is one I'd be willing to discuss. Yes, the skill is high end and, yes, he's showing a lot of promise as a prospect but, the one thing I have to keep coming back to is our lack of size and aggression, We have Miller who's turned into a beast and we have Zdorov who's a big-time physical threa but, is also, one who's prone to taking silly penalties. Juulsen's another who brings physicality but, at times abandons his position to go for the big hit. It's great if it works out but, if it doesn't one can look pretty silly staring at the ceiling as one's goalie is pulling the puck out of the net.

One player I keep looking at is Dmitri Voronkov. He's big, aggressive and brings enough offense that could park him on a wing as support in the top-six.

At 23, he also fits the demographic you seek.

[NMHockey]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

In creating this idea, I'm cognizant of the fact that this will never happen, and am also cognizant of the fact that this is likely a bad idea.  

 

BUT - playing Devil's advocate here for a second, let us pretend that we gave up our two best prospects for one really good young player (aged 20-23) that

 

1. Was still on an ELC

2. Could help us win now

3. Could be a long term asset for us.  

 

So just as an example, lets say you moved Willander + Lekkerimaki to Anaheim for Mason McTavish (if not McTavish, a player, aged 20-23 that would be equal value to Willander + Lekkerimaki).

 

Maybe Anaheim does this because they get an extra premium asset to build for the long term.  So now, in their collection of young talent, they'd have Carlsson (C), Gauthier (LW), Lekkerimaki (RW), and Willander (D).  No guarantees, but there's a chance that one or BOTH of Lekkerimaki and Willander will be better than McTavish one day.

 

And maybe the Canucks do this because they get an asset that could help us both now and in the future. We get a long term core player.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Mikheyev-McTavish-Lindholm

Joshua-Bluegar-Garland

Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty

 

Now, is this a realistic idea?  Probably not.............BUT, I will have to admit that it's tempting to think about.  

Of all the proposals that push the boundary of being "acceptable"; this one is actually a good idea. There's zero reason to trade Willander and Lekkerimaki and they're crucial to the future. But the impact of a leader-power forward like McTavish is VERY valuable. I've always liked Mason McT. - He reminds me so much of a younger J.T. Miller. Identical players. Good thinking sir 

[Pears]

So why would we trade two players, who also would be on ELCs, for one player further along in development? We'll need Lekkerimaki and Willander to be productive on their ELC's once players are due for extensions so we can stay competitive, so this really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.