Hoglander has been better than Kakko. That trade is bad for VAN.

I'm sorry but this is just stupid. Vancouver doesn't need to pay to get rid of any of their contracts except Ekman-Larsson, but he has a NMC

I don't think I agree with Myers. He's been better this year compared to last two but the guy is still overpaid. I don't think anyone is taking him off your hands without incentive, whether that's a prospect or high retention.

Certainly keeping Myers is also a good option if he can sustain his recent form.

Not arguing that he isn't overpaid, I just believe that there is a team or two out there that would be interested in adding the depth on their right side by taking on his contract for a miniscule price, I believe RHD are that much in demand. Myers was good in his first season with Van actually, it was just last year that he really struggled

Bigger problem is that contenders can't afford him as a depth piece and lower grade teams won't take him in without sweeteners, so in this regard I have hard time seeing him moving without some kind of incentive or cap gymnastics.

Not arguing that he isn't overpaid, I just believe that there is a team or two out there that would be interested in adding the depth on their right side by taking on his contract for a miniscule price, I believe RHD are that much in demand. Myers was good in his first season with Van actually, it was just last year that he really struggled

Zemgus is a useful 4th line player that isnt overpaid. Poolman is not useful and is overpaid for multiple years. Not interested in the least

I'm split between you and justaboss. I do believe that if you're looking to shed 2 years, you're going to have to pay, but if you hold onto him for a year, and then retain some next, that's where you'll get something for him. Think the guys looking for an upgrade at RD look at UFA's like Klingberg (and overpay him, just like the Nucks did with Myers), or Manson, or whoever else.

The fact that he has a 10 team no trade list kind of adds the difficulty of moving him.

Conclusion: I honestly can't believe that Jim Benning was allowed to operate for as long as he did. Like, would it not have made more sense for an adult to say "Listen guys...you're probably not making that huge jump up next year...maybe we should keep 9OA, let Loui, Beagle and Roussel expire, and have at 'er next year? Maybe Garland's not available the following year, but there would have been someone to take a run at, and you wouldn't have had to pay to dump trash while taking on *slightly* less trash (OEL isn't as bad as a lot of people say, but that contract...yikes).

I honestly believe that if Jim Benning was put in charge of a lemonade stand, he'd show up the next day and say "Guys, look! Someone paid me a dime to take all of the lemonade, but now I've got all of this salt water to sell, so we're up!"

Not a Nucks fan, but damn. Benning gets me fired up

He is absolutely useful, you just don't watch the Canucks

We agree to disagree. The term of his contract is what makes him most unappealing. If he is so useful as you suggest, why are you trading him for a guy you have on the 4th line