Hes on your first pair, but also not worth more than an AHLer lol. Yeah Jackets would easily pass. How about Pettersson for Foudy?

I mean the other options for 1st pair RHD are Myers, McWard, and Juulsen, so it’s not like he’s beating out good defensemen for it. Peeke was pretty terrible last year, but he’s better options than those 3

if you are trading for a dude to be on your top pair, hes going to cost more than an AHLer. Even if Peeke was going on your bottom pair, hes still worth more than an AHLer. This is just crazy undervaluing Peeke, even coming off a bad season.

I love this website's logic. "I'm trading for this player to be on my top pair, but he's garbage and you should accept garbage for him. Nevermind that I'm trading for him to put him on my top pair, because he's garbage."

If you don't want to pay for the player, fine. Enjoy your right side of Juulsen, Myers, and McWard while you continue to waste Petey and Quinn's careers.

I think Peeke would be a good stop gap for Hughes. He's young, salary controlled, big and mobile. Still developing into a solid stay at home D man and Hughes would certainly help elevate his game. Guessing Rathbone wont get it done. Likely Hoglander. Young with lots of time to develop too. Beauvillier might be an alternative but Canucks might have to eat a little for the remainder of this year. I do agree, I think there is a trade coming. I dont think this would necessarily prevent Bear from coming back either. Injuries, or a Myers trade etc etc. Ideally Peeke is your third pairing D that can play up the line up if required.

Honestly there isnt much from a player perspective that would make sense as the return for Peeke, a pick is most likely.

Then asking for a ransom for any of their players

Bear was traded with retention and an AHLer for a 5th last year, and he played with Hughes quite a bit and is also a better player than Peeke. Peeke would get a better return than just Rathbone, and maybe a bit of a better return than Bear, but let’s not act like he’s some great dman. He’s a #5/6 dman who’d be forced into playing a bigger role on the Canucks (like Bear last year who ended up playing really well)

Bear is obviously so good that yall didnt extend him and are looking to replace him with Peeke lol

playing beside hughes doesnt make him a "top pair" calibre defenseman. this would be like calling jan ruuta or zach bogosian top pair defenseman because they played beside Hedman. or calling connor clifton a top pair defenseman because he lines up beside dahlin. or calling ceci a top pairing defenseman because he lines up beside darnell nurse.

Peeke is a defensive defenseman who can block shots and throw hits, but he's an unreliable puck mover with limited mobility and poor offensive zone instincts. he is a complimentary player who needs to lean on a high-end puck mover to be succesful.

putting him beside hughes is more bout hughes being good enough to drag around a 3rd pairing dman with a complimentary skill set, not an indication of peeke being top pair calibre

Bear likely would’ve been brought back if it weren’t for his injury. And I don’t want Peeke to replace him personally. We could probably get someone better. But if he’s so good why has Columbus brought in so many RHDs recently to likely bump him to a healthy scratch?

We don’t particularly want him here either, but we do want a fair return for him. And an AHL body is not that. Peeke is an NHL-caliber shot blocking defensive RD under 25 who logged a ton of minutes on a dreadful team. In a perfect world, he’s the ideal third RD behind Jiricek and Sevo, especially next season paired with Denton Mateychuk. But unfortunately we’ve also got Johnny Hockey’s Emotional Support Bad Defenseman, the Swedish forward playing defense wearing the injury cursed number, and Owen Power’s college D partner who for some reason followed Kent Johnson to Columbus instead. You could make a perfectly acceptable NHL D core out of three of any of that pool, but you can’t play all of them. Some team will pay a lot to get one of them, and it’ll be a lot more than Jack Rathbone.