Cowichan Canuck

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

369 Excellent

About Cowichan Canuck

  • Rank
    Comets Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lake Cowichan

Recent Profile Visitors

618 profile views
  1. All trades aren't the same because they involve different players. Subban and Tanev are very opposite players, Larssen and Tanev are very similar so easy to compare that trade to a Tanev trade. Tanev is more proven than Guddy and has more value at this moment. All I am saying Elvis is that it is market value...that doesn't mean that another team will make a crazy trade for Tanev...but it is the market value, because the market just dictated it. If you own a house on 100st and a very similar house sells for $1,000,000, then the market says your house is worth roughly $1,000,000 until the next sale proves otherwise. He's worth roughly a top line, non elite winger in my opinion.
  2. Yes it actually does. The current market is the last sale price, it is the most recent accurate way of telling what the market is...what else is there, trades from 5 years ago? Just because the trade is crazy, which we can all agree, doesn't mean it isn't the market value. The comparison to the vancouver housing market is a great example of a crazy market, just like RHD. Do I think we can trade Tanev for someone in the Landeskog range? Absolutely not out of the question. Edmonton was desparate, and "X" team will be desperate tomorrow. Tanev is super steady and a great cap hit, and can play top pairing minutes with an OFD, every playoff team would love a Tanev on their roster. Tanev is closer to Larssen than he is to Gudbranson, and right now I would say Tanev holds more value than Gudbranson based on his contract status, prime age, analytic numbers and overall proven steadiness. No reason he can't land a top 6 winger.
  3. Forms of "trolling" have been around forever I guess, but if you think 25 years ago, people "trolled" like they do now, you are incorrect. People that are born after the internet age, generally, are less polite and more prone to troll as they have no consequences for annoying people and wasting others time. Of course there are many acceptions. When I was a kid, you pissed someone off on purpose, and you had to answer for it. There is a big difference between your dad or your boss teasing you, rather than some random person you don't know purposely trying to piss you off on the internet for no reason...I didn't grow up with this mentality around me.
  4. Considering Larsson was traded for Hall, I assumed he was grasping at that parallel. Either way, I don't care if he is trolling or not, it doesn't concern me. Im from a time when trolling wasn't a thing, it's not something I care to Pokemon Go.
  5. Would cost more than Tanev/Granlund for Provorov I think, but yes Tanev would be perfect for Gostisbehere. Imagine a D corps one day involving: Provorov-Tryamin Juolevi-Gudbranson Hutton-Brisbois Stetcher/Subban/Pedan That's a puck that moves. Think it would cost Tanev/Hansen/CBJ 2nd and I would do it still.
  6. In a heartbeat. It would take more though after his stellar playoffs and rescinding his trade request.
  7. I'm "Not willing" to trade someone and this player is presently "untradeable" are the same thing Phil...guess I'm crazy. Saying "agreed with not trading Chris or Erik" without knowing a return asset is making an untradeable declaration on that player. I'm not trying to twist your words as twisting your words doesn't benefit me at all. I wasn't ignoring your points, I was going by your words "agreed not trading Chris or Erik". You've since clarified your position, you would trade Tanev if it meant addressing a need. Good to hear, so would I. Who is this player you would trade him for Phil? Who is the one player in the NHL that Tanev could land that is a fair trade that helps both teams?
  8. If you post absurd hypotheticals, you can have just as many hobbies as the ones that read absurd hypotheticals, then post how absurd they are. Why did you come here?
  9. I bet there is close to 100 players in the league you would trade Tanev for. Think about it, around 3-4 players a team. That isn't even considering prospects and picks, or trades involving multiple players and picks. The possibilities for a Tanev trade are endless in their ability to help our club going forward.
  10. Correct you never said "Never" but you did say "Not trading" and that does imply they ARE un-tradeable to you. To me those mean the exact same thing. If you don't know what the return is and you just say you're not willing to trade someone...they are untradeable to you. I would never say I'm not willing to not trade anyone. I don't want to trade Bo Horvat, but I'd also listen to any and all inquireries. Same goes for Boeser, Juolevi and Demko. So Phil_314, if he isn't untradeable, would you trade Tanev for then....who is a fair trade for you that helps out our club but also works for the team we trade Tanev to? Nobody WANTS to trade Tanev, the only point would to make our club better.
  11. So you would rather Edler-Tanev PP Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson Hutton-Gudbranson Edler-Tanev Sbisa-Tryamkin Larsen Over Edler-Barrie PP Sedin-Sedin-Eriksson PP#2 Baer-Bo-Hansen Hutton-Gudbranson Edler-Barrie Hutton-Larsen Sbisa-Tryamkin Larsen If Barrie doesn't pair well with Edler, pair him with Sbisa (who's game improved a lot defensively last year) or Tryamkin Edler-Gudbranson Sbisa-Barrie Hutton-Tryamkin Larsen Every pair has some offense and a good defender. I like the balance of our pairings more with Barrie than I do with Tanev, especially that we have Gudbranson...if we didn't have Gudbranson I wouldn't consider trading Tanev.
  12. How can you say this? Chris Tanev and Erik Gudbranson are seriously untradeable to you, even not knowing the return? These are the type of conversations that I just don't understand and they lead nowhere. I will not trade ____ even though I don't have the rest of the information to base the final decision on. Nobody in the NHL is worthy of "Never"
  13. Our D (minus Tanev) with Barrie is much better that Colorado's D with Barrie. We have very very little top end scoring talent at forward for our new core, our options are slim...look at every team, they all have top end skill. We have Boeser and that is about it as far as #1 line offensive skill, and if Boeser doesn't translate to top end talent, yikes. We just added defensive guts at no expense to our D roster in Erik Gudbranson. Trading Tanev for a more offensive right shot dman like Barrie doesn't turn us into Colorado, but it sure helps our forwards get the puck and it sure helps our power play. Got to score to win, and we can't score and one of those reasons is because our d doesn't contribute.
  14. ^^^ @WeneedLumme Yes the deal must make sense for us. I think Barrie could be had for Tanev and a slight piece that doesn't gut our prospect pool. Because of the expansion draft and the cap, trades are much different than they were 10 years ago and you see trades based less on productivity, and more on age/cap hit/position to be protected for ED/how close to RFA/UFA. Many factors go into trades now. Tanev has a lot of things going for him that are valuable to us, but even more valuable to a team on an internal budget or squezed up against the cap. This could be how we land our future #1C or #1RD for our next core, otherwise, how the hell are we getting these two important pieces if not willing to give up a Chris Tanev while we arent a contender anyways?
  15. And this is why you explore all possible trades with all our players (as i'm sure JB is doing) especially after Edmonton sets a temporary bar for the price of defensive dmen. Tanev's value could be much more than it is this time next year...could be more, but I doubt it. If ever a time to trade him, in my opinion it is now as he is getting national team recognition and Larssen just fetched an all star LW. Why not try? I'm not saying trade him no matter what, that is as ridiculous as saying don't trade him no matter what. Both no matter what responses are how not to run a team.