capebretoncanuck93 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 TO VAN: Pouliot 3rd TO PIT: Lack Weber We need more d prospects and pittsburgh needs another goalie as fluery dont have great track record in playoffs. We could call up markstrom, whom i think is the most underrated goalie prospect ever ( hes only played for the panthers and a canucks team that i shouldnt have to explain) he would be a good backup for us. When Millers contract is up Demko should be ready for us, and if not im sure Benning could convince Miller to stay another year or 2. Pouliot is that great puck moving defensmen we need and if im undervaluing him (as im mainly going by his stats, size, and what ive read on him) id even be willing to throw in another pick or someone else to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckMan10 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Lack is not much of an improvement from Greiss, plus Greiss is cheaper than Lack. Weber has virtually no value, and Derrick Pouliot is a beast of a defensive prospect. You'd have to throw in a first to get him and why would we do that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capebretoncanuck93 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Lack is not much of an improvement from Greiss, plus Greiss is cheaper than Lack. Weber has virtually no value, and Derrick Pouliot is a beast of a defensive prospect. You'd have to throw in a first to get him and why would we do that.. What about Lack+Corrado+2nd for pouliot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckMan10 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 He's debatedly their #1 prospect, someone said in another thread "what would it take for us to trade Virtanen" this is similar. Not a couple of spare parts we don't need. Quality over Quantity. I can't tell whether you're trolling or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What about Lack+Corrado+2nd for pouliot? Would you trade Virtanen for Greiss, Phillip Samuelson and a 2nd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckMan10 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Would you trade Virtanen for Greiss, Phillip Samuelson and a 2nd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I wondered if we'd see a proposal on him today after he was sent to the minors. He's just getting back from shoulder surgery and needs to get back up to speed, this isn't a demotion based on the quality of his play. They are still very high on him in Pittsburgh. EDIT: also: Rutherford on Fleury: ‘As long as I’m the GM, he’ll be our goalie’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Pretty bad proposal. To get quality you have to give up quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 i think teams would target after miller instead of lack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capebretoncanuck93 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 He's debatedly their #1 prospect, someone said in another thread "what would it take for us to trade Virtanen" this is similar. Not a couple of spare parts we don't need. Quality over Quantity. I can't tell whether you're trolling or not. I dont understand what trolling is. I didnt realize he was their top prospect. I would give up shinkaruk (we have virtanen) and gaunce(horvat and mccann) and a 2nd or 3rd+5th To pit: Gaunce Shinkaruk 2nd/3rd 5th To van: Pouliot 3rd/4th Id rather keep shinkaruk cuz he will be a great sniper but we have a bigger hometown sniper in virtanen. Gaunce imo its just a matter of time we work him into a trade. What do you think about this proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Or......we could forget about Pouliot and go after a lesser know D prospect that's still good and wouldn't break the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefGormley Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I dont understand what trolling is. I didnt realize he was their top prospect. I would give up shinkaruk (we have virtanen) and gaunce(horvat and mccann) and a 2nd or 3rd+5th To pit: Gaunce Shinkaruk 2nd/3rd 5th To van: Pouliot 3rd/4th Id rather keep shinkaruk cuz he will be a great sniper but we have a bigger hometown sniper in virtanen. Gaunce imo its just a matter of time we work him into a trade. What do you think about this proposal? no to that trade too. Just because we have lots of depth at center doesn't mean we need to instantly trade them away. Quality over Quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I'd still like to move Gaunce for a D prospect though. No, we don't instantly need to trade our center depth away, but we also need to improve our D depth going forward. We could probably swap Gaunce straight across for a pretty good D prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I dont understand what trolling is. I didnt realize he was their top prospect. I would give up shinkaruk (we have virtanen) and gaunce(horvat and mccann) and a 2nd or 3rd+5th To pit: Gaunce Shinkaruk 2nd/3rd 5th To van: Pouliot 3rd/4th Id rather keep shinkaruk cuz he will be a great sniper but we have a bigger hometown sniper in virtanen. Gaunce imo its just a matter of time we work him into a trade. What do you think about this proposal?See now I think it's to much. I think the trade would be a positional need prospect for prospect IF Pittsburgh was looking to move Pouliot(I'm sure they don't but for argument sake) Maybe Shink and a 3rd for Pouliot. We get the young dman we want, Pittsburgh gets a young promising sniper to play with Crosby for years to come. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 No to trading Shinkaruk. Just no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capebretoncanuck93 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 To van; Pouliot To pit: Mccann corrado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Just stop.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capebretoncanuck93 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 i think teams would target after miller instead of lack Miller for LOUUUUUUU LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 No to trading Shinkaruk. Just no. If it got us Pouliot we should do it. We desperately need a Pouliot if you don't see that then you don't understand hockey all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 And if we pulled the trigger, then we would "desperately need" a high scoring prospect. Someone that has 1st line potential.If you don't see that, then I guess you don't understand hockey all that much (or at all). We don't necessarily need "a Pouliot". We just need to shore up our D, prospect-wise. We can do that without giving up our best pure offensive prospect. The way your talking, he's already a 50 + point per year Defenceman in the NHL. Jesus Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.