• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.
Kanucklehead10

[Rumour] Columbus...not interested in Puljujarvi?

Recommended Posts

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/mckenzie-canucks-listening-but-not-actively-shopping-fifth-pick-1.504395

 

Pretty interesting interview on 1040 today about the Canucks and what they might do with the 5th pick, but even more interesting when Bob Mckenzie mentioned that CBJ aren't exactly "set" on picking Puljujarvi at 3rd, mentioning that the "Finnish connection" between the GM and the player doesn't really mean anything, while saying that they would prefer a center (which makes sense after the gaping hole Johansen left). Mckenzie mentions Logan Brown, Keller...etc. Maybe they'd be interested in Dubois?

 

With the 5th pick that the Canucks have (which you would be able to select a good center with), do you think the Canucks could possibly package our pick somehow to attain the 3rd overall from CBJ?

 

I thought it was set that 1,2 and 3 would for sure be Matthews, Laine, and Puljujarvi. Again, this could mean nothing and very well could turn out with CBJ picking Puljujarvi at 3rd, but nevertheless pretty interesting especially coming from Mckenzie.  

 

Can't wait until the draft.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kanucklehead10 said:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/mckenzie-canucks-listening-but-not-actively-shopping-fifth-pick-1.504395

 

Pretty interesting interview on 1040 today about the Canucks and what they might do with the 5th pick, but even more interesting when Bob Mckenzie mentioned that CBJ aren't exactly "set" on picking Puljujarvi at 3rd, mentioning that the "Finnish connection" between the GM and the player doesn't really mean anything, while saying that they would prefer a center (which makes sense after the gaping hole Johansen left). Mckenzie mentions Logan Brown, Keller...etc. Maybe they'd be interested in Dubois?

 

With the 5th pick that the Canucks have (which you would be able to select a good center with), do you think the Canucks could possibly package our pick somehow to attain the 3rd overall from CBJ?

 

I thought it was set that 1,2 and 3 would for sure be Matthews, Laine, and Puljujarvi. Again, this could mean nothing and very well could turn out with CBJ picking Puljujarvi at 3rd, but nevertheless pretty interesting especially coming from Mckenzie.  

 

Can't wait until the draft.

 

I would be all over that deal if the Canucks could get the 3rd..TBH..I don't think that we have the assets to make it work..(we can't give up any more prospects or picks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can he play left wing? Cause that's the position we need to fill most right now up front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats with all the talk this year of making a deal to swap the 5th to Edmonton for the 4th, or make a deal with Columbus to get the 3rd.... or ORRRRR make a trade with Arizona to drop down to 7th!! We have a top 5 pick. Everyone needs to calm down.

 

PUljujarvi, Dubois, or Tkachuk, Just take whoever is left at 5.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Canucks have an opportunity to move to the #3 spot and for Columbus to move up to #5 spot, I would absolutely do it. The Blue Jackets may have soured on Puljujarvi for some insane reason, but he's the type of player the Canucks need. Sure, one of Dubois, Tkachuk, Jost, Fabbro, or Brown would be a nice consolidation prize -- I honestly believe Puljujarvi would be a major coup for the Canucks. (Especially since my gut says that if the Canucks miss out on Dubois, they'll likely shock some people by drafting Dante Fabbro high).

 

If the Canucks could make some sort of move like:

 

TO CBJ

Dorsett

Hansen

#5

 

TO VAN

#3

Hartnell

 

I'd do it. (BTW, Hartnell is someone CBJ wants to move out and would bring a nice scoring touch/replace the veteran prescence lost by Hansen being dealt. Although it would be slightly weird to see Dorsett going back to CBJ, he did play for Torts and thrived under him in New York. Would be a solid move for both sides... also, opens up a roster spot for a young guy like Grenier or Zalewski on the bottom line for the Canucks). You may have to throw in some other picks/prospects in there but the Canucks are giving up 3 roster players for 2 rosters next year. However, they're going to immediately boost there scoring ability with this deal and sell high on Hansen while throwing Dorsett in as a way to equalize taking on Hartnell's contract/salary.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Can he play left wing? Cause that's the position we need to fill most right now up front.

How so? I thought RW is the position we need to fill most right now.

 

LW: Daniel, Baertschi, Virtanen, Gaunce.

RW: Hansen, Etem, Virtanen (can play both), Dorsett.

 

I love Hansen but if your first option at RW is Hansen, there is a problem.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, khay said:

How so? I thought RW is the position we need to fill most right now.

 

LW: Daniel, Baertschi, Virtanen, Gaunce.

RW: Hansen, Etem, Virtanen (can play both), Dorsett.

 

I love Hansen but if your first option at RW is Hansen, there is a problem.

We have a potential first line right winger in Brock Boeser, too.

 

If we somehow add Puljujarvi, it would be:

 

Puljujarvi

Boeser

Virtanen

Etem

 

...on the right side in the future. Instead, we could definitely use a left winger, I think that is what DeNiro meant.

Edited by -Vintage Canuck-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, khay said:

How so? I thought RW is the position we need to fill most right now.

 

LW: Daniel, Baertschi, Virtanen, Gaunce.

RW: Hansen, Etem, Virtanen (can play both), Dorsett.

 

I love Hansen but if your first option at RW is Hansen, there is a problem.

 

Virtanen is primarily a right winger.

 

I'm thinking more ahead we've got Virtanen, Hansen, Rodin?, Boeser, Etem, Dorsett on the right wings

 

Left wing we've got Daniel, Baertschi, and Gaunce. Once Daniel retires there's not a whole lot of talent on the left side outside of Baertschi.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

We have a potential first line right winger in Brock Boeser, too.

 

If we somehow add Puljujarvi, it would be:

 

Puljujarvi

Boeser

Virtanen

Etem

 

on the right in the future. We could definitely use a left winger, I think that is what DeNiro meant.

Virtanen was a LW until he was converted to the RW. He's familiar with the LW, played a little bit this year on the leftside. Maybe we can move him back to the LW position? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, already talked about and potentially debunked in the draft thread.

 

Just a heads up as well, OP, you need to put a tag on any thread in this forum. For instance, this might make sense as a [Speculation] tag.

Edited by elvis15
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jock Cousteau said:

5th OA

Tortellini Conditional 2nd

 

for

 

3rf OA

 

Solid 

This is exactly what I was thinking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Yeah, already talked about and potentially debunked in the draft thread.

 

Just a heads up as well, OP, you need to put a tag on any thread in this forum. For instance, this might make sense as a [Speculation] tag.

 

Just a heads up Elvis, quit telling newer posters what to do. The OP brought up some newer info which may have been lost in that previous thread you referred to. Let new posters spill their beans! What else is a forum for? 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see them passing on him... but if they do, we are the perfect trading partner. 

 

I mentioned it in another thread, but we have the capability of eating one of their terrible NMC contracts.  They are in cap hell right now and also NEED to unload a couple before expansion as they will otherwise have to expose some excellent young talent they want to keep.

 

Hartnell is kind of the obvious choice, he is a decent player but the term on his contract make it awful.  Just taking him back in trade is enough of a return for dropping down two spots (if they didn't want Puulujarvi of course)... we wouldn't have to sweeten it aside from maybe giving them back their 2nd pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kanucklehead10 said:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/mckenzie-canucks-listening-but-not-actively-shopping-fifth-pick-1.504395

 

Pretty interesting interview on 1040 today about the Canucks and what they might do with the 5th pick, but even more interesting when Bob Mckenzie mentioned that CBJ aren't exactly "set" on picking Puljujarvi at 3rd, mentioning that the "Finnish connection" between the GM and the player doesn't really mean anything, while saying that they would prefer a center (which makes sense after the gaping hole Johansen left). Mckenzie mentions Logan Brown, Keller...etc. Maybe they'd be interested in Dubois?

 

With the 5th pick that the Canucks have (which you would be able to select a good center with), do you think the Canucks could possibly package our pick somehow to attain the 3rd overall from CBJ?

 

I thought it was set that 1,2 and 3 would for sure be Matthews, Laine, and Puljujarvi. Again, this could mean nothing and very well could turn out with CBJ picking Puljujarvi at 3rd, but nevertheless pretty interesting especially coming from Mckenzie.  

 

Can't wait until the draft.

 

With 13 days to go until draft I expect more juicy speculations/predictions like this one but at the end of the day my money is on Columbus keeping its pick and we still pick PLD or Tkachuk. I'd be surprised if that changes.

Edited by Top_Shelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quantum said:

If the Canucks have an opportunity to move to the #3 spot and for Columbus to move up to #5 spot, I would absolutely do it. The Blue Jackets may have soured on Puljujarvi for some insane reason, but he's the type of player the Canucks need. Sure, one of Dubois, Tkachuk, Jost, Fabbro, or Brown would be a nice consolidation prize -- I honestly believe Puljujarvi would be a major coup for the Canucks. (Especially since my gut says that if the Canucks miss out on Dubois, they'll likely shock some people by drafting Dante Fabbro high).

 

If the Canucks could make some sort of move like:

 

TO CBJ

Dorsett

Hansen

#5

 

TO VAN

#3

Hartnell

 

I'd do it. (BTW, Hartnell is someone CBJ wants to move out and would bring a nice scoring touch/replace the veteran prescence lost by Hansen being dealt. Although it would be slightly weird to see Dorsett going back to CBJ, he did play for Torts and thrived under him in New York. Would be a solid move for both sides... also, opens up a roster spot for a young guy like Grenier or Zalewski on the bottom line for the Canucks). You may have to throw in some other picks/prospects in there but the Canucks are giving up 3 roster players for 2 rosters next year. However, they're going to immediately boost there scoring ability with this deal and sell high on Hansen while throwing Dorsett in as a way to equalize taking on Hartnell's contract/salary.

 

 

I'd take that in a heartbeat, but I'm quite sure Columbus wouldn't. Hartnell tends to be a fan-favourite type of player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.