Type R Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 This has been beat to death all summer, but I just spotted this article tonight and I got a little excited. Do you guys think there could be any truth to this? Quote NHL Trade Rumors: Gabriel Landeskog to Vancouver Canucks? Listen | Print By Larry Seely Sep 10, 2016 in Sports Vancouver - There have been reports all summer on the Vancouver Canucks and their search for more offensive firepower, especially at left wing and with the start of NHL training camps just around the corner, it's getting close to crunch time for the front office. General manager Jim Benning has stated on several occasions that his squad needs help. With management failing to get that through the free agent market, a trade appears the only option at this late stage of the summer and several rumors have hit social media recently regarding their need. Aly Dhanani of Fan Sided has made a few suggestions, both for the present and for a long-term solution to the team's plight. The deal that makes the most sense based on recent reports is Colorado Avalanche young gun Gabriel Landeskog being added. Several sources have stated that the youngster and the Avs' are at odds, surprisingly considering the 23-year-old is the team captain, but it now appears the front office in Colorado would like to add more experience to their front line, a move that can help them win more hockey games in 2016-17. A potential trade would probably involve Christopher Tanev, arguably the Canucks best young defender, but adding a player that can put the puck in the net on a regular basis won't come cheap and Landeskog has four straight years in the NHL with 20 goals or more. A number of other players have also been linked in the last few weeks to Vancouver, including veteran Patrick Marleau of San Jose, but at 36 years of age, the Sharks winger is more of a short-term solution to a problem that will continue to haunt this club if they don't start adding younger talent. It makes since that this franchise wants to make a move, but its also important not to be short-sighted in making the playoffs this season and concentrate more on the foundation of the team for future success. Landeskog would be a great answer and the type of player that could help lead this squad for the next decade, even if it costs the squad a talented defender like Tanev. Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/sports/nhl-trade-rumors-gabriel-landeskog-to-vancouver-canucks/article/474500#ixzz4K6tAMCfb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 "It makes since" anyways id move Tanev for Gabriel - not convinced tanevs durable marleau dont see that making sense for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Marleau would be great ...if this were 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackers Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Those are two very different things lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace The Creator Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Aly Dhanani of Fan Sided has made a few suggestions, both for the present and for a long-term solution to the team's plight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Type R Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 To be clear, I'm not excited about Marleau, however Landeskog would be something. Boeser, Horvat, Landeskog, Beartschi as our up and comers, that's not a bad thing. I'm not excited about losing Tanev, but the flip side is, we are full of young up and coming D. Hutton is here, Stetcher is lurking and waiting, Subban would be a terrific 7th/6th guy, Larsen has potential, Groot (Tryamkin) needs a spot.. And lets not forget about Sbisa (Grit), Gudbranson (Grit), Edler (Please bring back the cannon) and Juolevi won't take 3 years to get here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Mad Bro? Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 That article is so last week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 The same conundrum as choosing a 13 year old dog over a puppy would be. Marleau? Really? Come on. Okay, for Dorsett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Landeskog rumours are just clip bait for the off season. JB says he wants a gritty winger, Colorado is having issues with Landeskog... . No insider like Bob Mac has weighed in. No smoke yet. Still fun to consider, so here's my take. Tanev plus CBJ's second or Tanev and Hansen. Maybe we can ship out Edler... It would be foolish to give up any of our newly acquired prospect depth. I want to keep Demko, Virt, Boeser, Juolevi, Gaunce. Anyone else sure, but these guys are all going to fill holes in our roster in the next 2 years. We have players that are comfortable on the right side, Sbisa, Trymakin, Larsen, Subban etc.... Losing Tanev would leave a huge hole, and a patch work of these guys would have to fill it. Russell is still out there, but he plays the left side. Landeskog would be a great addition, just don't think this club can afford the asking price unless Sakic really values Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Well, you have to give up something that you'd protect in the upcoming expansion draft, otherwise you are going to be losing an extra asset. This is why I'd be happier with a deal involving Tanev than I would a trade involving prospects (since you also lose an extra piece to the expansion draft, which we currently have no problem with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Just now, c00kies said: Well, you have to give up something that you'd protect in the upcoming expansion draft, otherwise you are going to be losing an extra asset. This is why I'd be happier with a deal involving Tanev than I would a trade involving prospects (since you also lose an extra piece to the expansion draft, which we currently have no problem with). Good point. ^^^ NHL ready Prospects are going to be like gold this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 How about MarLNO! Landeskog could be had, but I think Tanev is too valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Bring on Skoggy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Even Don Cherry's gotta respect a Euro like Landeskog who plays a gritty North American style game. Yes to Landeskog for sure. Hell no to Marleau. Hate players who have size but don't use it. For a guy who is 6 foot 2 and 220 Marleau plays more like he is 5 foot 10 and 180 pounds. It's a contact sport little guys gotta play big. Big guys though can't play small!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 If Avs are gonna even think of trading their young workhorse and leader within the conference. If the Avalanche would take Tanev, Baertschi, and a first I would do the trade it's a fair deal. Landeskog and Horvat would look amazing on a line together 2 guys who are 200 plus pounds with power and excellent speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaku Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Marleau? Really? 4 minutes ago, Chip Kelly said: If Avs are gonna even think of trading their young workhorse and leader within the conference. If the Avalanche would take Tanev, Baertschi, and a first I would do the trade it's a fair deal. Landeskog and Horvat would look amazing on a line together 2 guys who are 200 plus pounds with power and excellent speed. Bo with Gabe would be the dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aircool Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I think if we were to acquire Landeskog it would cost something like Tanev + VIrtanen. And depending upon how much you value Tanev and how much Colorado values Tanev you might have to add another asset on our end. Frankly, Tanev doesn't produce points, so his trade value is extremely limited for a "supposed" top pairing defenseman. I think a trade of Tanev, Virtanen and a 2nd or 3rd would make sense and be appropriate value, but I'd personally never make that trade. While I don't particularly care for Tanev, and I think that we should probably trade him while his value is at it's absolute peak (which is right now), I don't like paying the premium for the quality of player that really we should be drafting ourselves. This team should have been doing a 5-8 year rebuild through Top-5 picks in the draft starting 2-3 years ago, we'd already have plenty of players of this quality if we had.... Now these upcoming drafts are getting leaner, and our options to add 1st line quality players are becoming limited and more expensive. The last thing we need to do is trade Virtanen and have him pan out into a power forward we'd all be drooling over. Although Virtanen would be 100% expendable if you were certain Boeser was going to be the better player at the NHL level. The reality is that this team lacks a young superstar, other teams have drafted players who were able to step in at 18 and produce in the NHL at a level that none of our prospects have been able to do at a slightly more advanced age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said: Landeskog rumours are just clip bait for the off season. JB says he wants a gritty winger, Colorado is having issues with Landeskog... . No insider like Bob Mac has weighed in. No smoke yet. Still fun to consider, so here's my take. Tanev plus CBJ's second or Tanev and Hansen. Maybe we can ship out Edler... It would be foolish to give up any of our newly acquired prospect depth. I want to keep Demko, Virt, Boeser, Juolevi, Gaunce. Anyone else sure, but these guys are all going to fill holes in our roster in the next 2 years. We have players that are comfortable on the right side, Sbisa, Trymakin, Larsen, Subban etc.... Losing Tanev would leave a huge hole, and a patch work of these guys would have to fill it. Russell is still out there, but he plays the left side. Landeskog would be a great addition, just don't think this club can afford the asking price unless Sakic really values Tanev. There's no issue with Landeskog. Dater checked when the rumours surfaced and no one from his camp had heard anything. Roy was upset with his team and he singled out Landeskog as the only guy free of criticism. Roy wanted a fundamental change to the roster - Sakic wanted to stay put. With a new coach - they are not going to make a move. Sakic listed Landeskog, Barrie, Duchene, MacKinnon, Johnson and Varlamov (with whom Roy was particularly upset) as the core group their new coach will have to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 tanevs value will never be higher and he brings no physicality or offense i say we trade him gives a spot for youngsters if we can get landeskog and a third for tanev and jackets 2nd and hansen jump on it and run by deadline sedin sedin eriksson 1a line baertchi sutter rodin speedy skill 2nd line landeskog horvat virtanen 2b rough shutdown libe gaunce granlund grenier 3gs line big mean skilled edler guddy hutton tryamkin juolevi stecher pedan markstrom/demko trade miller burrows sbisa at deadline for teams that need vets for playoff drive we can leave dorsett explosed at expansion draft. next yr boeser plays top six and youth will be great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 What part of stay at home defensemen do people not understand? If Tanev is so useless why do people think we can get Landeskog for him? Is he the best d-man on the Canucks? No. Most physical? No. Does he do his job? Absolutely. With the addition of Gudbranson, Tanev can be our #2 RHD. We have other RHD prospects to provide offence. Maybe lets stabilize our defence first and find someone to outplay him, before starting to move guys around. Landeskog is a pipe dream, unless we are giving up on something major. He's gotten 20 goals plus in 4 out of 5 years. The Av's aren't going to give him away for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.