garthsbutcher Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 16 hours ago, HorvatToBaertschi said: I wouldnt say he is a better fit than Landeskog but the trade makes a lot of sense and is much more realistic. I definetely think Kreider is on GMJB's radar since he crosses a lot of boxes on what we're looking for. Fast, big, and plays hard with good character and leadership. Plus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 7 hours ago, Harvey Spector said: Chiarelli isn't THAT desperate... Not any more at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 7 hours ago, Harvey Spector said: Chiarelli isn't THAT desperate... Says who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swizzey Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? I would think Tanev + 2nd would be a fair swap. However, I think Colorado would want either a 1st with it or a solid prospect. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Sutter-Granlund Eriksson-Horvat-Burrows Seems intriguing for next year - one can hope. Thoughts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigturk8 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, swizzey said: With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? I would think Tanev + 2nd would be a fair swap. However, I think Colorado would want either a 1st with it or a solid prospect. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Sutter-Granlund Eriksson-Horvat-Burrows Seems intriguing for next year - one can hope. Thoughts?? Landeskog would make the lineup interesting next year for a number of reasons. First of all, someone would have to go. My money would be on not re-signing Burrows. Second of all, what would it do to the potential of Boeser stepping in? You don't throw that kid on the 4th but the top 3 would be pretty crowded. Personally, I'd see the lines playing out like this. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Horvat-Eriksson Baertschi-Sutter-Grandlund Regardless of what the lineup would pan out to be, it sure would look a lot more dynamic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabychStache Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, swizzey said: With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? I would think Tanev + 2nd would be a fair swap. However, I think Colorado would want either a 1st with it or a solid prospect. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Sutter-Granlund Eriksson-Horvat-Burrows Seems intriguing for next year - one can hope. Thoughts?? Landeskog would be a great fit. I'd say: Landeskog-Horvat-Eriksson Sedins-Hansen Baer-Sutter-Boeser Granlund-Gaunce-Skille still too soft. Need Virtanen to develop quickly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rattler Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 2 hours ago, swizzey said: With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? Thoughts?? I wonder if Colorado is thinking "With this crap show going on in Vancouver..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 2 hours ago, swizzey said: With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? I would think Tanev + 2nd would be a fair swap. However, I think Colorado would want either a 1st with it or a solid prospect. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Sutter-Granlund Eriksson-Horvat-Burrows Seems intriguing for next year - one can hope. Thoughts?? I'd send them Tanev plus one of Baer/Granlund/Rodin. They get a warm body replacement for a winger with potential/upside and the D they're looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, The Rattler said: I wonder if Colorado is thinking "With this crap show going on in Vancouver..." crap show? This is pretty much on script for what most people thought the team would be. They are working hard and the games are enjoyable to watch, for the most part, and they will, likely, end up with a lottery pick. Isn't that what everyone wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 I'd rather try and get Duchene, we need another top 6 centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 11:22 PM, Harvey Spector said: Does anyone realizes that Colorado has 2 right sided D already in Johnson and Barrie? With cap hits totalling $11.5 million. Where exactly would Tanev play and why would they want him? Third pairing? If anything they'd take Hutton or Edler before Tanev. Edler wouldn't get you Landeskog and I wouldn't want to trade Hutton at this point. So not sure a deal with Colorado makes sense at this point unless other players were involved. Now if Juolevi and/or Tryamkin take the next step and can play top 4 minutes then that changes everything. But for now I like our top 4 D. I like our D period and I also like our 1/2 punch in goal. The Sedin line looks good in the WCH and we have lots of players that can fill a 3rd and 4th line role. The key this year is that second line. We need Bo and Jake to take that next step. If they can do it I think we are in great shape up front. Especially with Boeser on his way soon. However if Bo struggles and Jake goes to Utica then we are in trouble. Have no idea why the Av's would move Landeskog? Van should move Tanev or Edler because they are the d-men with the most trade value. The d-side is the only depth the org has. Fans could not watch the Caps game not not realize where the team is headed. The Twins struggled but then so did the whole team. The Twins struggle a little more each year. I do not expect them to resign nor should the team want them to. Eriksson, Sutter, Hansen and Horvat are the key forward vets to move forward with. Still love Bur but if he can get a pick at the TDL then so be it. The forward prospects pool has to be deepened before the Canucks can be competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 26 minutes ago, Lockhart said: I'd rather try and get Duchene, we need another top 6 centre. Me too. Landeskog would be great but we need Duchene more and we can get a guy like Kane for a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 3 hours ago, swizzey said: With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? I would think Tanev + 2nd would be a fair swap. However, I think Colorado would want either a 1st with it or a solid prospect. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Sutter-Granlund Eriksson-Horvat-Burrows Seems intriguing for next year - one can hope. Thoughts?? Av's aren't trading landeskog, LW is an area of need for the Av's not surplus. And they don't have any interest in tanev. RHD is not what they are looking for. Av's will be making a move to push hard for Fowler this year 1 minute ago, Pears said: Me too. Landeskog would be great but we need Duchene more and we can get a guy like Kane for a lot less. Duchene is likely more available. Apparently Islanders are looking into him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 34 minutes ago, Lockhart said: I'd rather try and get Duchene, we need another top 6 centre. Why not get Landy and a top 6 C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 50 minutes ago, stawns said: crap show? This is pretty much on script for what most people thought the team would be. They are working hard and the games are enjoyable to watch, for the most part, and they will, likely, end up with a lottery pick. Isn't that what everyone wanted? Throw in that game last night, where I don't think any team could compete 100%, having played 3 games in 3 and a half days, with travel. Plus make it 4 games in 6 nights including the Canes game. They've been far more competitive this year than last, even with the injuries. The two games I've gone to this season, one against the Oilers and the other against the Leafs, they've been very exciting games to watch and with all the hype the two aforementioned teams get, you'd think they were light years behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, J.R. said: Why not get Landy and a top 6 C? Because av's aren't moving landy, not for anything we have to offer them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 39 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Because av's aren't moving landy, not for anything we have to offer them. Well fair enough, I'm not claiming he's available. My point was, why not get a top 6 W and C? I do think we move Tanev+ for one of those pieces this summer and ideally, draft the other with our 1st rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Just now, J.R. said: Well fair enough, I'm not claiming he's available. My point was, why not get a top 6 W and C? I do think we move Tanev+ for one of those pieces this summer and ideally, draft the other with our 1st rounder. Based on what teams need a RHD I want Domi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Based on what teams need a RHD I want Domi Sure, that would be just fine with me (Though I'd prefer to move Tanev East...and he'd likely do better/last longer there too). Domi, Horvat, Eriksson Sedin, Sedin, Hansen Granlund, Sutter, Boeser Looks good to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 13/09/2016 at 3:14 AM, Ghostsof1915 said: 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. These are the same goofs who thought Raymond, Ballard + a 1st was the holy grail for every other team in the league. Says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.