missioncanucksfan Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Listening to the panel tonite and Kypreos actually making a good suggestion of Spooner to Van. Also the talk of Paciorrety posibly being shopped for a top 4 D got me thinking. Would Granlund+Subban be enough to get Spooner out of Boston? Hearing he might be placed on waivers soon enough anyway, no way does he land in our laps. Hearing Pacioretty (however u spell his name) is available for a top 4 D. Would Tanev be enough to get Max out of Mtl? Our D has actually been somewhat decent without Edler/Tanev. Ya, losing T would suck but would it hurt us? Even though it got us a guy that could provide scoring for us? Heck Tanev and Patches have the same cap hit and Patch is still signed for 2 years after this. We need scoring threats and guys that can shoot and provide offense. Spooner was awesome on the PP with Eriksson last year so there's that. Chaput and Granlund have been ok but they don't hold a candle to what these guys provide. Sedin/Sedin/Sutter Pacioretty/Spooner/Eriksson Baertschi/Horvat/Burrows Skille/Gaunce/Mena Now that's a decent line-up with tons of new looks on PP. Cap hits balance out, as does value Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcasgonewild Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 I like ur trade idea. Of rather trade Edler tho tbh since hed probably waive to Montreal. Even if we had to add a second. I wouldn't give Granlund plus for spooner. Thats a little too much considering he may be on waivers. I say get pacioretty if it costs Edler plus 2nd BECAUSE we need tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Pach from montreal would be interesting but no to Spooner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted December 4, 2016 Author Share Posted December 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, orcasgonewild said: I like ur trade idea. Of rather trade Edler tho tbh since hed probably waive to Montreal. Even if we had to add a second. I wouldn't give Granlund plus for spooner. Thats a little too much considering he may be on waivers. I say get pacioretty if it costs Edler plus 2nd BECAUSE we need tanev As much as I would love for Edler to be the one to go, his NTC kinda c**k blocks the trade. Besides we would surely have to add if it's Edler I wouldn't want Granlund to go but with Pacioretty now filling that LW spot, there wouldn't be much room for Markus. Plus the extra bit of cap hit off the books helps. Spooner being a bit one deme sional, it's that demension that we need as well. Plus a good puck disher to feed shooters in Pacioretty and Eriksson would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Montreal losing Pacioretty leaves a much bigger hole than Tanev fills. This is just media speculation because he's off to a slow start. The price for him would be significantly higher than Tanev considering his age. Above average goal scoring production and low cap hit. Not to mention he's the captain. Montreal's biggest need right now is a 2C. If they were to trade him for a defencemsn it would be for a left hand shot to play with Weber. So Tanev doesnt really fill the need, and honestly Emelin has been very good in that spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Liking the suggestion of picking up Spooner, but why trade for a guy who will hit waivers? Even if they do decide to trade for him, not sure why Granlund (who at worst would be an equivalent player) would need an added Subban to make it worth it? This is the exact kind of trade that Jim needs to avoid. Try looking at it another way, if they're almost equal then why make a move AND add for Ryan? Would you guys think it's reasonable for us to deal Granlund for Spooner and say Malcolm Subban from the Bruins' perspective? Now it'd be an overpayment for them. MAYBE a deal in my books but not really necesssary. Tanev for Patches though I would do. Split the Twins and put him with Hank as he would be the big, physical, top-level shooter that Hank would do well with. In this case I would even do something like this: Patches - Hank - Loui (shooter, play-maker, net-front guy; this would be a solid unit IMO) Danny - Bo - Hansen (play-making upgrade on Sven, play-driving Bo, speedy Burr-type) Sven - Sutter - Burr (200-foot unit, Sven is excellent depth, Sutter would be solid #3, Burr is solid) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted December 4, 2016 Author Share Posted December 4, 2016 1 minute ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Tag? Sorry but can you Pls elaborate for the dumb ones such as myself Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, missioncanucksfan said: Tag? Sorry but can you Pls elaborate for the dumb ones such as myself Thanks You posted "Van-Mtl + Van-Bos" as the thread title. Just make sure to add [Proposal] if it's a proposal, or [Discussion] if it's a discussion thread, in front of the title. Just like how I did now. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted December 4, 2016 Author Share Posted December 4, 2016 23 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: You posted "Van-Mtl + Van-Bos" as the thread title. Just make sure to add [Proposal] if it's a proposal, or [Discussion] if it's a discussion thread, in front of the title. Just like how I did now. Thanks. Apologies....I just thought since this is a proposal thread it just kinda went without saying.... Duly noted for the future tho... Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.