shiznak Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 26 minutes ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said: I disagree. Larsson got Taylor Hall. People need to stop bringing up this trade. 1. Edmonton was in desperate need of a defensemen. Teams were lowballing Edmonton, because they knew about their situation. Thus, Edmonton had to overpay to get what they wanted. The AVs are not nearly as desperate, and if they're going to trade one of their offensive players, they would want someone who brings more than what Tanev brings to the table. 2. Larsson was 23 years old, with some offensive upside, and hasn't reached his full potential. Tanev is 27, in his prime years, with little to none offensive upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Should they really blow up their young core? Pick up a few picks for Iginla + whoever else. Trade Soderberg, draft top 3 and sign a free agent in the offseason and look to turn things around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, shiznak said: People need to stop bring up this trade. 1. Edmonton was in desperate need of a defensemen. Teams were lowballing Edmonton, because they knew about their situation. Thus, Edmonton had to overpay to get what they wanted. The AVs are not nearly as desperate, and if they're going to trade one of their offensive players, they would want someone who brings more than what Tanev brings to the table. 2. Larsson was 23 years old, with some offensive upside, and hasn't reached his full potential. Tanev is 27, in his prime years, with little to none offensive upside. Agreed. To get Landeskog for Tanev we would need to add in another young player like Virtanen or Baertschi at the very least, maybe a pick as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 I'd love to have either of em depending on what we'd have to cough up. I doubt Edler would okay it but I'd be find with shipping out him or Tanev. What concerns me is any picks or prospects we'd have to add. Not interestied in moving either of those if the Avs are looking for significant gravy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beni Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Edler + would be ideal, perhaps for both parties. Edler/Barrie combo might look pretty good. I think they are ok on RD. Lets hope! Landeskog would look pretty good with Bo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoolander Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Landeskog and Bo would look good down the middle. Just Sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 With the lack of quality top picks in the coming draft, dangling a 1st rounder may be tempting. Otherwise Tanev + 2nd + prospect for one of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, pluralsight said: Just curious, is Sergachev a natural RD even though he is a left hand shot? Yes he's natural right side D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley2051 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 15 minutes ago, Zoolander said: Landeskog and Bo would look good down the middle. Just Sayin. Does Landy play centre? I know Duchene can do both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted December 23, 2016 Author Share Posted December 23, 2016 huuuge fan of either of them. Let me throw you a hard one. to col: horvat, 1st pick 2017 to van: mackinnon BOOM! Look at me just stirring the pot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.53 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 I would take either! Please! Landeskog first, but Duchene would be awesome too. Hell get them both! I think Landeskog would come cheaper given his lackluster performance this season. I expect him to be able to turn it around too. Duchene would also be awesome and give a 1c option after Henrik. Get it done. But remember people, teams all over the league will be calling. Just a Tanev or and Edler probably won't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 51 minutes ago, shiznak said: People need to stop bringing up this trade. 1. Edmonton was in desperate need of a defensemen. Teams were lowballing Edmonton, because they knew about their situation. Thus, Edmonton had to overpay to get what they wanted. The AVs are not nearly as desperate, and if they're going to trade one of their offensive players, they would want someone who brings more than what Tanev brings to the table. 2. Larsson was 23 years old, with some offensive upside, and hasn't reached his full potential. Tanev is 27, in his prime years, with little to none offensive upside. Maybe so. But IMO Tanev pus a small add is in the right ballpark for Landeskog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saucypass Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Duchene seems like a great guy who just loves playing the game. Tantilizing skillset and actually plays some defence. Would be a great addition to the Canucks for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Tanev Virtanen Sutter for Erik Johnson Landeskog git errrrr dunnnn!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Stoch Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Could someone explain why the Avs want to trade Landeskog? I just don't get why bottom team would trade away a young excellent all around player that you would want to build around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Butters Stoch said: Could someone explain why the Avs want to trade Landeskog? I just don't get why bottom team would trade away a young excellent all around player that you would want to build around. get out of here with your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Stoch Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 minute ago, hammertime said: get out of here with your logic. Makes about as much sense as a bottom 5 team signing a 30+ year old nearing the end of his prime to a 6milx6year contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Here it comes...Dream proposal time..... Sutter + Hutton for Duchene + pick Sedins (50%) for Plekanec + Sergachev + conditional pick Tanev + Granlund for Domi Top 6 of: Domi Horvat Boeser Baertschi Duchene Virtanen *with a top 10 pick this year. Future D of: Juolevi Sergachev Tryamkin Stecher Sbisa Gudbranson Sounds like the Canucks become the new young rebuilding team and pile up the losses. Something Benning would never do and ownership would never agree to a true strip it down rebuild. This retool going on right now is as good as it gets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Tanev for JVR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Realistically if were getting any one of Landeskog Duchene Makinnon were giving up Virtanen + or our first + or Horvat+. Don't see why they would want Tanev when they can get 2 top 5 picks one through trade and the other through tanking. No point in trying to rescue this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.