Patrick Kane Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 One of the worst proposals I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 not really, he would cost us horvat, tanev and our first. not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabeast Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 This is bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poet Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 While I think Colorado is similar to the Oilers of year's past, I don't think they've lost enough yet to be that desperate. So...any trade for Duchene right now is going to start with Tanev and end with our first round pick, with something painful in the middle. If you can make it happen for Tanev, Virtanen and our first do you do it? It would be worth thinking about perhaps...especially if we end up picking 7 or 8th overall this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Tanev would fetch Duchene. They might say no, but that's what his value is. If they say no, then conversation over until they come crawling back. Do you think when Larsson was offered for Hall that Chiarelli jumped for joy? NO! He probably asked all over the league and nobody wanted to pay more than that so he called them back. It's a simple negotiation tactic and you don't give up more than that unless it is a meaningless piece that for them will make the deal work. If someone else wants to give up more for him then let them, but that is what he's worth. Duchene is a great player, he made Team Canada for a reason (unless you all want to tell me how dumb Hockey Canada is, picking a winning team almost every time). Tanev is a great player, he made Team Canada last World Championship and was one of their best defenders (again, unless you think Hockey Canada is dumb, in which case you should go back to bed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Duchene will cost Bo lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 The reality is that other than our blue chip prospects (Demko, Boeser) and Horvat, the Canucks do not have anything that would get much back (and yes this includes Tanev and Edler who some on this board greatly overvalue) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 14 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said: The reality is that other than our blue chip prospects (Demko, Boeser) and Horvat, the Canucks do not have anything that would get much back (and yes this includes Tanev and Edler who some on this board greatly overvalue) Larssen returned Hall, and Tanev is arguably better (as supported by fancy stats) than Larssen. Top two defencemen, like Tanev, are worth a lot more than you think. (As proven by the Hall - Larssen trade) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/15/2017 at 2:54 PM, Alflives said: Is Duchene playing like a star player? Sbisa and Granlund help the Avs with what they need. It's a very fair trade. Tanev has to replace Sbisa in order to make this work for the Avs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/15/2017 at 3:26 PM, DontMessMe said: No.. Just no.. This is truly Canucks bias. This is NOT fair at all for the Avs Would you accept Top 6 D man Top 9 forward for BO HORVAT?? You want duchene? Offer like Tanev Boeser/Juolevi 1st Look, Avs arent giving him away. Its gonna be expensive. Its best if we dont make a trade with them. Im just trying to get a neutral viewing. Please... Hey I agree the trade is not fair but no way we give up either Boeser or Juolevi. Maybe Tanev and a 2nd would be a fair trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/15/2017 at 3:30 PM, DontMessMe said: Like I said, that EDM deal was stupid. It wont happen again Granlund is a top 9 forward Sbisa is a top 6 Duchene is a 1B/2A forward Ya but Duchene is one dimenssional and is trending down already. He's not a complete player like Bo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/15/2017 at 3:38 PM, Beary Sweet said: Boy didn't Benning clearly say just a couple days ago we aren't trading any more picks and the Guddy trade was the last he was going to give draft picks. For a guy like Duchene though, it's worth the risk. Has proven track record of putting points on the board on a consistent basis. I'd do something like Sbisa, Granny, and a 1st for Duchene and a 3rd if we get lucky but knowing Benning, he'll overpay to some extent Ya consistent. You mean consistently going downward.right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/15/2017 at 3:44 PM, DontMessMe said: Sbisa Granlund 1st isnt enough. Its gonna take a big overpayment on our side. Anaylst have said sakic has a big price tag on him What he wants and what he gets are 2 different things. Tanev and a 2nd is enough if Joe don't like it then Joe can find another partner or should I say sucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/15/2017 at 5:27 PM, smithers joe said: not really, he would cost us horvat, tanev and our first. not worth it. There no way in the world we would ever give up Bo, Tanev and a 1st for anyone on the Avs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 16 minutes ago, Sbriggs said: Hey I agree the trade is not fair but no way we give up either Boeser or Juolevi. Maybe Tanev and a 2nd would be a fair trade. Colorado would not do that. They have a high price set for Duchene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Sbriggs said: There no way in the world we would ever give up Bo, Tanev and a 1st for anyone on the Avs Thats y we will never acquire duchene. His price is too high Its gonna be Blue chip prospect Top 4 D 1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, DontMessMe said: Colorado would not do that. They have a high price set for Duchene. Well then I guess there keeping him or finding another sucker. I don't understand why people here think that we have to pay what people want. News Flash WE DON'T. Lets remember the Avs came out and said they were on the market so its not like we came begging for him. Benning I hope is smarter then that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, DontMessMe said: Thats y we will never acquire duchene. His price is too high Its gonna be Blue chip prospect Top 4 D 1st I understand what they want but I don't see any team giving them that. Hopefully not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny in Vancouver Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 What I would love to see is for the OP to propose this in the Avalanche forums. I can't wait for the "give us Gudbranson and we'll throw in MacKinnon" responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Silky mitts said: Duchene will cost Bo lol Never I would want Bo over Duchene any day of the week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.