JM_ Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 23 minutes ago, Toni Zamboni said: i wanna see some proposals for us landing Drouin. now go..... TBL signs Droiun to a 3 year bridge deal at 4 mil per, trades him to us for Tanev + Baer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: TBL signs Droiun to a 3 year bridge deal at 4 mil per, trades him to us for Tanev + Baer. ill take that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaincowbasher Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 1 minute ago, aqua59 said: you're just hoping buy reading between the lines. Your are correct Sir, but with that said, I have been an avid fan of this team for 20 years, gone to so many games with friends and family, and I have never felt so disconnected with our team. The last number of years it's been the same old thing; secondary scoring and a PP quarterback or a true #1 puck moving defenceman. I know these type of players don't grow on trees but the Nucks are not even in the discussion on trying to acquire such players. I'm not pointing fingers, but as a serious fan I need to disconnect because it hurts otherwise. The Sedin's have quietly gone about playing on one side of the ice for so long, and as far as I'm concerned that's not leadership. The Sedin's and Edler are in essence holding this team hostage by not waiving if that in fact is what they are doing, so play them on the third line or split them up and play Edler 13 minutes a game, diminish they're worth. We have some young pieces that could be a valid core but they need to be led by players who play fast, physical and complete games, Landeskog is the ideal and if it cost Tanev and Granlund then so be it, we know exactly what we are getting with Landeskog. This is why Virtanen is so important, he could be one of the core pieces I'm referring to. Personally I think Benning might just be the architect that builds a complete hockey team and contends for many years to come, but the Sedins and Edler stand in his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaincowbasher Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, mll said: McKenzie says under 24. Landeskog is just out of their age range - he was drafted in 2011 so younger than him. Born Nov. 22, late baby so he's within their range...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, captaincowbasher said: Born Nov. 22, late baby so he's within their range...lol Then they'll keep him... He's actually the one they apparently don't want to trade. Duchene for sure will move on. I guess it's going to depend if they can get a key young D prospect in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said: Good trade for the Canucks, but not the direction that Colorado is going right now. They are going to rebuild again around younger players and draft picks. This trade is not in line with that at all. This is a classic homer proposal that doesn't take the trading partners wants/needs into consideration. That, and they aren't going to trade for another RHD while they still have Johnson and Barrie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Decent idea but with or without Landeskog we are 2-3 years of good drafting and a lot of luck from actually competing or even making a push for the playoffs. Landeskog has a 5 year deal, is 24 and is UFA after the deal. Thus if everything goes well Landeskog will be 27 and have 2 years left on his contract before either a big pay raise or walking to a new team, giving us a 2 year window to win a cup or essentailly bust with this trade... Anyways I like Baertschi on Horvat's line right now and would like to see how they turn out for the next season. I'd rather trade Tanev and other pieces for more futures. high round draft picks to find some elite talent.. If we draft a lot of these high-level talent guys the some will not work out but some will bound to work out. Then upon ELC and hiding players in NCAA / juniors or europe then we can prolong their low-level cost until they can contribute to the team when we are on the upswing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 57 minutes ago, elvis15 said: That, and they aren't going to trade for another RHD while they still have Johnson and Barrie. I think Sakic already said he needs to improve his defense. Barrie is horrible in the D zone, and best suited playing PP and protected 5 on 5 minutes. Tanev solidifies the Ave's defence, much like Larson did for the Oilers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Sometimes I miss Sweaty Gillis because he just didn't say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 3 hours ago, RetroCanuck said: Overpayment by us. Granlund outscored Landy last year and Tanevs a top pairing D. Tanev for Landeskog would be more fair but I wouldn't do that. Landeskog isn't old but Id rather get a first or younger prospect for Tanev. Yeah they scored at the same pace. Reputation and "draft pedigree" aside, if Gabe's production continually stays low then I don't think it's worth it to trade so much for him. That being said, it'd be great to get some more rugged skill in the top-6, even if he is slightly above the desired age range. Though he's expensive he can provide the right mix of skill and sandpaper to help the top-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Landeskog- 18 goals-15 assists -33 points in 72 games Granlund- 19 goals- 13 assists- 32 points in 69 games And we're proposing we give up Granlund AND Tanev for Landeskog? Yeah, hard pass on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: Landeskog- 18 goals-15 assists -33 points in 72 games Granlund- 19 goals- 13 assists- 32 points in 69 games And we're proposing we give up Granlund AND Tanev for Landeskog? Yeah, hard pass on that one. I heard Pierre McGuire say he would be very careful with Landeskog. He mentioned about concussion and other injury troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 3 hours ago, captaincowbasher said: Tanev is young, he's hitting his prime, he's a legit #2, he would help dearly transitioning the puck to their forwards. Every team in the NHL will be in on Tanev Good, it's not just me then that thinks keeping Tanev is a good idea. He's just 27 and for d-men that's just entering their prime. He'll be playing for another 10 years so wouldn't it be nice that with all the young players we'll have up front that we have some stabilizing influences on the back end. Yes he's the biggest potential trade chip we have, and teams would go after him for the same reason I mention above. I don't want this team to become the Oilers of the last half dozen years with a bunch of skilled forwards and no defencemen. Let's just stay the course and draft well and build our top 9. Top pairing d-men are not as easy to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 1 minute ago, MJDDawg said: Good, it's not just me then that thinks keeping Tanev is a good idea. He's just 27 and for d-men that's just entering their prime. He'll be playing for another 10 years so wouldn't it be nice that with all the young players we'll have up front that we have some stabilizing influences on the back end. Yes he's the biggest potential trade chip we have, and teams would go after him for the same reason I mention above. I don't want this team to become the Oilers of the last half dozen years with a bunch of skilled forwards and no defencemen. Let's just stay the course and draft well and build our top 9. Top pairing d-men are not as easy to find. There were those rumours around the TDL about Hutton being the defence man traded. If JB is going to trade a d for a young top nine forward, would you rather Hutton over Tanev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 4 hours ago, EagleShield said: Tanev + Granlund + 33 overall + 55th overall for Landeskog + 4th overall. We win that trade, but not by as much as you might think. drop one of our picks and give them a 4th to 5th and its good for both, or like said above Baer instead of Granny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: Landeskog- 18 goals-15 assists -33 points in 72 games Granlund- 19 goals- 13 assists- 32 points in 69 games And we're proposing we give up Granlund AND Tanev for Landeskog? Yeah, hard pass on that one. The difference is they're both 24 and one has put up 63 points in 171 games and the other has put up 279 points in 428 games. Granlund had a career best year and Landeskog had a career worst year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCanuck Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 1 hour ago, qwijibo said: The difference is they're both 24 and one has put up 63 points in 171 games and the other has put up 279 points in 428 games. Granlund had a career best year and Landeskog had a career worst year. Ya but Landeskog has has concussion issues which could be a problem in the future and Granlund put up that career year with a bummed wrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 1 hour ago, qwijibo said: The difference is they're both 24 and one has put up 63 points in 171 games and the other has put up 279 points in 428 games. Granlund had a career best year and Landeskog had a career worst year. So Granlund is on the upswing and Landeskog is on the downswing. Good to know. Now the deal makes even less sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCanuck Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Phil_314 said: Yeah they scored at the same pace. Reputation and "draft pedigree" aside, if Gabe's production continually stays low then I don't think it's worth it to trade so much for him. That being said, it'd be great to get some more rugged skill in the top-6, even if he is slightly above the desired age range. Though he's expensive he can provide the right mix of skill and sandpaper to help the top-6. Rather just wait for virtanen to develop then and hope we draft another strong tough middle six winger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp79 Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 3 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: So Granlund is on the upswing and Landeskog is on the downswing. Good to know. Now the deal makes even less sense. Good to see another fan who values Gran and Baer These guys finally got a chance to play real minutes for a whole season with solid players around them and the shinedThey get overlooked because they don't have certain names. Yet their production puts them ahead of most of the flames and many other players CDC is willing to throw the farm at to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.