(Trade proposal)

[Byrix]

There are a lot of rumors around the league about the 3rd overall pick and it makes sense for Dallas to trade that pick for a proven player.

So with that said, I actually like the initial idea.

11 hours ago, 12-16-FG said:

Van trades Tanev + McIvney to Dallas for 3rd over all and 1  goalie (Take your pick)

If anyone here follows rumor mills closely, there are also words floating around that the 3rd pick alone won't get Dallas a top 4 Dman they are looking for.

Thus, at this point, I'd say value wise, Tanev > 3rd overall pick. Plus on top of that, Canucks need to take a bad goalie contract off their hands. Dallas probably will have to sweeten the deal for Tanev abit.

 

I'd call Dallas and start with this:

Tanev 

for

3rd overall + Rights to Valerie Nichushkin

 

Once Dallas counters with adding the Lehtonen, then counter with taking Niemi to get the deal done.

 

And as for this...

11 hours ago, 12-16-FG said:

Then Van trades 3rd overall, Subban and a 3rd round pick to NJ for 1st overall.

Subban won't get that deal done. 3rd to 1st is a big gap this year AND NJ is keeping that pick.

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

I agree that we get good value in these proposed trades. Which automatically means Jim Benning is incapable of making such trades, he never gets better than fair value.

 

I would liken any trade to acquire another high first in this draft to the Erik Gudbranson trade. We'd acquire a player that won't provide that much value and doesn't fit the profile of what we need long term. I would have traded Jared McCann, but not for Erik Gudbranson. We're not Hischier or Patrick away from cup contention, and unfortunately those players make us better in the relatively short term. This makes it harder to acquire future #1 overall picks (potentially without paying a ransom for them when we talk about realistic value). Also, there are just better drafts to do such trades in, this isn't the one. We should be stocking up on picks for next year's draft for sure. My preference would be that we just draft a player from the 2nd tier of talent in this draft (picks 3-9/10).. So we fit in there at #5 quite comfortably. There is virtually no distinguishable gap in value between this picks, and take a player with the best combination of highest upside and lowest bust potential. Wait to make the fancy trades when we really are a first overall pick away from solidifying our future core.

Firstly, Dahlen says hi.

 

Secondly, Tanev's no-trade clause kicks in after this offseason, so, while we can afford to hold onto him if the right deal doesn't come along, it makes the most sense to move him now. His value will likely never be higher than it is at this moment. You could hypothetically move him for a 1st in next years draft, but no team that's projected to be a lottery team would make that deal. So again, you're looking at a team that will likely be a playoff team, which means at the end of the day we'd be getting a prospect no better than what we would be getting in this years draft....Hell, probably worse.

 

Furthermore, we do have a soft deadline to work within. If we're still in "stockpile pick" mode when Horvat is 27 or 28, we're in trouble. 

[Aircool]

59 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Firstly, Dahlen says hi.

 

Secondly, Tanev's no-trade clause kicks in after this offseason, so, while we can afford to hold onto him if the right deal doesn't come along, it makes the most sense to move him now. His value will likely never be higher than it is at this moment. You could hypothetically move him for a 1st in next years draft, but no team that's projected to be a lottery team would make that deal. So again, you're looking at a team that will likely be a playoff team, which means at the end of the day we'd be getting a prospect no better than what we would be getting in this years draft....Hell, probably worse.

 

Furthermore, we do have a soft deadline to work within. If we're still in "stockpile pick" mode when Horvat is 27 or 28, we're in trouble. 

Fair points. But as you mentioned, Tanev isn't going to get us the #1 overall pick this year. So kind of a moot point. I wouldn't mind getting more of a 2-year from now player with high upside with whatever selection we can get for Tanev. Likely around #10 I'd say. I think that matches our timeline well anyways. So I'm not opposed to a Tanev trade at all.

 

Your last point is why I believe that Jim Benning started this rebuild too late. To an extent, I think it's already butchered. I don't think we'll have the long term competitive window with certain members of this core like Horvat that we could have. Not much added value when all our players in his age group are making full market price on their contracts.

 

 

[JM_]

13 hours ago, 12-16-FG said:

Shades of Brian Burke,

Van trades Tanev + McIvney to Dallas for 3rd over all and 1  goalie (Take your pick)

Then Van trades 3rd overall, Subban and a 3rd round pick to NJ for 1st overall.

Sorry probably got McIvney's name wrong.

Dismantle at your pleasure.

well... so lets look at this

Tanev - top pairing D

Subban and McEneny - long shot prospects 

3rd round pick

eat a goalie contract 

 

becomes a situation where we can draft Hischier and Makar/Liljegren/Heiskanen? OK, I'm fine with this. 

 

But I think the deal probably ends in Dallas, they're getting the most value, and really all NJ is trading for is Subban to miss out on Hischier, and I don't think thats nearly enough. We'd have to add a prospect or roster player that NJ can use much sooner than later. 

 

Also if Jimbo can land the 3oa anyway, thats really good enough imo. In that case he could almost certainly land Heiskanen or Makar and Mittlestadt or Glass out of the top 5 and that would be a really nice addition to the rebuild right there without losing Subban and the 3rd. 

 

 

 

 

[cripplereh]

20 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

1) I think to get the 3rd overall we'd have to give something more. Probably Tanev + 2nd round pick (hopefully Columbus' pick but realistically I think we'd have to give the 33rd overall). Tanev alone is probably worth a late 1st. Bump his value up with a 33rd overall and you have a 3rd overall.

 

2) To get the 1st or 2nd overall I think we'd have to give a lot to move the 3rd overall up. Philadelphia would probably be a more suitable trading partner. I think this trade revolves around Gaudette. One of the NCAA's best players but unproven at the NHL level yet. It'd be a hard trade to make.

 

TO NJD: 3rd overall + Gaudette

TO VAN: 1st overall

 

For Philly I think we can get away with less but they'd probably want someone on the NHL roster now.

 

TO PHI: 3rd overall + Granlund + Subban

TO VAN: 2nd overall + Morin/Hagg (probably not enough for Sanheim)

 

At the end of the day that's Gaudette + Tanev + 33rd overall for the 1st overall. Seems fair to me, especially if we keep our 5th overall. Draft Hirschier (a future 1st line center) and a defenceman like Heiskanen or Makar with the 5th overall and we replace Gaudette and Tanev instantly with some very high quality in the future.

you lost me when you want to trade Gaudette as that makes no sense

 

I would like us to move up but to do that we would have to give up to much and far as Tanev we would wants a player proven 22 to 24 that can score for him even if we have to give up a 2nd or 3rd