• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.
Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

[Rumour] Penguins in trade talks for 3rd-line center

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, TNucks1 said:

isnt pitts pretty low on bargaining chips for granlund?, considering his good season.

That Sprong dude  seems to be highly-regarded. How 'bout him + a 2nd?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Provost said:

I would say Granlund would be more likely than Sutter if any of our centers were if interest.

I'd rather trade Sutter than Granlund. If we could retain cap on Sutter's contract and get a decent prospect or 2nd round pick I'd do that. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pears said:

I'd rather trade Sutter than Granlund. If we could retain cap on Sutter's contract and get a decent prospect or 2nd round pick I'd do that. 

Yes, but the Penguins probably wouldn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yes, but the Penguins probably wouldn't.

 

But then again, if we could get Sprong or Pouliot for Granlund I'd do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

That Sprong dude  seems to be highly-regarded. How 'bout him + a 2nd?

me as 1/3 Dutch would  ´d love to see Sprong in VAN  and he seems a pretty good player :P

 

 

 

Edited by Bombastik der Teutone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pears said:

But then again, if we could get Sprong or Pouliot for Granlund I'd do that. 

No way in hell i would do that. Trade a young 19 goal scorer whose continually growing every area of his game. For a guy who has potential. Dont make sense in my eyes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pears said:

But then again, if we could get Sprong or Pouliot for Granlund I'd do that. 

Pouliot looks like a bust. They desperately needed him this year after Letang went down, and he still wasn't worth dressing most nights.

 

As much as Sprong has potential, that seems like kind of a lateral move to me. Especially since we need young centers too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, D-Money said:

Pouliot looks like a bust. They desperately needed him this year after Letang went down, and he still wasn't worth dressing most nights.

 

As much as Sprong has potential, that seems like kind of a lateral move to me. Especially since we need young centers too.

Kid had almost 2 ppg, last season of jrs. Speedster too. 1 more yr of ELC(no waivers)..mighty tempting if they'd do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KKnight said:

No way in hell i would do that. Trade a young 19 goal scorer whose continually growing every area of his game. For a guy who has potential. Dont make sense in my eyes. 

There is always the assumption that players progress on a linear curve.

Grablund was loved by the previous coaching staff and got additional opportunity due to a really crappy team (that often had Megna and Chaput playing too six minutes).

it is entirely conceivable that Granlund just had what will be the best season of his career or remain at that level as his peak.

 

I am in no rush to trade him, and Pouliot would not be enough return for sure... but the opportunity to extract value from him as an asset is perfectly reasonable. 

 

If we have guys perform through training camp and pre-season we need to find room for them without the need to waive a player that we then lose for nothing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Provost said:

I would say Granlund would be more likely than Sutter if any of our centers were if interest.

I highly doubt there are many teams out there, including the Canucks, who view Granlund as a centre.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-26 at 2:55 PM, Fanuck said:

They like Sutter enough to have him back?

 

We'd take Pouliot and whatever short-term cap-dump necessary so Pit could meet cap.

I wish 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theminister said:

I highly doubt there are many teams out there, including the Canucks, who view Granlund as a centre.

Canucks brass have him as C in training camp and for pre season soooo you may change this statement soon 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, R3aL said:

Canucks brass have him as C in training camp and for pre season soooo you may change this statement soon 

They're confirming whether he can when injuries to Cs happen. 

 

Narrator: He can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theminister said:

They're confirming whether he can when injuries to Cs happen. 

 

Narrator: He can't.

haha well we shall see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have gone for Marcus Kruger. He fits under their cap too.

 

Maybe they could put some pressure on Detroit to send Athanasiou their way. Devin Shore out of Dallas or Zack Smith from Ottawa would also be good fits with the team, but I'm just speculating at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think they would have interest in Sutter, they had him, they know what he is and smartly got rid of him.  We would need to eat a lot of that terrible contract or give up assets to get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DrJockitch said:

Don't think they would have interest in Sutter, they had him, they know what he is and smartly got rid of him.  We would need to eat a lot of that terrible contract or give up assets to get rid of it.

Like Sutter.  I think the Pens want a cheaper option for sure - around 2 million, like Bonino was.  Granlund maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Like Sutter.  I think the Pens want a cheaper option for sure - around 2 million, like Bonino was.  Granlund maybe?

Why would the Canucks trade Granlund?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.