ken kaniff Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Vancouver: C/W Sam Gagner Columbus: CBJ 3rd 2018 Gagner was a huge part of CBJs PP last season and they are struggling to produce on the PP without him. They are currently last in the NHL for PP%. I feel that he hasn’t quite fit in on this team and I don’t see a place for him opening up soon. This way we get a decent pick for a failed experiment. Vancouver: D Erik Gudbranson Florida: D Mark Pysyk I like Gudbranson. I think he brings things to the table no one else from our team does. He’s very tough and our team needs that but not at the price he will be asking for. I see him wanting 4+ million when he’s really only worth 2-3mill. If that. And in that case I would rather trade him now and cut our losses than just lose him in free agency or sign him for a huge overpayment. If he is willing to sign for a pay cut then I would be more than happy to keep him however. There are rumours that Tallon still wants Guddy back in Florida. He was even planning on making Gudbranson the next captain in Florida (heard this on TSN 1040. Idk if it’s true). If he is still interested I say we send him. There is a strong possibility that Gudbranson would want to sign back in Florida anyways so instead of losing him for nothing we can get an equivalent player back. Pysyk is 25 RHD and on a cheap contract. Vancouver: RW Tomas Vanek Team: 2018 1st Vanek has been a good acquisition for us. He can still score goals and help a PP. Any team at the TDL that is in need of some scoring would be looking at Vanek. Cheap contract, 20+ goal scorer, PP specialist. That can fetch us a 1st round pick, a 2nd at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsMillerTime Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Don't like that Pysyk one but the rest would be great for the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 The Pysyk one might be even value, but I'd like to get another fierce, hard-hitting guy like Gudbranson back if we're letting go of him. Vanek can get a late 1st if he keeps up this pace, but I wouldn't count on it. I'd bet he lands something closer to a 2nd round pick. The Gagner deal is reasonable value for both sides. I wouldn't be crushed if we pulled the trigger on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 12 minutes ago, ken kaniff said: Vancouver: C/W Sam Gagner Columbus: CBJ 3rd 2018 Gagner was a huge part of CBJs PP last season and they are struggling to produce on the PP without him. They are currently last in the NHL for PP%. I feel that he hasn’t quite fit in on this team and I don’t see a place for him opening up soon. This way we get a decent pick for a failed experiment. Vancouver: D Erik Gudbranson Florida: D Mark Pysyk I like Gudbranson. I think he brings things to the table no one else from our team does. He’s very tough and our team needs that but not at the price he will be asking for. I see him wanting 4+ million when he’s really only worth 2-3mill. If that. And in that case I would rather trade him now and cut our losses than just lose him in free agency or sign him for a huge overpayment. If he is willing to sign for a pay cut then I would be more than happy to keep him however. There are rumours that Tallon still wants Guddy back in Florida. He was even planning on making Gudbranson the next captain in Florida (heard this on TSN 1040. Idk if it’s true). If he is still interested I say we send him. There is a strong possibility that Gudbranson would want to sign back in Florida anyways so instead of losing him for nothing we can get an equivalent player back. Pysyk is 25 RHD and on a cheap contract. Vancouver: RW Tomas Vanek Team: 2018 1st Vanek has been a good acquisition for us. He can still score goals and help a PP. Any team at the TDL that is in need of some scoring would be looking at Vanek. Cheap contract, 20+ goal scorer, PP specialist. That can fetch us a 1st round pick, a 2nd at the very least. I would be fine with turning a free asset like Gagner into a 3rd round pick. Vanek was scoring at a higher rate last year and garnered only a 3rd round pick in a trade. Why would he be more valuable now? Pretty sure we could get more than a Pysyk for Guddy. We would be better off getting draft picks than Pysyk. Toronto traded Roman Polak and a cap dump (Spaling) for 2 second round picks so I don't see why we shouldn't, at a minimum, get that back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, ken kaniff said: Vancouver: C/W Sam Gagner Columbus: CBJ 3rd 2018 Gagner was a huge part of CBJs PP last season and they are struggling to produce on the PP without him. They are currently last in the NHL for PP%. I feel that he hasn’t quite fit in on this team and I don’t see a place for him opening up soon. This way we get a decent pick for a failed experiment. Vancouver: D Erik Gudbranson Florida: D Mark Pysyk I like Gudbranson. I think he brings things to the table no one else from our team does. He’s very tough and our team needs that but not at the price he will be asking for. I see him wanting 4+ million when he’s really only worth 2-3mill. If that. And in that case I would rather trade him now and cut our losses than just lose him in free agency or sign him for a huge overpayment. If he is willing to sign for a pay cut then I would be more than happy to keep him however. There are rumours that Tallon still wants Guddy back in Florida. He was even planning on making Gudbranson the next captain in Florida (heard this on TSN 1040. Idk if it’s true). If he is still interested I say we send him. There is a strong possibility that Gudbranson would want to sign back in Florida anyways so instead of losing him for nothing we can get an equivalent player back. Pysyk is 25 RHD and on a cheap contract. Vancouver: RW Tomas Vanek Team: 2018 1st Vanek has been a good acquisition for us. He can still score goals and help a PP. Any team at the TDL that is in need of some scoring would be looking at Vanek. Cheap contract, 20+ goal scorer, PP specialist. That can fetch us a 1st round pick, a 2nd at the very least. No way vanek returns a 1st, be lucky to get a 3rd imo. I would move Gagner if that was possible, would free up a roster spot so we can add another younger player to the mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Nirvanagut Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Nobody is giving a first for Vanek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I'd def do the Gagner deal! I assume any Gud deal involving Florida would be a loss for us. As they know what they are getting and what they are giving up to get it. I hope JB goes prospect fishing with Vanek and reels in another Dahlen, Goldobin, Granlund type. No team gives a top 60 pick for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 27 minutes ago, hammertime said: I'd def do the Gagner deal! I assume any Gud deal involving Florida would be a loss for us. As they know what they are getting and what they are giving up to get it. I hope JB goes prospect fishing with Vanek and reels in another Dahlen, Goldobin, Granlund type. No team gives a top 60 pick for him. I do agree targeting a prospect would be a smart choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_In_Paradise Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I still think that if we are going to trade Guddy, we'll need to try and recoup what we spent on him. He's showing his worth this year now that he isn't playing injured and that value should command a better return than what most here are allocating to Gudbranson. A late first + a pick or prospect is what I'd be going for, or a young up and coming defender and a pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Nirvanagut Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Delusional proposals as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adarsh Sant Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 hours ago, zzbottom said: Nobody is giving a first for Vanek. Maybe at TDL. Look what Hanzal got last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Adarsh Sant said: Maybe at TDL. Look what Hanzal got last year. Vanek was scoring at a higher rate last year and got a third in return. Maybe he ups his game and gets a second but I'd be surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Send gagner away for whatever you can get it doesn’t matter as long as you don’t retain any salary. All he cost was a few bucks to get him I want younger players or draft picks for guddy plain and simple vanek won’t get you a first in a deep draft. Maybe a 2nd if you start a bidding war but a 3rd is most likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Gudbranson I’d hope we can get some picks. Maybe the Roman Polak deadline special of two 2nd rounders from a desperate team. For what we gave up for Gudbranson it would kinda suck to get a known not so good commodity back. I’d rather have a younger prospect or draft picks and roll the dice. If neither hit oh well it’s not like Psysk type guys are hard to find in free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 First two are decent deals although the Gagne one probably favors the nucks a bit... Unfortunately Milbury isnt a GM any more so there wont be any Vanek fleecings that I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Vanek - 2nd Granlund - 3rd Gagner - 3rd Hutton - 3rd Burmistrov - 4th Maybe they can put together a package for a 1st (eg. Vanek and Hutton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 3 hours ago, NUCKER67 said: Vanek - 2nd Granlund - 3rd Gagner - 3rd Hutton - 3rd Burmistrov - 4th Maybe they can put together a package for a 1st (eg. Vanek and Hutton) I would love to move Gagner for a 3rd try to resign Granny Hutton is better if packaged with something else to try and get a better return Burmi is worth a late pick, he may be on waivers for free soon you never know Vanek hopefully gets moved but I see a similar deal to last year but maybe a team overpays late? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 If Vanek continues to put up numbers, I could see us landing a 2nd rd pick for him. A 3rd at worst, but like others have said, I'd rather go prospect fishing with him and try to dig up another Dahlen/Goldobin type deal....Try and target either a LW or Dman if we can. I kinda want to hold onto Guddy, as he brings a dimension to the team that we otherwise lack. If he's looking for 4.5-5 mill though, forget it. Move him to the highest bidder. As for Gagne, I might be in the minority here, but I'd hold onto him. He's not having a great season right now, but we still have him for another 2 years after this one on a contract with no trade restrictions. If he's still not doing well by the deadline, we won't get much for him. Might as well hold onto him and hope he can put up some better numbers next season so we can get a better return at the 2019 deadline. Also, with Vanek most assuredly gone and possibly the twins as well, it might not necessarily be the best idea to stripmine the roster completely. While we all want to see our prospects make the team, we can't rely on it, We need some sort of assurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.