Sign in to follow this  
audiodave

[Proposal] Trade Van and TO

Recommended Posts

Tanev and Goldobin (rfa rights) for Zaitsev and Kapanen (rfa rights). I think it's a fair hockey trade, Van upgrades at forward and TO upgrades on defense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

                                                    Disco Stu approves....427090894_DiscoStuApproves.jpg.1431a6fc019ed141bc8f6956d39e701e.jpg ...big fan of Kapanen

Edited by 6string
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kapanen would look pretty sexy on Horvat's wing. 

 

Imagine heading into next season with a top 6 that looks like this....

 

Panarin Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Kapanen

 

I don't think your proposed deal quite gets it done though. Maybe if it were a year or two ago, when Tanev and Goldobin had more value and Kapanen hadn't proven himself in the NHL yet. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could happen esp. if they want to dump Zaitsev.

Decent proposal

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see TO liking this deal, but they might get forced into something along these lines..

 

every gm knows dubas has painted himself into a corner, and yes, I'm sure there will be lots of teams trying to land Kap, but I bet they all want something for nothing.. 

 

the Maple Leaf Dilemma will be a case study in GM training for years to come..

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Glug Datt said:

I don't see TO liking this deal, but they might get forced into something along these lines..

 

every gm knows dubas has painted himself into a corner, and yes, I'm sure there will be lots of teams trying to land Kap, but I bet they all want something for nothing.. 

 

the Maple Leaf Dilemma will be a case study in GM training for years to come..

That's the thing - while Dubas is definitely cap crunched, and definitely has to make a deal, he also has lots of pieces that have value and will be in demand in the trade market (kapanen, kadri, johnsson). It's not like every GM in the league is banding together so that one of them can bend Toronto over a barrel. The demand for his good players may be enough he's able to make a pretty decent trade, if he's a good GM. That last part is what we'll find out though, I guess.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TO may be over a cap barrel...but every GM knows this and there will be lots of competing offers.  They will want picks and prospects back so they have a continuos flow of cheap guys coming to help balance their books.  I’d expect it would cost us our 10th overall and Lind to pry Zaitsev and Kapanen out of TO...and Benning should take that deal and run if he can swing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure, despite having his back against the wall, that TO can do better.    Yes Tanev would be helpful to them if healthy, but that is a big if.  I don't see Goldobin making the team, nor being a Babcock type of player either.  

 

IMO Kapanen is dealth at or before the draft.    Zaitsev will probably go until after July 1st, when a team missed out of their UFA target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the deal is good enough from our end.  Goldobin can't be considered much in terms of value. 

 

Tanev, Biega, Grandlund.  -- shores up their RD and gives a serviceable bottom 6 forward at cheap cap hit.  They get 'more' as babcock asks for and shed cap.

 

Zaitsev plays a lot of minutes and Kapanen would be great for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, audiodave said:

Tanev and Goldobin (rfa rights) for Zaitsev and Kapanen (rfa rights). I think it's a fair hockey trade, Van upgrades at forward and TO upgrades on defense.

I think if the Canucks take Marleau's contract too then you have proposed something that could benefit both teams.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I think if the Canucks take Marleau's contract too then you have proposed something that could benefit both teams.

Excellent point Rob.  But, I think the Leafs would rather keep Kap, and move Nylander and his contract.  Then they clear a ton of Cap.

I could see Tanev and Goldy/Baer for Zaitsev, Marleau, and Nylander.  Leafs save more that way, and replace the players lost.  We get ... Hell I don't know what we get. :shock:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retain a lot of money on Tanev and maybe throw something else of low value that TO could use in (Biega? 4th rounder? Another corcone level guy?) and I think it’s pretty fair. 

Share this post


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

I think if the Canucks take Marleau's contract too then you have proposed something that could benefit both teams.

I don’t see Marleau waiving his NTC for Vancouver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I don’t see Marleau waiving his NTC for Vancouver. 

I do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, IBatch said:

TO may be over a cap barrel...but every GM knows this and there will be lots of competing offers.  They will want picks and prospects back so they have a continuos flow of cheap guys coming to help balance their books.  I’d expect it would cost us our 10th overall and Lind to pry Zaitsev and Kapanen out of TO...and Benning should take that deal and run if he can swing it.

Wait... what?  I hope he's running away with that 10th OA pick.  Zaitsev and Kapanen are not worth 10th OA, let alone adding Lind as well.  Remember, Zaitsev brings the value down with whatever package he's in.

 

Edited by HKSR
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Kapanen would look pretty sexy on Horvat's wing. 

 

Imagine heading into next season with a top 6 that looks like this....

 

Panarin Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Kapanen

 

I don't think your proposed deal quite gets it done though. Maybe if it were a year or two ago, when Tanev and Goldobin had more value and Kapanen hadn't proven himself in the NHL yet. 

He hasn't proved himself in any real capacity yet. He had one decent season on the best offensive team in the league. We've seen plenty of one hit wonders around the NHL, including on this team

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tortorella's Rant said:

He hasn't proved himself in any real capacity yet. He had one decent season on the best offensive team in the league. We've seen plenty of one hit wonders around the NHL, including on this team

It's important to keep in mind that we're still a rebuilding team, and we don't have unlimited assets to cough up. I'd rather make a deal for a potential top 6 forward and keep our 10th overall/Juolevi/etc than make a deal for a surefire one and lose significant futures. The fact that he's unproven may keep his cost down somewhat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

He hasn't proved himself in any real capacity yet. He had one decent season on the best offensive team in the league. We've seen plenty of one hit wonders around the NHL, including on this team

I know there are many here (and in TO) who don't like Nylander.  I have warmed to his game over the last season.  I'd rather have Nylander (and his contract) than Kapanen.

Which of those two would you prefer, if you had to choose one?

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

It's important to keep in mind that we're still a rebuilding team, and we don't have unlimited assets to cough up. I'd rather make a deal for a potential top 6 forward and keep our 10th overall/Juolevi/etc than make a deal for a surefire one and lose significant futures. The fact that he's unproven may keep his cost down somewhat. 

Is that the best for us though?

We tried to trade for guys, a bit further on their development, before, who were supposed to become important difference makers for us.  Vey, Baer, Goldy, Dahlen, Sutter, Gudbranson, etc.  In every case each player has been disappointing, and certainly not a difference maker.  Taking on Zaitsev and his contract might not be worth the risk that Kapanen follows the same path as all those other guys we tried?

Share this post


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

Is that the best for us though?

We tried to trade for guys, a bit further on their development, before, who were supposed to become important difference makers for us.  Vey, Baer, Goldy, Dahlen, Sutter, Gudbranson, etc.  In every case each player has been disappointing, and certainly not a difference maker.  Taking on Zaitsev and his contract might not be worth the risk that Kapanen follows the same path as all those other guys we tried?

The difference being that Kapanen does have a full season as a top 6 under his belt, which is more than you can say about any of the players you listed.

 

Vey was a project/prospect that had only seen 16 games of NHL action prior to us making the trade.

 

Baer was a bit further developed, although he still didn't have anything close to a full NHL season under belt yet, and concussions have taken their toll on him. Still, he's looked like a top 6 forward many times during his tenure here. More a case of bad luck than anything with Baer.

 

Goldy was a pretty raw prospect when we traded for him, having only 11 games of NHL experience under his belt. 

 

Dahlen had no NHL experience when we traded for him, and it wasn't until well after the fact that we found out he had an attitude problem. If it weren't for the apparent attitude, I would have put money on him making the NHL within the next year or two and being a difference maker. Even so, we landed him for Burrows and his terrible contract, so even though we ended up with a lesser prospect than what we had, it's still a win in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

Sutter was never a top 6 forward, and had never preformed as one. He was an established 3rd line player by the time we traded for him. He wasn't a prospect or even what I'd consider a "young" player.

 

Gudbranson was, like Sutter, already an established player, but had never shown he had what it took to take the next step. 

 

Also, it's important to note that, while Zait's contract does indeed suck, we could expose him in the expansion draft and he could potentially be taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.