Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Proposal] Moving Markstrom and Tanev for picks and/or prospects


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

And seriously - if we were able to move Tanev for a 1st AND bring back Tree this year (contract break), couldn’t we agree that this would be a BIG gain for us long term, while only a very minor loss in the short term?

 

Same thing with moving Marky (for what I imagine what would be a huge return).   Moving Marky for an elite prospect or a mid to high 1st rounder + a “1A goalie” would be a BIG gain in the long term, while only resulting in a minimal loss short term (Markstrom is awesome obviously, but Demko is no spring chicken either.   This kid is the goods).

I’m curious. What team do you see doing this?  A mid to high 1st means a non playoff team. What non playoff team is going to trade a potential lottery pick AND a 1A goalie for a pending UFA goalie? I can’t think of a less likely scenario 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way would I move Markstrom. Moving him would be a huge blow to morale, and Demko is not ready to take the #1 job yet.

There is a more compelling argument to move Tanev, but I think it's a mistake to move our best shot suppression defenseman. We already allow a lot of shots per game, and Tanev is great next to Hughes. I understand that he's injury prone, but still. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the grinder said:

so you want trade marky  ,  a guy that just set a canucks record for saves in a shutout  for a 1a goalie  , are you serious ?  lol and then mention needing room for stecher and leivo  , those 2 are more likely to be moved than marky and tanev  

I’m not serious.    If you had read my original post more closely, you’d realize that I was playing Devil’s Advocate and that if I was GM, I’d likely hold onto Marky and Tanev.   I cannot be blamed for your 3rd grade reading comprehension level.  
 

While I’m on the subject of Marky, the guy is a Vezina trophy candidate right now.  We’d likely be able to land a small fortune for him and *still* have a good young long term asset in Thatcher Demko.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I’m curious. What team do you see doing this?  A mid to high 1st means a non playoff team. What non playoff team is going to trade a potential lottery pick AND a 1A goalie for a pending UFA goalie? I can’t think of a less likely scenario 

To be honest, I’ll admit fault here.  Marky won’t get as much as I originally stated, but who knows.   
 

Maybe a team like Edmonton would give us Mike Smith and a 1st? (Or Mike Smith + a good prospect).    
 

Pittsburgh’s goaltending isn’t exactly stellar right now is it?   
 

There are a few handful teams out there that that great teams, but have average to below average goaltending.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

To be honest, I’ll admit fault here.  Marky won’t get as much as I originally stated, but who knows.   
 

Maybe a team like Edmonton would give us Mike Smith and a 1st? (Or Mike Smith + a good prospect).    
 

Pittsburgh’s goaltending isn’t exactly stellar right now is it?   
 

There are a few handful teams out there that that great teams, but have average to below average goaltending.  

Smith in Edmonton has been inconsistent but not bad. And actually Jarry in Pittsburgh has been great (Murray has been good. Not great). I’d say there’s zero chance of either of those teams moving a 1st to grab Markstrom 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkIndianRises said:

I’m not serious.    If you had read my original post more closely, you’d realize that I was playing Devil’s Advocate and that if I was GM, I’d likely hold onto Marky and Tanev.   I cannot be blamed for your 3rd grade reading comprehension level.  
 

While I’m on the subject of Marky, the guy is a Vezina trophy candidate right now.  We’d likely be able to land a small fortune for him and *still* have a good young long term asset in Thatcher Demko.

 

   My reading skills are quite fine and  the only thing 3rd grade level is your post ,   You think that we need  to save cap space to resign Stecher and Leivo  , that pretty much sums up your knowledge of anything hockey related  right there ., The name of the game is to win   , not to become the coilers and the lames swapping goalies  or still looking for half decent goalie', Marky has proven he can win and steal games , is that not what you want in the playoffs ?  

 

   btw you post isn't very original  perhaps you should   use your reading skills and look  thru the 100.s of other posts  that basically rehash the same drivel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Dear 6string,

 

Thank you for your polite manners and I respect your decision.   I will be using the side door and exit, and will now be making my way to your mom’s house.

 

Sincerely.

Please. 

 

My mom is resting in peace.

 

I don't want your apology!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving Markstrom and Tanev could allow the Canucks to sign guys like Tryamkin, Virtanen, and Demko to long term contracts that could turn out to be bargains midway through.  
 

IF the Canucks were to move Markstrom and Tanev, it would give them more “play money,” and perhaps you could use that money to sign Tryamkin, Demko, and Virtanen to long term contracts........contracts that may appear to be above market value at the start, but turn out to be huge discounts/great “bang for the buck” as said players grow their games.    These players could end up being great “value” players for a long period of time, and these are the types of contracts that teams build multiple cup winners with (think - Chicago, LA, etc.).    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tale of a young team, which is still developing

 

IMO, adding Miller and Myers were good additions, but adding Ferland and Benn were questionable, in hindsight. That is our 5.5 Million Cap space, which could be used.

 

So, why did Ferland's ask drop in UFA...Answer......because no one would bite, until Benning did. Too bad, really! Because, his history was suggesting, his illness, and every

 

one was staying away......it was a risk, and it still may pan out.....but I am not counting on it.

 

I think Benning's need to succeed forced this...……...

 

So, if we are still developing for 2022-2023 then sure trade Marky and Tanev. But if you are trying to compete today, then Marky and Tanev are part of the plan...….

 

No getting around that...…………….sorry OP....not happening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the grinder said:

   My reading skills are quite fine and  the only thing 3rd grade level is your post ,   You think that we need  to save cap space to resign Stecher and Leivo  , that pretty much sums up your knowledge of anything hockey related  right there ., The name of the game is to win   , not to become the coilers and the lames swapping goalies  or still looking for half decent goalie', Marky has proven he can win and steal games , is that not what you want in the playoffs ?  

 

   btw you post isn't very original  perhaps you should   use your reading skills and look  thru the 100.s of other posts  that basically rehash the same drivel

Dude,

 

My dad could beat the living monkey piss out of your dad so I just want to be upfront and clear with that.   Now, onto business:

 

Here’s what we need to ask ourselves:  

 

1) Do we want the Canucks to be a contender for a short time, (ie like we were during the Gillis era) OR

 

2) Do we want to build a core full of young players that will be signed to good long term “bargain” deals, and will keep the Canucks as a contender for a long time?

 

I think the answer is obvious.   
 

Look man - I love Markstrom and I love Tanev, but how much longer are these guys going to be elite for?  Markstrom is 30 years old already.  He’ll likely be “elite” for 4 more years before he starts trending downwards.  Ditto for Tanev.   By contrast - you could have Demko for the next 10 years!   Stecher isn’t a world beater by any means, but he’s a young and decent 3rd pairing guy that could stick around with us for awhile.   Tryamkin is also young enough to be an integral part of our core for many years.

 

People think that I want to make these moves to rebuild or tank, but I don’t.  The Canucks can still be a playoff bound team this year AND be a long term contender, while filling the pipeline with more draft picks.   
 

By signing guys like Demko, Tryamkin, Virtanen, Stecher, and Leivo to longer term contracts, you create the potential to have “bargain value” contracts as these players improve with age.  It also helps set an internal cap structure which could really help the team long term (and prevent us from becoming like Toronto).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pears said:

What’s it gonna take for people to realize we aren’t a tanking team anymore and that these kind of moves would kill the locker room?

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Leivo

Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-Sutter

 

Edler-Stecher
Hughes-Tryamkin

Fantenberg-Myers

 

Demko

New1AGoalie

 

Probably still gets you into the playoffs, and would still keep morale high.   
 

-Markstrom moved for an elite prospect or a 1st.

-Tanev moved for a 1st

-Tryamkin’s contract gets broken after his season in Russia is finished and he comes back here.

-Maybe the Canucks move a low pick to Ottawa for someone like Craig Anderson to help out Demko.

 

End result:

 

Short term = minor downgrade

long term = major pieces added to the pipeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Dude,

 

My dad could beat the living monkey piss out of your dad so I just want to be upfront and clear with that.   Now, onto business:

 

Here’s what we need to ask ourselves:  

 

1) Do we want the Canucks to be a contender for a short time, (ie like we were during the Gillis era) OR

 

2) Do we want to build a core full of young players that will be signed to good long term “bargain” deals, and will keep the Canucks as a contender for a long time?

 

I think the answer is obvious.   
 

Look man - I love Markstrom and I love Tanev, but how much longer are these guys going to be elite for?  Markstrom is 30 years old already.  He’ll likely be “elite” for 4 more years before he starts trending downwards.  Ditto for Tanev.   By contrast - you could have Demko for the next 10 years!   Stecher isn’t a world beater by any means, but he’s a young and decent 3rd pairing guy that could stick around with us for awhile.   Tryamkin is also young enough to be an integral part of our core for many years.

 

People think that I want to make these moves to rebuild or tank, but I don’t.  The Canucks can still be a playoff bound team this year AND be a long term contender, while filling the pipeline with more draft picks.   
 

By signing guys like Demko, Tryamkin, Virtanen, Stecher, and Leivo to longer term contracts, you create the potential to have “bargain value” contracts as these players improve with age.  It also helps set an internal cap structure which could really help the team long term (and prevent us from becoming like Toronto).

I guess you need your daddy  for some reason , so I guess your not really a man ,  because no man would even say that kind of stuff. ,  So go play nhl 20  and play gm there   , because all your saying is same unoriginal  thing over and over again ,,   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Provost said:

You want to know how to destroy team morale for several years.... this is how you destroy team morale for several years.

 

Why the heck would anyone ever give effort for the team if they knew that success would mean pulling the rug out from under them and sell off pieces.

 

Players don’t have a lot of chances to make the playoffs or win a Cup.  Stealing one from them by making us worse would create a stunning level of apathy.

 

Don't sugar coat it, replacing a Vezina calibre goalie and our best defensive D... and replacing them with an untested goalie and a KHL player who we can’t even try to get under contract for a month... that is making us much worse.

I absolutely agree.  If your boss said to you, "You've done an outstanding job, but we are bringing in someone new to fill your position", how would you feel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

I’m not serious.    If you had read my original post more closely, you’d realize that I was playing Devil’s Advocate and that if I was GM, I’d likely hold onto Marky and Tanev.   I cannot be blamed for your 3rd grade reading comprehension level. 

You won't last long here.

Edited by Winter Soldier
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

And seriously - if we were able to move Tanev for a 1st AND bring back Tree this year (contract break), couldn’t we agree that this would be a BIG gain for us long term, while only a very minor loss in the short term?

 

Same thing with moving Marky (for what I imagine what would be a huge return).   Moving Marky for an elite prospect or a mid to high 1st rounder + a “1A goalie” would be a BIG gain in the long term, while only resulting in a minimal loss short term (Markstrom is awesome obviously, but Demko is no spring chicken either.   This kid is the goods).

agree on Tanev, you won't convince me on Marky. We haven't had goaltending this good for a long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...