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

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


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Alflives said:

I’d love to see JB sell off Tanev and Sutter.  There is zero chance he does though.  JB is all in on making the playoffs this year.  He’s wrong IMO.  

pourquoi? 

 

I think playoff experience is needed for this core group to know how they need to play to have sustained success. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

pourquoi? 

 

I think playoff experience is needed for this core group to know how they need to play to have sustained success. 

JB is wrong in going all in on making the playoffs this year.  Tanev is worth at least a first.  If we miss the playoffs, which is likely without Tanev, we would have our pick and the one we get for Tanev.  That’s two firsts in a very deep draft.  IMO, we are trending towards missing the playoffs with Tanev, so move him now and get the rebuilding asset in the bank.  

Then, in the summer, hire Babcock, and change this passive style of play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

JB is wrong in going all in on making the playoffs this year.  Tanev is worth at least a first.  If we miss the playoffs, which is likely without Tanev, we would have our pick and the one we get for Tanev.  That’s two firsts in a very deep draft.  IMO, we are trending towards missing the playoffs with Tanev, so move him now and get the rebuilding asset in the bank.  

Then, in the summer, hire Babcock, and change this passive style of play.  

I'm not sure we would miss the playoffs sans Tanev. If Jim could get us a depth veteran d, say like Mike Green or Hainsey or even better a tougher guy like Dillon early this week, he could move Tanev for a 1st closer to the tdl. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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

1) We could get a terrific return on Marky.

2) Marky is 30 and will be looking for a long term deal.

 

Keeping Markstrom and Tanev will be better for the Canucks in the short term, but committing to guys like Demko, Virtanen, Stecher, Leivo, Gaudette, and Tryamkin could be more beneficial for us in the long term.  By letting go of guys like Markstrom and Tanev, it would allow for the Canucks to have more cap space and hence, sign those other guys to longer term deals..........which could give the Canucks a chance to have many of thode

contracts be huge bargain contracts at some point.

 

Meanwhile, filling in the prospect pool on our returns from Markstrom and Tanev while still making the playoffs this season.

 

Committing to Markstrom and Tanev would make our window of a similar length to the 2008-213 Gillis era, whereas I would rather see us be like the Pittsburgh Penguins (ie dominate for a decade+).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkIndianRises said:

1) We could get a terrific return on Marky.

2) Marky is 30 and will be looking for a long term deal.

 

Keeping Markstrom and Tanev will be better for the Canucks in the short term, but committing to guys like Demko, Virtanen, Stecher, Leivo, Gaudette, and Tryamkin could be more beneficial for us in the long term.  By letting go of guys like Markstrom and Tanev, it would allow for the Canucks to have more cap space and hence, sign those other guys to longer term deals..........which could give the Canucks a chance to have many of thode

contracts be huge bargain contracts at some point.

 

Meanwhile, filling in the prospect pool on our returns from Markstrom and Tanev while still making the playoffs this season.

 

Committing to Markstrom and Tanev would make our window of a similar length to the 2008-213 Gillis era, whereas I would rather see us be like the Pittsburgh Penguins (ie dominate for a decade+).

but you haven't shown who would actually replace Marky. It certainly isn't Demko, he's got potential but he isn't there yet. 

 

I'm not sure you would get a any of the top contenders bidding for Marky, they all have solid goaltending. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm not sure we would miss the playoffs sans Tanev. If Jim could get us a depth veteran d, say like Mike Green or Hainsey or even better a tougher guy like Dillon early this week, he could move Tanev for a 1st closer to the tdl. 

 

 

Okay, you’re smarter than Alf.  Get Dillon now for less than the return for Tanev.  I like.  JB won’t do it though.  Like I said before:  JB is mistakenly all in now.  I’m just hoping he doesn’t go completely off the deep end and trade away more of our future for short term now.  

His situation (and comments from our owner about the rebuilding years are over) has me seriously concerned.  IMO the best way to get our team playing the right way would be to get Babcock in here right now.  And we don’t give up assets to do that.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but you haven't shown who would actually replace Marky. It certainly isn't Demko, he's got potential but he isn't there yet. 

 

I'm not sure you would get a any of the top contenders bidding for Marky, they all have solid goaltending. 

 

We will resign Marky.  But the cost of keeping Marky means we will not have cap space for Tanev.  The more this all adds up, and the more I think JB should trade Tanev now.  In this market, the return for Tanev would be massive.  I’m thinking a first and a top prospect.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

We will resign Marky.  But the cost of keeping Marky means we will not have cap space for Tanev.  The more this all adds up, and the more I think JB should trade Tanev now.  In this market, the return for Tanev would be massive.  I’m thinking a first and a top prospect.  

Dillon trade (or a vet), then move Tanman. Hughes is ready to play with anyone imo, maybe Green from DET would be just fine, probably cheaper than Dillon. Heck, get both Green and Dillion and a 1st for Tanev.

 

Dunno about Babcock.... would like Gallant instead but you could be right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Dillon trade (or a vet), then move Tanman. Hughes is ready to play with anyone imo, maybe Green from DET would be just fine, probably cheaper than Dillon. Heck, get both Green and Dillion and a 1st for Tanev.

 

Dunno about Babcock.... would like Gallant instead but you could be right. 

Love the trade ideas.

Gallant would be great too.  We need a coach who builds passion in the team’s play, and coaches systems that take advantage of our elite young skill.  Our guys should have the puck, and not be chasing to get, especially since we are great on faceoffs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

Love the trade ideas.

Gallant would be great too.  We need a coach who builds passion in the team’s play, and coaches systems that take advantage of our elite young skill.  Our guys should have the puck, and not be chasing to get, especially since we are great on faceoffs.  

Yeah watching what Gallant can do with an understaffed team was impressive.

 

When I caught the team practice this week they were doing drills on the 2 man deep forecheck... sorry bud. 

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Yeah watching what Gallant can do with an understaffed team was impressive.

 

When I caught the team practice this week they were doing drills on the 2 man deep forecheck... sorry bud. 

Damn it!  I’m okay with two men deep on the forecheck, but not when the other team has clear, puck on stick, head up possession.  The players are going to mutiny.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but you haven't shown who would actually replace Marky. It certainly isn't Demko, he's got potential but he isn't there yet. 

 

I'm not sure you would get a any of the top contenders bidding for Marky, they all have solid goaltending. 

 

There are a few playoff bound teams right now that have questionable goaltending and have “1A” calibre goalies (ie better than your typical back-up, but still not a true elite starter).    Again, teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh come to mind.    Remember back in 2006 when the Oilers traded a 1st for Dwayne Roloson and then went on a cup run to the finals?    Maybe Markstrom has a similar effect.   
 

Meanwhile, the Canucks keep Demko, and support Demko with a 1A goalie (ie Demko + new goalie going 50/50 until Demko is ready for more responsibility in the future).   
 

I’m not exactly sure what the Canucks would

be able to get for Markstrom, but the guy is a Vezina trophy candidate.   The Canucks should be able to get an elite prospect of some kind.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkIndianRises said:

There are a few playoff bound teams right now that have questionable goaltending and have “1A” calibre goalies (ie better than your typical back-up, but still not a true elite starter).    Again, teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh come to mind.    Remember back in 2006 when the Oilers traded a 1st for Dwayne Roloson and then went on a cup run to the finals?    Maybe Markstrom has a similar effect.   
 

Meanwhile, the Canucks keep Demko, and support Demko with a 1A goalie (ie Demko + new goalie going 50/50 until Demko is ready for more responsibility in the future).   
 

I’m not exactly sure what the Canucks would

be able to get for Markstrom, but the guy is a Vezina trophy candidate.   The Canucks should be able to get an elite prospect of some kind.   

Listening to Dhaliwal right now, and he’s of the opinion the Canucks don’t have the cap room to sign either Marky or Tanev.  If he’s right, then we need to do what you’re saying and trade both now for assets.  At least tradevTanev.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

There are a few playoff bound teams right now that have questionable goaltending and have “1A” calibre goalies (ie better than your typical back-up, but still not a true elite starter).    Again, teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh come to mind.    Remember back in 2006 when the Oilers traded a 1st for Dwayne Roloson and then went on a cup run to the finals?    Maybe Markstrom has a similar effect.   
 

Meanwhile, the Canucks keep Demko, and support Demko with a 1A goalie (ie Demko + new goalie going 50/50 until Demko is ready for more responsibility in the future).   
 

I’m not exactly sure what the Canucks would

be able to get for Markstrom, but the guy is a Vezina trophy candidate.   The Canucks should be able to get an elite prospect of some kind.   

Have a look at Jarry’s stats in Pittsburgh and then tell me why they’d move anything substantial for a rental goalie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Have a look at Jarry’s stats in Pittsburgh and then tell me why they’d move anything substantial for a rental goalie 

Maybe not Pittsburgh.   I honestly haven’t looked at some of the playoff bound teams in depth.   What I DO know however, is that there are a number of good playoff bound teams that are....

 

1) In “win now” mode.

2) Don’t currently have elite goaltending.  
 

If that’s not Pittsburgh, then I’m sure there are other teams.   Oilers for instance, might be that team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alflives- I’d only consider moving Tanev if it looked like that we’d be able to break Tryamkin’s contract and that he’d come back here.    I care about our future, but I still want to make the playoffs this season.   Going into full tank mode would hurt the morale of this team and would piss off our core guys like Pettersson, Hughes, and Horvat.   That’s obviously not healthy either.

 

Playoff experience is still important.   I’m trying to find a way where we can have our cake and eat it too.  

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Maybe not Pittsburgh.   I honestly haven’t looked at some of the playoff bound teams in depth.   What I DO know however, is that there are a number of good playoff bound teams that are....

 

1) In “win now” mode.

2) Don’t currently have elite goaltending.  
 

If that’s not Pittsburgh, then I’m sure there are other teams.   Oilers for instance, might be that team. 

I honestly don’t think there isn’t a single chance in hell that the Canucks move markstrom going into the trade deadline. Playoff revenue is a big deal and the Canucks need to keep pace with the rest of the division 

Edited by qwijibo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Without  Marky,    this years Canucks are more like the Red Wings..  Trading Marky is nuking our club this year.

 

giphy.gif

 

 

I think you are underrating what Demko and another “1A” goalie (like Mike Smith) would do for our team.   The Canucks have the ability to play tighter if they want to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canucks and fans are not one to sell high (we buy high instead)

If a player is doing well, everyone talks about how it will kill the room to trade

Then if you wait,then you can't give the player away

 

If You have someone in your system that can replace them with, sometimes you have to gamble

The new youth and excitement for them playing will also give hope and excitement for your prospects as well

Players know this is a business, and talk it all the time and understand that it is no reflection on them, If they don't want to be traded, they negotiate that into their contracts and if it is not there, everyone understands why it was done

 

I am sure both Marky and the Canucks want him to stay

If he was 25 he would be signed already

 

Unfortunately he is 30 and why wouldn't he want a long contract, and in doing, so it does not give much hope to our younger goalies and cap

We are already paying for a goalie who hasn't helped us for years and will be continuing to do so for a few more years

Maybe if not buying LE high and seeing how that turned out, they may be a lil weary doing it again

I would bet Benning would only want a 3 yr max and Marky would like 5 as it most likely is his last contract

 

For that reason, I am ok with selling Brock high to get stronger in a weaker position

I will hope they make the right decision, in whatever they do

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...