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

Van - Philly


sampy

Recommended Posts

To Van:

Simmmonds

Meszaros

Talbot

Laughton

To Philly:

Edler

Booth

Gaunce

Shroeder

Cannata

2nd round pick

Philly is one of the teams looking to make a trade after a terrible start. Simmonds' stock right now is lower due to a poor start, if he's ever going to be traded for a reasonable ransom then maybe now. Meszaros has been a healthy scratch and is a cap dump. Laughton is a very good prospect. Talbot is a good role player the Canucks should target.

Vancouver gives up a top Dman that would be Philly's best in Edler. Booth is a capdump that adds better depth to Philly than Meszaros. Canucks add Gaunce and Shroeder, 2 good young forward prospects and Cannata for much need goaltending depth. The Canucks gives up a high draft pick to grease the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I like this. The numbers are pretty close too. Perhaps Van has to eat 500k of Booth's cash-scam. Mostly premised on Van benefits in the now; Philly, a little later. Emergence of Tanev,Stanton & Corrado make Edler a possible trade-piece. For all his potential, he seems to fade now, as the season goes deeper. Mesz is insurance, off the books, come summer. Gaunce can be dealt, due to Horvat. It might take our 1st to grease the wheels; & Philly submits their 2nd. Pretty nice proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaves a big gap in our top 4, Mezaros can't fill Edler.

Gaunce, Schroeder, 2nd round pick, Cannata out of our prospect pool and only Laughton added.

Lordy Plum, we'd be LOSING Christian-Hunter(that's woth A LOT!), & adding Talbot(3 yrs, 1.75), & SIMMONDS(toughness w/ some touch; locked up for 6 yrs).

Hamhuis, Garrison & Stanton can capably cover for Edler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lordy Plum, we'd be LOSING Christian-Hunter(that's woth A LOT!), & adding Talbot(3 yrs, 1.75), & SIMMONDS(toughness w/ some touch; locked up for 6 yrs).

Hamhuis, Garrison & Stanton can capably cover for Edler.

Hamhuis-Garrison

______-Bieksa/Tanev

Edler on the PP too. Wouldn't do it, we trade half of our farm and a one of our best defenseman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'd argue such a proposal is at least debatable, & worthy of discussion/analysis. Basically, do we sacrifice a D-piece for more size/stability up front?

IMO, Tanev replaces Edler in the top 4 and Meszaros can capably play 3rd pair. Canucks gain a lot of high end forward depth. From Philly's view, Booth can replace Simmonds points as neither are scoring but have potential. Shroeder can replace Talbot. Philly gains a top dman but lose future in Laughton but do gain future in Gaunce, Shroeder and pick.

Yeah the Canucks trade a lot off the farm but Simmonds, Talbot and Laughton are huge acquisitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Tanev replaces Edler in the top 4 and Meszaros can capably play 3rd pair. Canucks gain a lot of high end forward depth. From Philly's view, Booth can replace Simmonds points as neither are scoring but have potential. Shroeder can replace Talbot. Philly gains a top dman but lose future in Laughton but do gain future in Gaunce, Shroeder and pick.

Yeah the Canucks trade a lot off the farm but Simmonds, Talbot and Laughton are huge acquisitions.

That is the thing, it is a pretty big risk on our part losing a key defensemen

1. Hamhuis

2. Garrison/Edler

4. Bieksa/Tanev

6. Stanton

7. Weber

8. Alberts

Getting rid of Edler leaves us with 2 legitimate top 4 guys. Bieksa and Tanev can be great at times but then bottom pairing guys too. At this time we have 3 top 4/2 defensemens, the 4th can be Bieksa or Tanev since our top 3 are all really good.

I have a different opinion then you guys, I would rather keep what we have strong, strong. Kind of like having our strength 85% defense and our offense 15%. You seem like you'd want 50% offense and 50% defense.

I don't know if it makes sense but all I'm saying is leave our defense strong even if it means having our offense just a bit better because after all, offense starts with defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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