Noseforthenet Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Just making an opined statement thats all....adding to a running conversation They might have some interest in him as his bro is also in their system. Acquired from Colorado around last april, may or june. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 How about a prospect deal? Jensen + Schroeder for Nichushkin Sedin - Sedin - Nichushkin Shinkaruk - Kesler - Burrows Higgins - Horvat - Hansen Mallet - Gaunce - Kassian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 How about a prospect deal? Jensen + Schroeder for Nichushkin Sedin - Sedin - Nichushkin Shinkaruk - Kesler - Burrows Higgins - Horvat - Hansen Mallet - Gaunce - Kassian It would take more, a pick and or B level prospect to make them consider it as Schroeder is now having surgery on his leg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Gaunce, Shinkuruk, 1st for Benn To quote grumpy cat No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Peverley and Santorelli as a 2a 2b option would make our depth just that much better! But they want to dump contracts. Maybe if we took Rome too and sent them Alberts, a 2nd, and Higgins, they might be down. Sedin-Sedin-Kesler Burrows-Santorelli-Kassian Booth-Peverley-Hansen Weise-Richardson-Archibald Ain't half bad. That team might just beat the Sharks! Yes, especially is you don't randomly scratch Chris Higgins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Yes, especially is you don't randomly scratch Chris Higgins His idea was to trade Higgins Alberts and a 2nd for Peverly and Rome. No scratching involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 how about Booth Tanev 3rd rounder for Goligoski cody eakin or jamie benn for hamhuis jensen and a first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 how about Booth Tanev 3rd rounder for Goligoski cody eakin or jamie benn for hamhuis jensen and a first I bet you lost sleep and pondered hard for this trade proposal..... Didnt ya??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Edler, Booth, Weise, 2nd for Cole, Goligoski, Peverley Dallas saves $$$ upgrade at D and get younger at forward. Canucks fit under the cap and improve at centre and wing plus add a true puck rushing d-man. Sedins-Kesler Burrows-Santo-Cole Higgins-Peverley-Hansen Welsh-Richardson-Kassian Archie/Sestitio Hamhuis-Tanev Goligoski-Garrison Stanton-Bieksa Lou Lack That's a very balanced line-up. I'm not necessarily advocating it, (Edler's NTC... I know, I know) but this would be a bold move to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Edler, Booth, Weise, 2nd for Cole, Goligoski, Peverly Dallas saves $$$ upgrade at D and get younger at forward. Canucks fit under the cap and improve at centre and wing plus add a true puck rushing d-man. Sedins-Kesler Burrows-Santo-Cole Higgins-Peverly-Hansen Welsh-Richardson-Kassian Archie/Sestitio Hamhuis-Tanev Goligoski-Garrison Stanton-Bieksa Lou Lack That's a very balanced line-up. I'm not necessarily advocating it, (Edler's NTC... I know, I know) but this would be a bold move to be sure. Must say TM, I do not like this proposal at all, I like the idea of picking up Pevs, but I'd pass everytime on Goligoski/Cole. Also not a fan of moving Eddy unless we're getting a legitimate top-6 forward back, Cole isn't even an upgrade on Booth, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Must say TM, I do not like this proposal at all, I like the idea of picking up Pevs, but I'd pass everytime on Goligoski/Cole. Also not a fan of moving Eddy unless we're getting a legitimate top-6 forward back, Cole isn't even an upgrade on Booth, IMO. Cole is an upgrade on Booth, definitely. He's also a Torts type player and adds some veteran experience to the team. He isn't shy on the body and can compete along the wall. Sure he isn't the player he once was as he's not quite as quick but when he's motivated he can still produce. Peverley too being another Cup winner. For me, it's about filling our needs.... and, as the saying goes, you have to give to get. Getting rid of Booth right now in a package deal to fill holes is exactly what we should be looking at if we can get a buyer. It doesn't seem like the coach loves him at all. Neither Cole nor Peverley are legit high end 2nd liners, true, but that is going to be difficult to get. If we can send out a 2a, 2b system that might be the best we can hope for. Possibly we could move Eddie and Booth to another team for a true 2nd liner but we still would have to fill a back end spot. One way or the other, for us to fill holes we are going to have to give up roster players, high picks or top prospects, maybe all three. The only other option is to hold the fort and go with what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Cole is an upgrade on Booth, definitely. He's also a Torts type player and adds some veteran experience to the team. He isn't shy on the body and can compete along the wall. Sure he isn't the player he once was as he's not quite as quick but when he's motivated he can still produce. Peverley too being another Cup winner. For me, it's about filling our needs.... and, as the saying goes, you have to give to get. Getting rid of Booth right now in a package deal to fill holes is exactly what we should be looking at if we can get a buyer. It doesn't seem like the coach loves him at all. Neither Cole nor Peverley are legit high end 2nd liners, true, but that is going to be difficult to get. If we can send out a 2a, 2b system that might be the best we can hope for. Possibly we could move Eddie and Booth to another team for a true 2nd liner but we still would have to fill a back end spot. One way or the other, for us to fill holes we are going to have to give up roster players, high picks or top prospects, maybe all three. The only other option is to hold the fort and go with what we have. Fair enough, I agree that Cole may be a better fit in our system but he isn't worth that contract and he is a borderline top-6 on his best of nights. I just don't like the idea of downgrading from Edler to Goligoski, that is a big drop defensively IMO, and Goligoski hasn't even been producing offense, has been a healthy scratch mulitple times over this season and the last. I'd rather stick with Eddy and make a play at a guy like Moulson at the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Cole is an upgrade on Booth, definitely. He's also a Torts type player and adds some veteran experience to the team. He isn't shy on the body and can compete along the wall. Sure he isn't the player he once was as he's not quite as quick but when he's motivated he can still produce. Peverley too being another Cup winner. For me, it's about filling our needs.... and, as the saying goes, you have to give to get. Getting rid of Booth right now in a package deal to fill holes is exactly what we should be looking at if we can get a buyer. It doesn't seem like the coach loves him at all. Neither Cole nor Peverley are legit high end 2nd liners, true, but that is going to be difficult to get. If we can send out a 2a, 2b system that might be the best we can hope for. Possibly we could move Eddie and Booth to another team for a true 2nd liner but we still would have to fill a back end spot. One way or the other, for us to fill holes we are going to have to give up roster players, high picks or top prospects, maybe all three. The only other option is to hold the fort and go with what we have. My biggest issue on Cole is how he basically just threw a tantrum and quit playing into and after the lockout. He is not the kind of guy I want in my lineup, his actions or at least lack of actions now that the game is back are indicative of the kinda guy he is and I will pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Fair enough, I agree that Cole may be a better fit in our system but he isn't worth that contract and he is a borderline top-6 on his best of nights. I just don't like the idea of downgrading from Edler to Goligoski, that is a big drop defensively IMO, and Goligoski hasn't even been producing offense, has been a healthy scratch mulitple times over this season and the last. I'd rather stick with Eddy and make a play at a guy like Moulson at the deadline. My biggest issue on Cole is how he basically just threw a tantrum and quit playing into and after the lockout. He is not the kind of guy I want in my lineup, his actions or at least lack of actions now that the game is back are indicative of the kinda guy he is and I will pass. I'm sympathetic to both those concerns and I can understand why you guys would be against it. For me, the consideration of contract, attitude and level of play is a wash with Booth. Is there a legitimate downgrade in any one of those areas? Not really and there is the definite chance of upgrade. Adding a Cup winner, even if he is cantankerous, is the type of thing we need. Adding two would be even better. I suppose the thought occurs to me to just mix up the elements, so to speak. We have a solid core now but the addition by subtraction adage, plus upgrading our positional flexibility, seems a worthwhile gamble. I'd be happy to add Peverley alone, if Dallas would be willing, but I'm guessing that alone would require a significant piece ot two as he will be hotly sought after by the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Peverley has this and next year left at 3.25 million. If the Canucks could add a player like him who is consistently near 60% in the faceoff circle at this point in his career and is capable of 40 or 50 points in a tweener role, that would be a coup of an acquisition. When healthy, a third line of Higgins Peverley Hansen would be simply deadly. What would it take? Obviously he wouldn't be one of the contracts they'd prefer to move, but he would be one they could get value for, and the Stars are actually fairly decent up the middle even without Peverley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Peverley has this and next year left at 3.25 million. If the Canucks could add a player like him who is consistently near 60% in the faceoff circle at this point in his career and is capable of 40 or 50 points in a tweener role, that would be a coup of an acquisition. When healthy, a third line of Higgins Peverley Hansen would be simply deadly. What would it take? Obviously he wouldn't be one of the contracts they'd prefer to move, but he would be one they could get value for, and the Stars are actually fairly decent up the middle even without Peverley. They aren't even playing him there as he's been riding shotgun with Seguin-Benn. They been throwing out a 2nd of Whitney-Eakin-Chiasson and a 3rd of Nichushkin-Horcoff-Cole I agree he'd be a great acquisition but I can't see it costing less than a 2nd and a good prospect. Schroeder and a 2nd? Might not be enough as there will a dozen teams looking for a player like him at that salary. He would be near perfect for us though. This is partly my reasoning for the above suggested deal. Getting him alone is going to be hard to swing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 They aren't even playing him there as he's been riding shotgun with Seguin-Benn. They been throwing out a 2nd of Whitney-Eakin-Chiasson and a 3rd of Nichushkin-Horcoff-Cole I agree he'd be a great acquisition but I can't see it costing less than a 2nd and a good prospect. Schroeder and a 2nd? Might not be enough as there will a dozen teams looking for a player like him at that salary. He would be near perfect for us though. This is partly my reasoning for the above suggested deal. Getting him alone is going to be hard to swing. Funny, I was thinking of a pair of 2nds and a contract/depth player (ie Sestito) - but was going to add a because that's a little dreamy and probably not going to get it done. Still, I might try it as an opening volley. Worry about capspace later if/when healthy returning players make it an issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 How about Booth, and a 2nd, and we'll take Peverley and Rome's buried contract off their hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 How about Booth, and a 2nd, and we'll take Peverley and Rome's buried contract off their hands? wouldn't that be wonderful?! I don't think it would work like that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Almost feel league HQ's(Hindquarters) engineered that trade. Dallas was vulnerable; ownership troubles, they needed a buyer(which Bettman helped find). League wants Crosby/Pens winning & marketable. Neal was a burgeoning PFWD. Soon after lame trade, Gaglardi/owner was brought in. Now watch Nieuwendyk get some choice position in HQ's. Secret handshakes in an ol' boy's club... Mind blown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.