dragon4401 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Ok I misunderstood that you meant by lateral. All good a lot of people have different definitions of a lateral trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Let me get this straight, some people here would not trade Tanev for Evander Kane? ....unreal I'd give up Tanev and Edler for Kane. Call me crazy, these are all nothing but opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 How bout with all the reg re tool talk Edler Booth and Something small if needed (max schroeder MAX) for O'Reilly and PA Parenteau Than Kesler for Tatar, Mantha, Quincey and their 2014 1st Then in the offseason: Try and acquire a PMD Assign Shinkaruk Mantha Fox Gaunce and Jensen all to Utica Would be a huge boost for their fans and the team, also for their development spend the whole year there I think Fox-Gaunce-Jensen would be a good line And Shinkaruk and Mantha would be an offensively deadly dynamic offensive winger duo in the AHL, they would tear the league up while working on their defensive and board game. Horvat will make the club next season, feel it in my plums, another year of OHL would be a waste. Higgins and Burr would be great first line mates for him. next season forward line ups: Sedin Sedin PA Parenteau Tatar O'Reilly Kassian Higgins Horvat Burrows Weise/Sestitio Richardson Hansen Wingers are interchangeble. Next Season is the fun part: Sedin-Sedin-PAP Tatar-ROR-Kass Shinkaruk-Horvat-Mantha Higgins-Gaunce-Burrows Should be fine under the salary cap especially with it rising. Lui still in net. 3 scoring lines, and a checking line, I think we could roll all 4 lines Higgins and burrows would be able to mentor Gaunce just like they did horvat, Oreilly and Hank could mentor both as well. That would be a successful re tool in my opinion Giving up two olympians in their prime under fair contracts would have to yield a large return I liked the idea of that first deal but think it would need to be altered Burrows, Edler, Hansen ROR, Parenteau In order to acquire ROR you will have to overpay as other teams will likely be offering up a lot to get him. Burr waves his NTC to play for Roy, Edler waves NTC to get out of canucks spot light, Hansen is added value Going into playoffs. Sedin Sedin Kesler Higgins ROR Parenteau Kassian Schroeder Booth Weise Richardson Sestito Hammer Bieska Garrison Tanev Diaz Stanton Weber Depending on how that 3 line plays together in I would possibly like to see Booth and Schroeder moved and work in a way to bring in Ott and Bourque. Bourque and Booth could use a change of scenery. MTL needs more drive to the net. Canucks need get a guy who’s had success scoring. Both players are reclamation projects. We’d be stacked with center depth Sedin, Kesler, ROR, Santo, and Horvat and Gaunce in the system, sadly Schroeder becomes the odd man out. Ott would provide more team grit and size with Booth leaving. Our line up becomes Sedin Sedin Kesler Higgins ROR Parenteau Kassian Ott Bourque Dalpe Richardson Sestito That would definitely give this team a new look. Size and scoring on each line throughout your top 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiangunner Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Wow the boner people have for tanev is amazing. He will never be a number one dman and that's what a lot of you are valuing him as. Edler is far better then Tanev and the only reason tanev is considered such a golden child is since he was never drafted. I would move him for an evander kane or ror in a fricken heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 We need Tanev, I'd rather trade Edler who has stagnated and has actually became worst. Edler for ROR makes a lot of sense for the Canucks since they become younger and add a stud while getting rid of a liability on defense. We started losing games ever since Edler came back. I think Tanev getting traded would hurt us more than Edler getting traded. Edler will be scratched at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Wow the boner people have for tanev is amazing. He will never be a number one dman and that's what a lot of you are valuing him as. Edler is far better then Tanev and the only reason tanev is considered such a golden child is since he was never drafted. I would move him for an evander kane or ror in a fricken heartbeat. Agreed, I don't get it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Agreed, I don't get it either. Then you're both not all that smart. Go root for Calgary. Who's going to replace Tanev if Kane comes over? Oh ya, dense thinking stopped you from completing the thought. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Then you're both not all that smart. Go root for Calgary. Who's going to replace Tanev if Kane comes over? Oh ya, dense thinking stopped you from completing the thought. . Tanev and Hamhuis play basically the same role FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Pretty sure R'OR doesn't come here. AV's will basically make any team overpay for him, so he's not worth it for the Canucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogolol Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Then you're both not all that smart. Go root for Calgary. Who's going to replace Tanev if Kane comes over? Oh ya, dense thinking stopped you from completing the thought. . Stanton has already replaced Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Stanton has already replaced Tanev. In what way? He's not nearly as proven and plays on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Tanev and Hamhuis play basically the same role FWIW. Stanton has already replaced Tanev. I'm just guessing... that you two would get confused doing the hokey pokey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm just guessing... that you two would get confused doing the hokey pokey. Pretty sure that's just yogolol. Other than playing opposite sides and age they basically have the same role/tools. Smooth, smart, small-average sized, largely mistake free d-men with little offense or physicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Pretty sure that's just yogolol. Other than playing opposite sides and age they basically have the same role/tools. Smooth, smart, small-average sized, largely mistake free d-men with little offense or physicality. You can call a defenseman who has averaged 30 points (most of it in offensively challenged Nashville) "little" offense if you like. I don't quite guage blueline production that way. Luongo and Lack play pretty much the same role FWIW. The Canucks still need two of them, and in their case, only one can play. In the case of a blueline, you actually need 6 every night - and having a pair of smart, mistake free, etc etc is hardly excessive at all - particularly when they play opposite sides, and there are generally a pair of defensemen on the ice at any given time, and another couple pairings waiting to change with them. Needless to say, I find the point that Stanton or Hamhuis would somehow make Tanev redundant, or vice versa, to be utter nonsense. It's not unlike suggesting that Daniel makes Henrik redundant, or vice versa. A logical non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Lebrun is a dumb dumb. If the Canucks dealt Edler for O'Reilly last night's blueline, even with Diaz added, would look like: Garrison Stanton Diaz Corrado Sauve and....? Andersson? Mullen? Tommernes? Definitely genius armchair material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProteinShake Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 ROR is a great pickup-but must be dealt with proper care for our current team and looking to sign him long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.