Canuck Surfer Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Exactly. Trading young players who are close to NHL ready for even younger prospects is counter productive, and would only make the rebuild longer. Are we also referring to the Kassian trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 What happened to all the posters, who were screaming for ballsy moves by GMMG... So far 80% here has done nothing but shy away from the first rumoured trade... (except the Kesler trade). We need good players, and they costs. Not Hansen+Gaunce+Schroeder etc... Fat Chance we would sell 1st pick for 6th + garbage like that (no disrespect to Gaunce, as he is still developing...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar baby watermelon Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 That's a pretty reasonable trade on paper for all parties involved, but I think it doesn't meet Florida's needs. I'm positive Florida wants immediate help, and by that I mean someone who has some NHL experience. Also, they want help on defense. Anaheim: Kesler Vancouver: 1st + 24th + Etem Florida: Tanev + 6th + 10th What do you think? I thought about giving us the 10th and Florida the 24th, but not sure Florida would bite on that. I'd support that trade, everyone is freaking out over losing Shinkaruk but I could def see a 3 way trade happening, whoever Benning might get back might be enticing enough to flip over a deal that Florida would find attractive. I'd probably be stunned to see Shinkaruk go the other way to be honest. Seen enough good players leave Vancouver in the MG era, don't know if I would want that happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 guys shinkaruk was drafted 24th overall is our 4th best prospect and had a year development taken away from him due to injury.... why would you be shocked to see him go? this trade is to upgrade our future. we have no potential franchise players. Sam gives us a chance at one and if all it costs us is our 4th best prospect, our 6th overall pick (who would just be Ritchie anyways. not a huge loss) and a roster player that is probably Hansen then we should take that deal and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing哥 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 If true Shinkaruk, Tanev + 6th = Ekblad Garrisson/Bieksa, Kesler = Trade Centre depth of Sedin Horvat Santorelli/Gaunce Defense of Hamhuis - Ekblad Edler - Bieksa/Garrisson Staton - UFA signing SET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 How many 'sure things' has Tallon drafted in Florida over the past 5 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I think something Benning has to seriously consider is where Canucks will finish next year. With a Kesler trade do Canucks end up in Top 16 or Bottom 16. I could see a younger Keslerless Canucks team finish in the bottom 5. In that case we would have a very good shot at a top line center / franchise player in the draft. So is it worth it to pay a heavy price for the #1 this year. Or is it better to take the Number 6 pick and see how Canucks do next season? I like the way you are thinking. Tallon is one shrewd cookie, I know because I have watched Florida all season on Game Center and he is building something very good there imo. The thought of them getting Tanev from us and him standing out for them is a bit chilling, having finally bought out Booth and Garrison not showing to be worth his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 guys shinkaruk was drafted 24th overall is our 4th best prospect and had a year development taken away from him due to injury.... why would you be shocked to see him go? this trade is to upgrade our future. we have no potential franchise players. Sam gives us a chance at one and if all it costs us is our 4th best prospect, our 6th overall pick (who would just be Ritchie anyways. not a huge loss) and a roster player that is probably Hansen then we should take that deal and run. Because it is HS AND the 6th and maybe even more. Personally I don't think he (Reinhart) is worth it. I think there is a lot of opinion that says there is a lot of different draft orders, all the way down to 7/8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Shinkaruk and the 6th for Reinhart is a no brainer to me. We'll get another shinkaruk, possibly even a better one in the Kesler deal. You will not get another chance at a Reinhart unless we tank again even harder. We have never really had a true number one high end Canadian centre. If it costs shinkaruk and Nick Ritchie so be it, get it done Benny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckster33 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Please carry on talking about Shinkaruk being moved when I have stated categorically I know for a fact he will not for any move up. this is FACT. I have said I will no divulge how I know this but you can spend more pages and pages talking about it to make yourselves feel like NHL 14 GM's ... Guaranteed, I KNOW THIS, and after the draft, please do check this thread where I will tell all the trolls who respond to this comment, that I told you so... Carry on.... Package some more of our best young assets when we have very few for a maybe...this is exactly what Benning is going to do lol wow....I didn't even need a source to know this, a brain and logic could have told me that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkoshack Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Kesler doesn't want to be here and Sedins are on the decline with likely not many years left before they pack it up and head back to Sweden. Who's going to centre the 1st line in the future? They need to make this trade happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Uh, Reinhart hasn't played a single NHL game and you're calling out a person who said Kesler is better than Reinhart? I don't get some of you people. You say Hunter isn't going to be a 1st/2nd liner because he may be a bust, but you're willing to trade 6th + Tanev + Hunter for another prospect who MAY not even be that first line center either. Irony? It's all opinions tbh. Though I do admit, getting Reinhart would be sexy. But i'm not willing to trade our young players while we enter a rebuild mode. I say this almost once a day. Apparently unproven kids who have either NOT been drafted or have NOT played a single NHL game are better than game breaking award winning veterans according to this board. So long as they are on another team or we have little chance of drafting them. It is baffling how people SERIOUSLY think so little of our prospects that they`d throw them away in a trade for a "chance" and still think it is a good idea. That is like walking into a casino with $40 spending all of it winning $10 and walking out $30 less but feeling like a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Who am I comparing? Reinhart and Ekblad? Your arguments don't make sense. I posted exactly what you said, so I don't see how you're confused. You said "Mackinnon>>>Reinhart/Ekblad" then you also said "Wait until Nylanders first season in the NHL, then you can make a comparison. Premature evaluation." You declare that someone cannot compare players who have yet to play in the NHL, but then you go right ahead and do it yourself. Can you not see the duplicity? Because McDavid is projected to be the next great player. Whether that pans out or not remains to be seen. Why he's willing to trade a shot at Reinhart is because Reinhart is about on par with the top two centers he already has, so he doesn't need him. Mortgaging the farm is trading the 6th and Shinkaruk for him? If that's true, we have a pretty sad farm. We'd be giving up one prospect from our pool. Big deal. We'd likely fill those holes with the Kelser trade anyways. Aha, so when a player is "projected to be great" you do not trade the pick, even if they play at a position you have depth in. Second, you say Reinhart is "about on par" with what Florida has. Noted. Third, you apparently admit the farm is pretty sad, and with a giggle? Either you don't believe it and believe that Shinaruk is not one of the top prospects because there are so many, or you do believe it's weak but are still willing to pawn him off anyway. Oh but then we get something for Kesler -- yeah, so assets just grow on trees, or you can just acquire them like cash from a bank machine any time you want? No Huberdeau and Barkov are about as good as Reinhart, therefore he is looking for a winger. Noted again. At some point we need elite players. Aha, so then you are calling Reinhart "elite". According to your previously noted assertions, Florida's other centres are "on par" with Reinhart, so they too are "elite"? But apparently "great" (McDavid) is even better than "elite" so that makes an exception to drafting more of what you already have strength in? I'm not picking on you, but just pointing out that you are not at all being consistent, and are basing much of what you say on false or speculative presuppositions and faulty logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 If Etem is on the table from Anaheim, that's automatically a replacement for Shinkaruk. He's probably even a better player. Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Source? Absolutely crazy to give up Shinkaruk if we are getting Etem. Those two were magical together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Of course there is a franchise player. Every draft for the last 10 years has had a franchise player go 1 or 2. So because there has been in the past, that means someone HAS to be a franchise player? That's a total logical fallacy -- just because something happens in the past is no guarantee it happens in the future, especially when you are talking about completely different sets of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyllenhaal Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Botch on team 1040 this morning hinted that Tanev is the roster player. Says Tanev wants to get paid. Also said the plan was to get the 10th from Anaheim to replace Shinkaruk in the 1st overall trade. Also said Anaheim hasn't put #10 back on the table (yet..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
From.The.Point Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Take it for what its worth, but Botchford was on 1040 and said Tanev is the roster player that would be going to Florida and that Anaheim hasn't tabled the 10th overall in any deal so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 glad the roster player is tanev. Corrado will get his chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I have absolutely no problem with Tanev being traded if he's looking for more than he is worth. Stanton at the start of the season showed some promise, and he's on a very affordable contract for this coming season. Corrado also should be near challenging for a roster spot soon (and I believe he has a higher ceiling than Tanev does). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.