Papayas Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Then why not trade for #3 and not lose Hunter instead? From the sounds of things, Reinhart, Bennett, and Draisaitl are basically a coin flip because our GM obviously see something in Reinhart? would totally lose the point to trade up if you can't end up with Reinhart. Besides, the 3rd overall pick will turn out to be more expensive than trading for a first because of inter-division trade. O what you actually think we can actually get a 3rd from the oiler without giving up one of our blue chipped prospect?? Think people, think! You actually think Edmonton want to trade down for Ballard raymond and a 6th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly 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... ...but it's more fun playing GM with a pack of player cards, trading pieces of cardboard in the playground at recess. Of course anyone can be traded if the deal is right. But if Benning does include Shinkaruk in a deal to trade up as allegedly speculated, then either: 1. He firmly believes Reinhart is a franchise player, and/or has serious reservations over Shinkaruk 2. He wants to bring a local boy #1 is the move of a hockey man, #2 of a businessman/marketer. All evidence points to him being a hockey man first and from what we've discovered he knows about scouting and this draft in particular, that's becoming even more clear. Shinkaruk is a finisher, something we have a dearth of other than perhaps Jensen. If he really wants Reinhart he will use other assets, to the point of it being overpayment then he walks away. Indeed, Nuckster, from a hockey point of view it is completely rational and sensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 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. Glad to see there's some here not blinded by the sheen from the Holy Number One. Granted opinions on Reinhart vary, but this Shinkaruk speculation has certainly made it clear who's approaching this from a spectacle/carnival/golden goose point of view versus a rational and systematic team-building point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Glad to see there's some here not blinded by the sheen from the Holy Number One. Granted opinions on Reinhart vary, but this Shinkaruk speculation has certainly made it clear who's approaching this from a spectacle/carnival/golden goose point of view versus a rational and systematic team-building point of view. You and WH are not alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 You and WH are not alone *whew* lol It's almost going to be a relief to get past the next three days. Once it's over and Shinkaruk is still in the fold, I think the fog will clear and people will see Benning's done the right thing and the future is still solid and improving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nergish Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 *whew* lol It's almost going to be a relief to get past the next three days. Once it's over and Shinkaruk is still in the fold, I think the fog will clear and people will see Benning's done the right thing and the future is still solid and improving. If we were to move up and grab Reinhart (who I believe will surprise a lot of you and be a dynamic playmaker in the NHL), not having somebody like Hunter to play with would be pointless. Passer + goal scorer = new look Canucks. Add Horvat as a 2way young leader/character guy, Kassian to kick a little ass, Jensen as an x-factor with speed, and whoever we get in a Kesler trade?... Our prospect pool no longer looks shallow, and we're seriously competitive in 1 to 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 If we were to move up and grab Reinhart (who I believe will surprise a lot of you and be a dynamic playmaker in the NHL), not having somebody like Hunter to play with would be pointless. Passer + goal scorer = new look Canucks. Add Horvat as a 2way young leader/character guy, Kassian to kick a little ass, Jensen as an x-factor with speed, and whoever we get in a Kesler trade?... Our prospect pool no longer looks shallow, and we're seriously competitive in 1 to 2 years. Agreed. I also don't see it as a "fit". Tallon's already expressed that he wants current NHL players, not guys that will be ready in 1+ years (besides say Ehlers/Nylander at 6th with our pick). I don't see how Shinkaruk fits that criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The only way I even consider this trade is if there's some way to undo some of the damage Gillis did and send the rest of Luongo's cap-hit to Florida in the deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 because our GM obviously see something in Reinhart? would totally lose the point to trade up if you can't end up with Reinhart. Besides, the 3rd overall pick will turn out to be more expensive than trading for a first because of inter-division trade. O what you actually think we can actually get a 3rd from the oiler without giving up one of our blue chipped prospect?? Think people, think! You actually think Edmonton want to trade down for Ballard raymond and a 6th?No. Try Tanev, Gaunce, and 6th overall. They need a big center who's close to NHL ready, they would get one defenseman and draft another. Fills all their needs. Pretty much perfect. Either way, any one of those 3 guys are on my radar. If we can get either of them, we take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Glad to see there's some here not blinded by the sheen from the Holy Number One. Granted opinions on Reinhart vary, but this Shinkaruk speculation has certainly made it clear who's approaching this from a spectacle/carnival/golden goose point of view versus a rational and systematic team-building point of view. all year long all we've heard is "oh we need a sniper gotta sure goals, cannot wait for hunter and good thing we've got hunter" Now everyone who was saying that is on a year to trade him without considering that once Kesler is gone we have no scoring threat or 2nd line center. This is not how we build a contender let alone a champion. You do not trade two tires for one and think your can win a race. Id it's an equitable deal with more than just the 1 st coming back. Sure. But trading our only LW prospect when a potential top line C is available at #6 is sheer foolishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 No. Try Tanev, Gaunce, and 6th overall. They need a big center who's close to NHL ready, they would get one defenseman and draft another. Fills all their needs. Pretty much perfect. Either way, any one of those 3 guys are on my radar. If we can get either of them, we take it. and you would actually take this deal if you are Edmonton? Really? Seriously? you are just making up reasons to convince yourself that Edmonton would want that ridiciulous offer. If anything they would want to trade up for Ekblad, NOT trade down for Tanve and a 6th which would probably turn into a defenseman who is ranked 9th in the North America pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 It all depends on what we get back for Kesler as to who we would pick with the #1. If we got a blue chip defensive prospect, then we pick Reinhart. If we got a blue chip young centre in return, we pick Ekblad. Being at the top spot lets us having that luxury of fitting the selection to our needs. I am fine with either of them truthfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckFanForever1123 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I cannot believe how many people are saying we should do this if it is in fact Tanev and Shinkaruk with the pick. Look, I want Reinhart as much as anyone here, but trading three young future assets for Reinhart is not a good idea. Tanev is a top 4 caliber minute eating, realiable player. Shinkaruk has a world of potential to be an exciting player. And whoever we draft at 6 can end up pretty good too. Not to mention Corrado may not be ready if Tanev is moved, and Shinkaruk is one of few wing prospects we even have. This is a bad trade. To me, we need to send the 6th plus Gaunce, and a decent back end roster player like Richardson, or rights to Santo. With Reinhart, Horvat, and Cassels, we could live without Gaunce, although it would sting, and Florida still gets a very good package for moving back 5 spots. Again, if it were up to me, I would not trade up because this is the time where we need more assets, but a trade like that seems to sting a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 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). That sums up my thoughts on it fairly well, with the clarification that Tanev will still be better defensively but Corrado likely better overall. It still depends on the rest of the moves we make though. If we get someone like Vatanen back from Anaheim or Pouliot from Pittsburgh then Tanev can quickly become an extra piece of our youth movement since there are only so many right side spots. But then, if we were to trade any of our top 4 defence this sumer as well then we'd be a little low on talent in the short term, but I'm sure Benning and Linden will have the big picture in mind with potential deals they could make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kborky93 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Simply put, I'll do our 6th + tanev and a hansen/schroeder or 6th + shinkaruk and a hansen/schroeder... But 6th + Tanev + Shinkaruk is too much imo for the 1st overall pick in a draft with depth but no franchise player, and where Reinhart could easily drop to 2nd/3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 That sums up my thoughts on it fairly well, with the clarification that Tanev will still be better defensively but Corrado likely better overall. It still depends on the rest of the moves we make though. If we get someone like Vatanen back from Anaheim or Pouliot from Pittsburgh then Tanev can quickly become an extra piece of our youth movement since there are only so many right side spots. But then, if we were to trade any of our top 4 defence this sumer as well then we'd be a little low on talent in the short term, but I'm sure Benning and Linden will have the big picture in mind with potential deals they could make. and as I have said before, Tanev is looking at a major injury somewhere along the way with the game to game abuse he takes. I like Tanev, but he gets pummeled. Thats going to catch up wth him. I have no issues moving Tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 and as I have said before, Tanev is looking at a major injury somewhere along the way with the game to game abuse he takes. I like Tanev, but he gets pummeled. Thats going to catch up wth him. I have no issues moving Tanev Agreed. ...good steady dman but doesnt hit or score...people thinking he just needs to bulk up could be disappointed. With weight comes reduced maneuverability and maybe his body type wont allow dor much more bulk...players tend to lose wight over the course of the season anyway. That being said I see more sense in moving tanev if we use the pick for Ekblad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I cannot believe how many people are saying we should do this if it is in fact Tanev and Shinkaruk with the pick. Look, I want Reinhart as much as anyone here, but trading three young future assets for Reinhart is not a good idea. Tanev is a top 4 caliber minute eating, realiable player. Shinkaruk has a world of potential to be an exciting player. And whoever we draft at 6 can end up pretty good too. Not to mention Corrado may not be ready if Tanev is moved, and Shinkaruk is one of few wing prospects we even have. This is a bad trade. To me, we need to send the 6th plus Gaunce, and a decent back end roster player like Richardson, or rights to Santo. With Reinhart, Horvat, and Cassels, we could live without Gaunce, although it would sting, and Florida still gets a very good package for moving back 5 spots. Again, if it were up to me, I would not trade up because this is the time where we need more assets, but a trade like that seems to sting a lot less. don't think you can count. tanev and shinkaruk + 6th for 1st..how is that losing 3 asset young asset.. you are losing 2.. Reinhart somehow disappears and doesn't count? and no i wouldn't do both and 6th for 1st.. i'd do either or.. and maybe a project prospect or maybe 1 of our 3rd liners or even 2nd or 3rd round pick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 and you would actually take this deal if you are Edmonton? Really? Seriously? you are just making up reasons to convince yourself that Edmonton would want that ridiciulous offer. If anything they would want to trade up for Ekblad, NOT trade down for Tanve and a 6th which would probably turn into a defenseman who is ranked 9th in the North America pool.Well if they trade up for #1, that's what they do. Their biggest need is defense, center, and veterans. Of course they want Ekblad. They need Ekblad. Hell, they need Reinhart, Draisaitl, or Bennett as well. They won't win games without a good defense though. That's their start. Tanev would help with that. Fleury would help with that eventually, and Gaunce is a big center who is NHL ready. More ready than Horvat, actually. Has an NHL shot, his defensive play is something the Oilers sorely need. He will eventually be a second line center in the ilk of a Mike Fisher and he's ready now. Not in a year or two. THAT is a fair trade. As fair as any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 6 goals in 64 games without pp time, skates and moves the puck very well, 6'2" and almost certainly over 190 lbs by training camp, and far and away the teams best defensive defenceman at the age of 24. tanev needs to be a cornerstone of this teams future. i'd be very surprised and disappointed if he gets moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.