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

Value of: JVR to Vancouver


RKennis41

Recommended Posts

Benning won't give up futures for a rental but will pay a price if it's a hockey deal for a younger player who can help the team now and for a few years to come.

JVR fits that bill as he's signed for a few more years on a good contract.

What would it take to get him to Vancouver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higgins, Vey, Horvat/Virtanen, and a 2nd. Most likely.

This and I would say they wouldn't value Higgins much either. A team like Anaheim can easily outbid any reasonable offer the Canucks put up as they have the assets are in the position to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higgins, Vey, Horvat/Virtanen, and a 2nd. Most likely.

This and I would say they wouldn't value Higgins much either. A team like Anaheim can easily outbid any reasonable offer the Canucks put up as they have the assets are in the position to do so.

For JVR?

With Horvat's play....just for JVR?

Come on guys....be realistic. JVR might have value but not team gutting value. He's a solid top 6 player but he's not a make or break game winning beast worth anything like that to us.

If any other team wants to pay that fine but to us not so much.

Tanev, a prospect and a 2nd.

Tops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For JVR?

With Horvat's play....just for JVR?

Come on guys....be realistic. JVR might have value but not team gutting value. He's a solid top 6 player but he's not a make or break game winning beast worth anything like that to us.

If any other team wants to pay that fine but to us not so much.

Tanev, a prospect and a 2nd.

Tops.

Tanev, Jensen/Shinkaruk/ 2nd?

Not saying I would do that trade though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry. They'd decline, anyways. They don't want our 2nd grade prospects AND a 2nd. You have to give to get. Just giving a high-end defensive defenceman in Tanev isn't good enough.

Well if they are asking MORE than Tanev, Shinkaruk/Jensen, 2nd, might as well put them on hold and tell them that we ain't trading our future.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if they are asking MORE than Tanev, Shinkaruk/Jensen, 2nd, might as well put them on hold and tell them that we ain't trading our future.

:)

Exactly. It's simply a trade that wouldn't work for both parties given their core, what they're going for at the moment, and what they'd want in return.

They don't want any of our roster players beside Tanev and Horvat, and I doubt we'd want to give out Horvat so that's a non-starter.

The Leafs would then turn to Virtanen, which again, I doubt we'd be willing to do. They'd probably want our 2015 1st RD draft pick in the deal too, which again, is something Benning said he's against trading, so another no-go.

At this point, you've already lost Toronto, a team that has claimed they are now going to rebuild. A team that wants to rebuild wants young assets, not crap. Not to belittle our own prospects, but Shinkaruk has had a disappointing first year in the AHL, and Jensen has never looked promising yet. Why would they want those players for a 30+ goal scorer on an incredible beauty of a contract? Answer is: They won't. They'll look elsewhere and get much more.

In short. The Canucks and Leafs as trading partners for JVR is not going to work out, no matter what way you slice it. Both want to both get younger and remain younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tanev, Jensen/Shinkaruk/ 2nd?

Not saying I would do that trade though.

That's probably more realistic and I still wouldn't make that trade for JVR myself

Don't worry. They'd decline, anyways. They don't want our 2nd grade prospects AND a 2nd. You have to give to get. Just giving a high-end defensive defenceman in Tanev isn't good enough.

Good that they'd decline. That's more than fair value.

While Jensen may or may not be approaching potential bust status. Shinkaruk is anything but. He's being developed quite properly and hovering near .5 ppg in the AHL after missing an entire year of hockey after a serious hip surgery.

He is far from a 2nd grade prospect as he was highly touted in one of the deepest drafts since 2003.

If they want to turn that deal down so be it. They can rent Sekera for no reason at all and sign him to a multi year deal with an $8.4 million AAV as Nonis is known to do for whatever reason ;)

I still wouldn't do that deal for JVR myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's probably more realistic and I still wouldn't make that trade for JVR myself

Good that they'd decline. That's more than fair value.

While Jensen may or may not be approaching potential bust status. Shinkaruk is anything but. He's being developed quite properly and hovering near .5 ppg in the AHL after missing an entire year of hockey after a serious hip surgery.

He is far from a 2nd grade prospect as he was highly touted in one of the deepest drafts since 2003.

If they want to turn that deal down so be it. They can rent Sekera for no reason at all and sign him to a multi year deal with an $8.4 million AAV as Nonis is known to do for whatever reason ;)

I still wouldn't do that deal for JVR myself.

I just think that they'd want Horvat or Virtanen before Shinkaruk. Sure they might settle for Shinkaruk, and I mean, he did have shoulder surgery and missed an entire year because of it, but I'd assume they'd want a higher end prospect that LOOKS more promising.

This trade wasn't going to work in the first place, as I had already said. Both teams have the same mindset in what they want/don't want to give up. I can tell you that'd they would ATLEAST want either a 2015 1ST or Horvat/Virtanen to even start.

With these offers thus far, however, I can say that we wouldn't last long in a bidding war for JVR. To be honest, I'm pretty happy with that too. I don't feel like JVR isn't something we should be aiming for at this time anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol you're way over-valuing the dude. He's a very good player, but not worth all that. The guy was traded for Luke freakin schenn and JVR was a good player then too.

He's not, really... What did Evander Kane get? Exactly. JVR has more value than Kane too in my opinion. I think what Kane got was a little crazy, and it's bad to use comparables IMO, but to suggest JVR isn't worth what the poster you quoted offered is ridiculous. The fact you say he's overvaluing him is more ridiculous.

You also looking back at what he was traded for in the first place means absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys....be realistic. JVR might have value but not team gutting value. He's a solid top 6 player but he's not a make or break game winning beast worth anything like that to us.

If any other team wants to pay that fine but to us not so much.

Tanev, a prospect and a 2nd.

Tops.

Tanev? I thought you said no team-gutting value. Our defense is basically Hamhuis if you send Tanev away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not, really... What did Evander Kane get? Exactly. JVR has more value than Kane too in my opinion. I think what Kane got was a little crazy, and it's bad to use comparables IMO, but to suggest JVR isn't worth what the poster you quoted offered is ridiculous. The fact you say he's overvaluing him is more ridiculous.

You also looking back at what he was traded for in the first place means absolutely nothing.

So basically JVR is worth a roster player, two prospects, and a 1st?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically JVR is worth a roster player, two prospects, and a 1st?

You COULD say that, but like I said, I hate to use comparables because of that reason. It really depends on what prospects. Lemieux and Armia aren't exactly Virtanen and Horvat, so I'd assume if they're being offered, only one prospect. The 1st is all dependent on how we position ourselves. I'm sure we'd rather throw in a 2016 1st instead.

And the roster player they would only be interested in is Tanev, and to be quite honest, it's not something we should be doing. I think a lesser roster player would work in that regard.

So, (A-prospect[Virtanen most likely]), + 2015 1st (2016 depending on value of prospect/roster player), and roster player would be something that could be worked around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You COULD say that, but like I said, I hate to use comparables because of that reason. It really depends on what prospects. Lemieux and Armia aren't exactly Virtanen and Horvat, so I'd assume if they're being offered, only one prospect. The 1st is all dependent on how we position ourselves. I'm sure we'd rather throw in a 2016 1st instead.

And the roster player they would only be interested in is Tanev, and to be quite honest, it's not something we should be doing. I think a lesser roster player would work in that regard.

So, (A-prospect[Virtanen most likely]), + 2015 1st (2016 depending on value of prospect/roster player), and roster player would be something that could be worked around.

Not willing to give up Hansen, Virtanen, and a 1st for a Top 6 winger

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...