Scorvat Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 TO VAN: SEABROOKTO CHI: HAMHUIS JENSEN CHICAGO DOES IT TO FREE SOME CAP SPACE. WE DO IT FOR SEABROOK TO VAN: 1ST (17TH?) 2ND (33RD) 2016 2NDTO EDM: LACK KASSIAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 You're seriously over valuing what Vancouver is offering up. Both Chicago and Edmonton easily decline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorvat Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 You're seriously over valuing what Vancouver is offering up. Both Chicago and Edmonton easily decline Chicago is in a tough spot so they wont get full values. Just look at what we got for kesler when we were in a tough spot. Edmonton has a new gm known for trading picksm and with his young team all picks other than mcdavid are on the block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Chicago is in a tough spot so they wont get full values. Just look at what we got for kesler when we were in a tough spot. Edmonton has a new gm known for trading picksm and with his young team all picks other than mcdavid are on the block The difference is Kesler HAD to be traded and only wanted to go to the Ducks. Chicago can do several things before getting bent over a barrel on a Seabrook deal like you're suggesting. And what you're sending to Edmonton would MAYBE get you the 17th pick. Certainly not all 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayingBurke Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 TO VAN: SEABROOKTO CHI: HAMHUIS JENSEN CHICAGO DOES IT TO FREE SOME CAP SPACE. WE DO IT FOR SEABROOK TO VAN: 1ST (17TH?) 2ND (33RD) 2016 2NDTO EDM: LACK KASSIAN I like your attempt but I don't think it would go through has you currently have it. (This is more of an NHL15 move). I like the idea of trying to go after Seabrook, he is a vetern defensemen who could be valuble on our blueline, however, he has a limited no trade clause, and I am not even sure if Chicago would want to trade him to a Western Conference team. But let's assume that both are on the Canucks side. I don't think this deal makes sense. Yes, cap space is a problem for Chicago and Hamhuis is a tad cheaper than Seabrook, however, they both have expiring contracts in 2016. What makes you think they can resign Hamhuis? Or even do they want to bring an older defensemen in? I can see them wanting Tanev, as a better return. However, I don't think I'd want to move Tanev if I am Benning. Jensen, sure he could be a piece for this trade, but he is young and still has offensive upside, check his playoff performance in the AHL. I would rather hang on to this guy. The Vancouver and Edmonton deal is an interesting idea, but I think you are giving up a lot for questionable draft picks. You think it is a good idea to give them Lack (who is a strong goalie with a proven record now that he can carry a # 1 role. You want him robbing games against the Canucks 6 times a season? Kassian, again a lot of upside and we get back the 17th pick? That is really all we are talking about here. Those two seconds are not as valuable as both players who are already proven NHL ready players. If you want to trade Lack and Kassian to Edmonton, which I do not advise, I want Leon Draisaitl (which they can give up since they are getting McDavid), and I want a first in 2016, not this year. We already have the 23rd pick this year, we get better value in next year's pick and Benning claims it is a better draft. And if we can get a second in this year's draft (33rd) then great, but I would be more happy with the two parts I just mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckMan10 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I wonder if Hamhuis, Lack and Jensen as a package are worth the second package from the oilers of 17th, 33rd and 2016 2nd. We could comfortably lose those pieces and still be okay, but theyre also valuable enough to net this return. We could sign Franson or Green with the cap saved from hammer and Lack, and speed the rebuild up dramatically. 17- Roy/Kylington 23- Boeser/Sprong 33- BPA D-man Or 17+23 for the 10-12 and pick up one of Barzal, Zacha or Werenski (who i think will be a stud). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorvat Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 The difference is Kesler HAD to be traded and only wanted to go to the Ducks. Chicago can do several things before getting bent over a barrel on a Seabrook deal like you're suggesting. And what you're sending to Edmonton would MAYBE get you the 17th pick. Certainly not all 3 No he didnt. He wanted to be traded. But chicago HAS to free some cap. Seabrook seems like the one they could move. But it dont HAVE to be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Hamhuis has a NTC. He's retiring a canuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorvat Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 Hamhuis has a NTC. He's retiring a canuck. Then he will be retiring early or taking a good paycut. He has 2 maybe 3 more decent years left. I think we seen his best days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.