Ghostsof1915 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Edler for Hamonic that makes sense if Edler is willing to go there (once he's healthy of course). Hamonic want's out. Edler is low maintenance. Provides a different type of defence man. Only question does it work for the Islanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: This. B-b-but Tanev covers for all of Edler's constant brain farts and is Jebus on skates! That said, I wouldn't move Tanev for VN either. the only thing that would stop me is the lack of d depth. Beyond that, I think it's a fair deal. tanev is vastly overrated here, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I should chime in, people who keep saying Bowey for Hamhuis (and yes I believe we could add to Hamhuis and obtain bowey still just not a 1-1 trade) Recognize that With Washington's russian connection, Bowey for Nicushkin makes a ton of sense, just not experienced enough to sway Nill I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Dallas wouldn't make him available unless his injury problems are going to impact his entire career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, Rush17 said: I wouldn't do hammer for Nichuskin. A pending Ufa for a 20 year old with a ton of potential... yeah who wants that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Why are people suggesting we should trade a defenceman for a forward? We already have enough depth up front, and not enough depth on the blueline. Our need is a defenceman, not a forward. It's not often a 20 year old top 5 pick potentially becomes available. If you could get him for something like Hamhuis + Grenier + a 2nd, you take that deal and run. Fast. Then resign Hamhuis back next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Trade Tanev? Yikes. He is 26 years old with his prime years just ahead of him. Plays big mins, and is by far the Canucks most steady and dependable dman. Guy is fearless at blocking shots. Isn't he exactly the type of player every D group needs? Canucks need another guy just like him (tho Hutton has the potential I think)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Boddy604 said: It's not often a 20 year old top 5 pick potentially becomes available. If you could get him for something like Hamhuis + Grenier + a 2nd, you take that deal and run. Fast. Then resign Hamhuis back next season. He was drafted 10 th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just now, stawns said: the only thing that would stop me is the lack of d depth. Beyond that, I think it's a fair deal. tanev is vastly overrated here, imo. Didn't say it wasn't fair but a RW isn't a huge organizational need at the moment. D depth is. Tanev for VN is a largely lateral move that doesn't address anything we need. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Edler 1-1 Tanev + 2nd and 4th Hamhuis +2nd and 5th Get it done!!!!!!! I'd even do Hamhuis, 2nd and a conditional 3rd for Nichushkin to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 minute ago, coryberg said: He was drafted 10 th In Boddy's defense he was slated as a top 5 but his attitude turned more than a few GMs off of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Boddy604 said: It's not often a 20 year old top 5 pick potentially becomes available. If you could get him for something like Hamhuis + Grenier + a 2nd, you take that deal and run. Fast. Then resign Hamhuis back next season. You clearly aren't that familiar with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just now, coryberg said: He was drafted 10 th oh ok. well my bad. but even still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, stawns said: the only thing that would stop me is the lack of d depth. Beyond that, I think it's a fair deal. tanev is vastly overrated here, imo. He's actually vastly UNDER-rated. It seems fans only look at points. They forget the prime job of a defence man is to DEFEND. Tanev given his build does an outstanding job defending. Pairing with Hutton is a great mix. If anything Edler is over-rated. He's probably enough to drive a coach mental. One minute he defends and scores. The next minute he's sleepy Edler who blows assignments and can't get the puck out of the zone. If he was the Edler of the LA playoffs wiping out Doughty he'd be legendary. His lack of consistency is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Why are people suggesting we should trade a defenceman for a forward? We already have enough depth up front, and not enough depth on the blueline. Our need is a defenceman, not a forward. Fair point but the REAL need on our team is talented young players who can either step in and become part of the young core or be used as a trading chip to get a comparable piece to fill a need. It is never a bad thing to accumulate assets IF the price fits with what you can afford to give. Nichushkin to Anaheim for one of their young D. Vatanen, Lindholm, Fowler? I could maybe see this type of deal happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Isnt this the guy some people were proclaiming the Canucks should have drafted instead of Horvat? Would you trade them 1 for 1 right now? Doubt it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 We are weak on RW. Pretty sure Benning is looking at this. I wouldn't mind Hamhuis + a 2nd for Nichushkin, anything more, it is too risky of a bet on Nichushkin. Since Hamhuis seems like a safe 1st rounder at trade deadline this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Lol, he plays with elite players and puts up 3rd line numbers. He's a one-dimensional player and decidedly average at that dimension. Not going to gut our limited D to acquire yet another project. Let's focus on getting Etem producing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just now, wallstreetamigo said: Fair point but the REAL need on our team is talented young players who can either step in and become part of the young core or be used as a trading chip to get a comparable piece to fill a need. It is never a bad thing to accumulate assets IF the price fits with what you can afford to give. Nichushkin to Anaheim for one of their young D. Vatanen, Lindholm, Fowler? I could maybe see this type of deal happening. That makes as much sense as to washington maybe more. Washington needs D more than scoring but Anaheim for whatever reason cant score to save their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Darius71 said: Isnt this the guy some people were proclaiming the Canucks should have drafted instead of Horvat? Would you trade them 1 for 1 right now? Doubt it! Get used to saying that about Konecny and Boeser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.