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

[Speculation] Canucks looking to move Sbisa


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cowichan Canuck said:

Sbisa-Larsen-Guance-CBJ 2ndwould be ideal and our D would be stacked

 

Edler-Barrie

Hutton-Gudy

Tryamkin-Tanev (Tanev would be such a good partner for Tryamkin) 

Why trade Larsen already when we have yet to see what he can even do here?  He's also a RHS and could well end up our best offensive Dman.  He likely would have negligible trade value at this point anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cowichan Canuck said:

None of them have a R shot in the Tanev quality that could be involved in a trade with Colorado. 

We have many more D men available to involve in a trade with Colorado than Edm or Tor.

Colorado doesn't need forwards in my opinion, if they lose Barrie, then need D...they need D even with Barrie.

 

Sbisa-Larsen-Guance-CBJ 2ndwould be ideal and our D would be stacked

Edler-Barrie

Hutton-Gudy

Tryamkin-Tanev (Tanev would be such a good partner for Tryamkin) 

Hmm so who do we protect in the expansion draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

To get Barrie, I'd bet the Oil would be willing to part with any defenseman not named Darnell Nurse.

 

A package including Klefbom or Reinhart would be definite possibilites.

Unfortunately I think Edmonton would be able to  beat any offers the Canucks could throw out not involving Horvat/Boeser/Demko or Juolevi. Colorado may want a D but Edmonton could throw in any dman aside from Nurse as well as a Yakupov or RNH easily beating any offer from the Canucks.

 

Note: This is with the caveat that Tanev is not involved in any deal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless we got a better D back in return (Barrie), I think we do assume a little bit of risk trading Sbisa.  If Larsen doesn't work out as hoped, then we really don't have a replacement better than Sbisa who could step into that 6th d spot.

I'm certainly not closed off to trading Sbisa as I believe his contract is a little high for what he brings to the table, and though he improved as the season wore on, I'm still not convinced he's very good.  But if Larsen doesn't work out, who do we put in there?  Pedan or Biega would be able to fill in, but won't likely be nearly as decent... then it also leaves our immediate depth pretty lacking.  On the other hand, if Larsen DOES do well, it makes Sbisa the odd man out, and 3.6m is a lot to have sitting on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Why trade Larsen already when we have yet to see what he can even do here?  He's also a RHS and could well end up our best offensive Dman.  He likely would have negligible trade value at this point anyway.

because Barrie would be our best offensive dman. Larsen could turn into nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think Stevie Y is probably in reverse mode right now - looking to deal a forward for a blueliner.

 

They may have little choice but to move a Killorn or Palat (barring the ability to move Callahan or Filpulla or other....who knows who).

 

I don't think Luca necessarily carries that kind of value, but he could potentially be packaged - or as theminister has pointed out, a Pedan for Paquette deal could make a lot of sense, and w'd be able to retain Luca and ice an extremely strong top 7 D imo. 

 

Nice problem to have for a change imo.  Defensive depth is always a position of strength to be negotiating from.

Well said. I really like what Benning has done to stock the immediate and future d cupboard. Really allows us to deal from a position of strength to address other needs (e.g. gritty forward) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thejazz97 said:

It's not a bad contract.

This is true.  If he was a UFA this offseason you would expect to pay about the same.

 

If anything, maybe he is $500k overpaid, but that doesn't really count as a bad contract, especially when talking about a D… almost every team is short on D.

 

He is just surplus to our needs now as we have to fill that spot with an offensive defenceman to balance things out more.  

 

I wouldn't be totally surprised to even see Tanev go instead, getting a top pairing offensive D in that spot also makes a lot of sense and could be an easier sell to another GM.  When you make contact about Sbisa, it may open the door to have them offer a nice return for Tanev.

 

A bigger package for Landeskog would turn my crank, he is rumoured to be available and I have wanted him our our team since before he got drafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, hateleafs said:

Hmm so who do we protect in the expansion draft

Tryamkin and Hutton are exempt. Protect Barrie, Tanev, Gudbranson. Trade Edler for a forward or pics at the deadline telling him that he will be left available in the expansion draft if he doesn't wave (I'm sure he has no interest in being apart of an expansion team and would rather go to a contender)

 

Def something that needs to be thought about though HL. Damn expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Why trade Larsen already when we have yet to see what he can even do here?  He's also a RHS and could well end up our best offensive Dman.  He likely would have negligible trade value at this point anyway.

Because CDC logic:

 

Draft High Prospect->Trade for another Top Prospect->Trade said prospect for top 6 player->Trade top 6 player for Top 4 D-Man->Trade DMan for 1st round Pick->Draft High Prospect->Trade Prospect...etc..etc...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cowichan Canuck said:

Tryamkin and Hutton are exempt. Protect Barrie, Tanev, Gudbranson. Trade Edler for a forward or pics at the deadline telling him that he will be left available in the expansion draft if he doesn't wave (I'm sure he has no interest in being apart of an expansion team and would rather go to a contender)

 

Def something that needs to be thought about though HL. Damn expansion.

Yep. Gota be careful not to lose someone valuable. Trading is gonna be hard as we get closer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

well that's anything but a done deal and take the source #botchedturd with a grain of salt (actually, no salt - and don't swallow anything that comes from that 'source')

I try not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Speculation.  I personally want to see Gudbranson, Sbsia AND Tryamkin all the ice next season.  Larsen is ? and the depth ends with Biega.  So I think you keep him, unless you can find that gritty forward JB is looking for.  I guess that's a swap that would make sense for teams.

Agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if the right offer is there, you trade him. He's a 3rd pairing d-man for us right now.

 

But at the same time, who are we exposing at the expansion draft? He would be the perfect defenseman for that purpose, as Hutton and Tryamkin won't require protection and we could maintain Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Benning is making the right decision here.

Sbisa is a physical defenseman with some wheels who would be completely complimentary to any team. He has definite trade value.

I see something going down in the next 48 hours.

Phil you've just jinxed it now. :o

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...