PhillipBlunt Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 23 minutes ago, appleboy said: Larsson is a younger version of Gudbranson. People keep talking about his offensive upside but I think he is what you see. Younger by 11 months? And Gudbranson is the epitome of a physical stay at home defenseman, and a far more imposing player than Larsson. Larsson is a younger version of Alexander Edler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 51 minutes ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said: Can we trade Botchford instead? Canucks shouldn't be actively looking to trade him but if some GM puts a pretty good offer for him then I'd consider it. Put him on waivers, as I don't think anyone would want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Younger by 11 months? And Gudbranson is the epitome of a physical stay at home defenseman, and a far more imposing player than Larsson. Larsson is a younger version of Alexander Edler. I don't think he is anywhere near Edler when it comes offense. Edler has not been the same since his back troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Huscroft Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 11 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Larsson is a younger version of Alexander Edler. Do you have any data to support this? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking because I'm curious and know next to nothing about Larsen. From what I can tell, it appears that Larsen, right now, is a slightly above average 4-6 offensive defenseman. Edit: Are we talking Philip Larsen, or Adam Larsson? Edit: Spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Just now, appleboy said: I don't think he is anywhere near Edler when it comes o offense. Edler has not been the same since his back troubles. I'm saying that they are similar players. Gudbranson is a far more aggressive player than either. Edler is a defenseman with an all around game, who plays big minutes in all situations. Has a physical element to his game, but that isn't what defines it. That seems more akin to Larsson's game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, Jamie Huscroft said: Do you have any data to support this? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking because I'm curious and know next to nothing about Larsen. From what I can tell, it appears that Larsen, right now, is a slightly above average 4-6 offensive defenseman. Edit: Spelling. I gave my analytics guys the summer off, so the data is not presently available..... By the way, you're not being a dick. My statement is based on how many in the "hockey world" describe Larsson's game. They mention him having the following traits: plays big minutes has a great point shot displays ability in all areas (5 on 5, PP, PK) could be more assertive physically Swedish 6'3" 205 lbs (Edler has 10 lbs. on him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Organizations should trade any player that will make their roster better, long term. However, the Canucks were a disaster last year defensively. And people can talk as much as they want about "We have Tryamkin and Pedan", the fact of the matter is the only consistent and reliable defenseman Vancouver has had is Tanev. Obviously Gudbranson is solid enough #3. But as far as Canucks from previous seasons, only Tanev has shown a stable, reliable game. And for a team that needs stability on the backend, probably not best to trade him. But again, if there's an Eastern team that is dumb enough to trade one of the best left wingers in the game for him, then by all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, TimberWolf said: Anyone is tradable for a massive overpayment but we shouldn't be actively shopping him. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK Phooey Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I would trade any player and prospect if the return made the team better today and into the future (knowing full well that the future is very hard to predict). Sorry to sound cold-hearted, but if I'm a GM in the NHL (which I obviously am not) not a single player would be considered an untouchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, kloubek said: So he acknowledges how very good Tanev is, at the same time he suggests we should consider trading him. Kind of an oxymoron. Or maybe just a moron. Bingo. He's also a troll. The point is to improve your club. Unless you can do so, you don't make a deal regardless of who you're talking about. Should Benning improve his club? Of course he should. But singling out Tanev is just the usual divisive garbage from a Leafs fan that should go back to Toronto put the paper bag back on, and leave this media market improved as a result of addition by subtraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, kloubek said: So he acknowledges how very good Tanev is, at the same time he suggests we should consider trading him. Kind of an oxymoron. Or maybe just a moron. I think for a team to have the best chance of success, you have to have players in key roles who do their jobs really, really well. Ideally, you want a top six who can put the puck in the net, and a bottom six who can eat up the extra minutes without being a liability, while chipping in here and there. You want an elite goalie to stop the pucks. You want a PMD on the back end who can quarterback a powerplay. And you want a defender who can be put up against the top line of the opposing team. Naturally, most any player is tradable depending on the return, and Tanev is no exception, but he fills his role really, really well. Yes, we could trade him, but nobody in our organization has the ability to neutralize the opposition like Tanev can. Even if we managed to get a decent scoring forward in return, the amount of goals that would be scored against us would suffer equally, so what is the point? If you look at the blueline that is expected to be iced in the new season, there are certain players who stand out in their roles and certain players that do not. Standouts: Tanev - Discussed Gudbranson - Adds physicality and some stay-at-home abilities (though the stats don't suggest he is particularly great at the latter. But we just got him so he's not going anywhere) Tryamkin - Add ridiculous physicality. IMO, could be one of our most important defenseman going forward. Hutton - Could turn into a premier offensive defenseman, and may be a huge piece to giving us the scoring from the blueline that we've lacked lately. Not-so-standouts: Sbisa - Not really a bad defenseman, but doesn't have the skills in any area to ever be more than a bottom or complimentary pairing . Edler - Brings some of this, some of that. An above average all-around defenseman, and better than all the negative attention he gets on CDC. Still, not standout in any particular area, and not really the role player everyone was expecting after a very strong start in the league. In my opinion, if we were to ever trade Tanev, the return would have to be astronomical. Although better than last year, our team still doesn't have all the elements I mentioned in my second paragraph, and to lose another in an excellent stay at home defenseman would hurt us badly. Well you don't trade bad players do you? The Canucks desperately need scoring help and you have to give to get. The fact is defensive dmen are not that hard to replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 If he fetches a top 6 forward or a 40+ point defenseman then yes, otherwise no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, Monty said: Organizations should trade any player that will make their roster better, long term. However, the Canucks were a disaster last year defensively. And people can talk as much as they want about "We have Tryamkin and Pedan", the fact of the matter is the only consistent and reliable defenseman Vancouver has had is Tanev. Obviously Gudbranson is solid enough #3. But as far as Canucks from previous seasons, only Tanev has shown a stable, reliable game. And for a team that needs stability on the backend, probably not best to trade him. But again, if there's an Eastern team that is dumb enough to trade one of the best left wingers in the game for him, then by all means. Imo, Tanev was part of that defensive train wreck. When Edler went down it was very clear to me that Tanev is a complimentary dman, not a guy that can carry the load. He looked very ordinary once Edler was out of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Wild Sean Monahan said: I came across this piece by Botchturd this morning and thought it might be something CDC would be interested in. Thanks to the OP for posting the content so we don't have to click on that garbage. Obviously Botched - whose lack of talent requires he borrow from CDC for material - got jealous of CDC's recent green jacket champion and just had to parrot the successful troll concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, stawns said: Imo, Tanev was part of that defensive train wreck. When Edler went down it was very clear to me that Tanev is a complimentary dman, not a guy that can carry the load. He looked very ordinary once Edler was out of the picture. I don't know stawns - seems like you might be expecting too much. Once Edler went down, Tanev was playing primarily with a rookie - and moreover with a center group that had Sutter down, Hank scarcely able to take a draw - and a forward group in general that was unable to provide much support. I'm not sure there's a defensive blueliner in the world that was going to look better than ordinary in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Crossbar Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Obviously hot topics in CDC give The Province ongoing article ideas, traffic, clicks, and comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted July 20, 2016 Author Share Posted July 20, 2016 18 minutes ago, Monty said: Organizations should trade any player that will make their roster better, long term. However, the Canucks were a disaster last year defensively. And people can talk as much as they want about "We have Tryamkin and Pedan", the fact of the matter is the only consistent and reliable defenseman Vancouver has had is Tanev. Obviously Gudbranson is solid enough #3. But as far as Canucks from previous seasons, only Tanev has shown a stable, reliable game. And for a team that needs stability on the backend, probably not best to trade him. But again, if there's an Eastern team that is dumb enough to trade one of the best left wingers in the game for him, then by all means. Pretty much how I feel. That said, I don't think they'd be likely to get a piece like that. With the reports of JB looking for a LW and rumours (how valid they are remains to be seen) that Colorado could be shopping Landy I'd be all over it, even more so if you could do it straight across as Botch sort of alludes to. He names Barrie as a possibility. I don't see that being very realistic unless Colorado likes the cost certainty of Tanev as opposed to the potential pay day for Barrie- something that isn't totally impossible after the Brassard trade. Personally I don't see any trade like this coming to fruition without a pretty solid add on the Canucks side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, stawns said: Well you don't trade bad players do you? The Canucks desperately need scoring help and you have to give to get. The fact is defensive dmen are not that hard to replace. I would bed to differ that last point. As mentioned in the article, it has just been that historically, the buzz hasn't been around how great defensively a defenseman might be. If his stats are correct, Tanev is one of the best in the business. What did he say - 5th in the entire league in suppressing chances from the opposing team? That isn't something that is easy to replace. And it also isn't always easy to get a good return for an under-the-radar talent like Tanev, as not all GMs heavily weigh the stats. (If they did, Benning may not have been as keen on Gudbranson). It's also difficult to draft and develop defensemen, and defensive defencemen in particular. It is hard to assess a young player sometimes, and development takes longer to have them learn now to read plays and react to oncoming rushes. It is far easier for an offensive forward to come in, and replicate what they did in junior in a much quicker timeframe. Or even an offensive defenseman, for that matter. So in short, not easy to replace at all, in my opinion. But yes, you generally trade good players to get something good back in return. Absolutely. But then that falls back on what I said before, whereby if we were to trade him for a forward, the extra scoring from that forward would be offset by the extra goals against we would likely have, so there isn't much point. I would far sooner focus on trading a player who doesn't so successfully fill a particular role, like Edler. I would find it hard to believe he doesn't have trade value, and he is a guy we could give and it just puts the focus on our remaining defensemen to ensure they play the role they have been assigned really well. I feel we could potentially lose Edler without significant detrimental effects. Same with Sbisa. I don't necessarily agree with those who claim he has negative value, but at best he certainly isn't a significant enough piece to get us any kind of reasonable return. The fact is that besides Edler, we really have no defensemen we would want to give up that are worth enough to be part of a trade that saw a scoring forward come back this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyCanuck7 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 NO. Why do we want to trade all our fan favorites and players from the cup run??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyCanuck7 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Besides, who will be the next Canuck who stays here there entire career? JUST KEEP TANEV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.