Relyt Krets Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 This will be a proposal meant for the flamers because in reading everyone else's comments on some of these proposals, there will be a majority here who don't like it. But I wanted to just share my opinion on the rumours and what not out there about the canucks. I like the idea of a Tanev trade. I hate that we would have to get rid of him. Bit for what I hear of a Tanev for Landeskog, I would be all in. With Landeskog being so young and already almost a complete player it would be silly to walk away from. My proposAL goes much bigger though and I did read somewhere else that it would possibly be do able. Van trades: Tanev, Hansen, 2017 2nd, Virtanen For Col trades Landeskog and Barrie With the aquisition of Gudbranson and with Tryamkin in the wings we have 2 very good RHD with shut down abilities. We can afford to lose Tanev here and he will come at a premium. Look at the Hall Larssson deal. Barrie gives us a RHD offensive D who will bring us that offense we so need from the point. If we get Landeskog we can afford to give up Virtanen. Landeskog is more complete then I think Jake will ever be. Just my opinion. I do like Jake though. Hansen is a good addition to replace the scoring and Sbisa to help there D. Also for Cap purposes The next rumour I've heard is going after Kane and or Yakupov. I believe Yakupov could be landed for a 3rd round pick. He would be another Baertschi reclamation project. Why not go for it. RW who was first overall... worth a shot. Not really losing much in return. Now for Kane, he is a problem off the ice yes... but great on the ice. I'd take a look at him. I'd be offering up Dorset for cap purposes and one of Gaunce or Etem. Buffalo has the cap to so this deal. And also to eat 50% of Kane salary. They must be wanting to get rid of him and will probably do just about anything to do so. To clear some more cap after all that. I'd look at a Miller deal, to say San Jose. They wanted him before as insurance but bother ever went through. So maybe explore that route again. They don't really have a capable back up. And miller would be a good short term soluton for them. Also if they can explore a deal for burrows. Flame away flamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GettinGuddyWithIt Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 That's not enough to fetch a captain and a young RHD offensive defenseman. Plus Colorado already has Mikko Ratanen so why trade Jake as he's behind Duchene and Rantanen in the future. He's too young too trade and it might come back to hurt us a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 You can argue that Tanev should fetch a premium but you would have to apply that to Barrie as well. There isn't nearly enough going back to the Avs for this to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Keep Tanev- he is the backbone of the defense group and he is a complete player too. Maybe not the most offensively gifted, but if he can get more pucks through to the net and continue to join the rush I think we'll see him generating more offense. Bill Peters had nothing but great things to say about him, and had him out late in games during the World Championships- he definitely makes any defense group better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 I don't believe anyone could get yak for a third. Someone would have taken that by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Maybe if you switched Virtanen and added Horvat COL would take this trade (and of course the 2nd, Benning likes using these so let's be consistent). I would welcome that trade, our goals against would likely stay about the same given Landeskogs 200 foot game, I think Tanev is better defensively than Barrie and of course Landeskog is better than Horvat at this point, but it would really be a shot in the arm offensively and for our PP. Would hate to see Tanev go, but think this hockey trade makes sense for VAN, and possibly for COL. Maybe we should vote on it and then JB can call them and ask about it? Also this summer is sure dragging out...think I have read about this in fifty different forms the last couple weeks... Maybe we can trade Tanev and Hansen to Nashville instead for Josi and Forsberg just to mix it up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Is Tanev and Grenier for Barrie enough? If so I would do it. Edler can focus on chaining himself to d responsibilities while Barrie would become the Canucks most exciting d-man since Ehrhoff. Not to mention Canucks RHD would be set for years. Edler-Barrie Hutton-Gudbransson Tryamkin-Larsen Those are ideal pairings one offensive puck moving d-man and a big defensive d-man to play the shutdown role and be the stay at home guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numb3r 16 Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Im ok with trading tanev but I'm kinda attached to virtanen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relyt Krets Posted July 24, 2016 Author Share Posted July 24, 2016 14 hours ago, erkayloomeh said: I don't believe anyone could get yak for a third. Someone would have taken that by now You may be right. But also think. Yak is a $2.5M cap hit as well as an asset you'd have to protect come expansion draft if you choose. Otherwise you give up a Royal return and risk losing him for nothing. I think the best he can fetch at this point is a pick 11 hours ago, numb3r 16 said: Im ok with trading tanev but I'm kinda attached to virtanen... I am too, but when you look at what Virtanen is projected to be (Lucic style) and you look at how Lucic's career has gone (a few good scoring seasons followed by a trend down followed by a lucky and grossly signed long term deal that edm will regret in 3 years time.) now look at Landeskog. Big physical 2 way forward who plays a 200 ft game and has a scoring touch. Not to mention 23yo and a leader. You got to give some to get some and I think Virtanen would be a good asset to swing in front of Col. They have Duchene and Mackinnon, so adding a big body like Virtanen may be good for them. Not a Horvat. But like you said. Virtanen. There is something about him, I just unfortuneatly don't know how well his game will develop and I don't see him being top 6 potential. But that's just my opinion. Love the guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Huscroft Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 On 23/07/2016 at 0:30 PM, GettinGuddyWithIt said: He's too young too trade and it might come back to hurt us a lot. Don't shoot me here, but I think the hype behind Jake might be a little bit blown up. I'd be surprised if he's a top six guy. Just my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.