[Proposal] Canucks & Blackhawks

[Darth Kane]

Depending on how much the cap moves in the summer of 2017 Chicago could be in a tough spot to re-sign Artemi Panarin.  If Chicago cannot re-sign #72 I think he could being back a decent asset in a trade.

 

Would Canucks fans make the following deal:

 

To Vancouver: Parnarin

 

To Chicago: Horvat

 

I believe Horvat is a great forward, but the Canucks would have to give up something significant to get Panarin.

[thejazz97]

Terrible deal for both teams IMO.

 

The Blackhawks are a top-heavy team, and depending on how the rookies play, they could fill out their depth. However, they've got three first line players (Panarin, Kane, Toews), a second line player (Hossa), and the rest are all bottom 6. Trading for Horvat would leave them with two first line players, a second line player, and a middle 6.

 

The Canucks would lose their center of the future. We've already heard about Benning not wanting to do Horvat for Drouin, and I doubt that Panarin would be any different, even without attitude issues.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

No, i could be wrong but I don't see Parnarin as a foundation piece that you want to build around, tremendous talent sure, but is he a long term player.  I see him more of a Semin, Setoguchi, Skinner type

[Darth Kane]

7 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

Terrible deal for both teams IMO.

 

The Blackhawks are a top-heavy team, and depending on how the rookies play, they could fill out their depth. However, they've got three first line players (Panarin, Kane, Toews), a second line player (Hossa), and the rest are all bottom 6. Trading for Horvat would leave them with two first line players, a second line player, and a middle 6.

 

The Canucks would lose their center of the future. We've already heard about Benning not wanting to do Horvat for Drouin, and I doubt that Panarin would be any different, even without attitude issues.

Fair enough.

 

But how is Horvat Vancouver's centre of the future but only middle 6 in Chicago?  In Chicago Horvat would take over the 2C role and Anisimov would move the LW to fill the void left by Panarin.

[Darth Kane]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No, i could be wrong but I don't see Parnarin as a foundation piece that you want to build around, tremendous talent sure, but is he a long term player.  I see him more of a Semin, Setoguchi, Skinner type

 

 

That is certainly a risk, but assuming Panarin had another season like this year the risk would be greatly reduced.

 

Setoguchi.....

[ForsbergTheGreat]

8 minutes ago, Darth Kane said:

 

 

That is certainly a risk, but assuming Panarin had another season like this year the risk would be greatly reduced.

 

Setoguchi.....

I still don't see him as a long term player.  More of a product of circumstances, like Seto was playing with Jumbo joe in his 2nd season putting up 65 points never coming anywhere close to that the rest of his career.

 

Panarin is good and skilled but he's not the driver of a line either where Horvat is (even though he produces less).  Burrows at one point put up 35 goals and 67 points. 

 

And being a long term player is more than just producing consistently, it's about the long term impact he has on a team. Even if he puts up another 70 points next season, it doesn't mean he's a long term player that teams build around. in fact very few russians are. 

 

 

[73 Percent]

I think thathe the value is there but doesn't suit the needs for either team. 

 

For the Canucks it fixes one problem by making another.

 

For the Hawks I just believe they should stay in win now mode.

[thejazz97]

17 minutes ago, Darth Kane said:

Fair enough.

 

But how is Horvat Vancouver's centre of the future but only middle 6 in Chicago?  In Chicago Horvat would take over the 2C role and Anisimov would move the LW to fill the void left by Panarin.

He's still only middle 6 here as well.

 

But our next center prospect after Bo (excluding Granlund and Zalewski) is one of Gaudette, Zhukenov, or Cassels, whereas the Hawks have Tyler Motte.

[timberz21]

Panarin is a good player, but he got 77 pts mainly due to Kane's career year of 105 pts.    If Kane goes back to his career average of 82-83 pts, Panarin is more of a 50-60 pts guy.  Horvat got 40 pts playing with a struggling Vrbata as a sophomore.  Plus I believe Horvat brings more intangible than Panarin. 

 

If the Canucks were a contenders looking for offense, then maybe there would be some arguments for a deadline deal...but I wouldn't rebuilt/retool my team around Panarin, I'd rather do it around Horvat.

[Monty]

33 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Panarin is a good player, but he got 77 pts mainly due to Kane's career year of 105 pts.    If Kane goes back to his career average of 82-83 pts, Panarin is more of a 50-60 pts guy. 

Or, as many people have suggested, perhaps Kane continues to produce in the 90+ range BECAUSE he's paired with Panarin, who's no slouch.

[timberz21]

3 minutes ago, Monty said:

Or, as many people have suggested, perhaps Kane continues to produce in the 90+ range BECAUSE he's paired with Panarin, who's no slouch.

Maybe, but Kane as been paired with Toews, Sharp, Hossa (in his prime) also in the past.  By that logic that would mean Panarin is better than all of those?

 

Or, maybe Panarin actually makes Kane better because of chemistry and style of play.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that Panarin by himself is a 1st liner and/or 70-80 pts guy.

[Monty]

2 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Maybe, but Kane as been paired with Toews, Sharp, Hossa (in his prime) also in the past.  By that logic that would mean Panarin is better than all of those?

 

Or, maybe Panarin actually makes Kane better because of chemistry and style of play.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that Panarin by himself is a 1st liner and/or 70-80 pts guy.

While only one season and I can't predict what he'll be, anymore than anyone else can, but considering what he did in the KHL and what his training is like in the off season, I'm willing to bet he's a first line player.

 

I get the feeling that people don't give him enough credit because: a.) He's on Chicago and, therefore, is a product of those around him; and b.) He's Russian, and therefore, soft and selfish.

 

Both are inaccurate. I watched a lot of Hawks games last season, and the guy isn't the stereotypical Russian that people love to lump all Russian's into.

[Phil_314]

Interesting proposal, in a year or two this deal could be Toews-lite for Kane-lite.

Thing is though, for Vancouver Hank could be gone in a year or two, and I'm not sure that I would want the team to be led by any of Brandon Sutter (I see him as 2nd line, tops)/ Markus Granlund (not even sure if he'll become a 3rd liner at this rate)/ Brendan Gaunce (same as Granlund).  For options up the middle, I don't think any of them should even be considered for potential 1st line heirs apparent, while Horvat could become a stabilizing Bergeron/ O'Reilly/ Toews-type that could lead a team in transition.  Thing is, as someone else mentioned he did put up 40 points with a struggling Vrbata, and along with Sven, Ben, Jake, Jacob, Nikita, etc. he's part of the young group that will lead the charge moving forward.  After all, the team did trade a starting goalie in Cory to just get the pick to draft him, which should only attest to how highly they view him as a player.

60-70 point scorers like Panarin would be great to add on top of solid center and D-man groups, but does he also have the two-way game that management views with such high importance?  I'll admit I haven't watched enough of his play to know.  Thing is, with the team's culture so focused on two-way play (Twins, Eriksson, Bo, Hansen, Sutter, Burr, Jake, heck even Sven started getting love from the coach for 200-ft. play), can he be a positive contributor in his own end, especially when the team as a whole may have a vacuum of talent up the middle after #33 is gone?  I'm also hoping that management wouldn't want to see him put up more of a two-way game if it'll affect his possession.     

[Drakrami]

They just traded away Teravainen, who, at this stage, is probably a similar and yet better player than Horvat to make salary cap room in order to sign players like Panarin. Chances of this trade happening is 0. 

[Coconuts]

No thanks, I'd rather keep Horvat. I don't think it's a matter of overvaluing him either. Bo is 21, Artemi is 24. I've seen what Pararin can do, but he did it riding shotgun with Kane during his career year.  Bo hasn't had quality like that playing with him and he still hit forty points. Artemi may hold more value around the league, but I believe Bo holds more value to us. I believe in his upside and think he can be a 60+ point center who brings a more complete game. We don't have anyone else in the pipeline right now who could potentially be that guy. This trade would be exchanging one hole for another.

 

He's a part of why Kane had his career year, yes. He's valuable and could be great for this team, yes. But I wouldn't take Panarin at the cost of our only young center who could be a top six guy. After Horvat we've got Gaunce and Granlund as young centers and while I like em both I don't see either of em having top six potential though I think Gaunce has a fair bit of talent.

[Hairy Kneel]

probably take Boesser 

[timberz21]

14 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

Did you watch him play?  The guy has hands made out of silk and can shoot and score from anywhere on the ice.  You said it yourself, Kane averages around 80 points a season and one season with Panarin he scores 105.   Not a coincidence

I guess we'll know after this year if they can repeat.  It was also healthy season in a while for Kane, so I'm sure that contributed as well to his success.

[Darth Kane]

On 8/29/2016 at 11:14 AM, Drakrami said:

They just traded away Teravainen, who, at this stage, is probably a similar and yet better player than Horvat to make salary cap room in order to sign players like Panarin. Chances of this trade happening is 0. 

 

 

Horvat >>>>>>> Teravainen

 

Teuvo is a good player, but I would take Horvat over him without hesitating. 

[Ronaldoescobar]

3 hours ago, Darth Kane said:

 

 

Horvat >>>>>>> Teravainen

 

Teuvo is a good player, but I would take Horvat over him without hesitating. 

While I think Horvat is better than Teravainen its not a huge difference (maybe a mid round pick in any deal). That said Horvat is not even in the same league (figuratively) nvm ballpark as Panarin and it would take way more +++ than the canucks have, to make that deal happen.

[Knucks16]

To get Panarin.... It's gonna take a nice return for that transaction to occur.... Not impossible....  but my guess.....

Boeser, Demko?? and who knows a High pick aswell??? That's pretty substantial.....

even though it's Panarin be nice to build of him but.... Is he a Bure?!?!?! Type player???  Idk???  have to see how his sophomore campaign goes.... I'm a Panarin fan for sure! But........ Damn lol!!! Baffled!!!