Hortankin Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 5 hours ago, swizzey said: With this crap show going on in Colorado, it looks like they are wanting to shake up their organization a little bit. They had talks of wanting to deal Landeskog for a top D pairing. Wondering if they are willing to make a deal for Tanev. With our log jam at D, minus injuries of course, it could make sense. What would be a fair swap? I would think Tanev + 2nd would be a fair swap. However, I think Colorado would want either a 1st with it or a solid prospect. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen Landeskog-Sutter-Granlund Eriksson-Horvat-Burrows Seems intriguing for next year - one can hope. Thoughts?? Sedin Sedin Hansen Landeskog Sutter Eriksson Rodin Horvat Boeser Tanev+Baertschi For Landeskog+4th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 2 hours ago, J.R. said: Why not get Landy and a top 6 C? Are you willing to give up; this years 1st+Boeser+ someone like Stetcher. Thats what landeskog would probably cost and to me...that's too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 3 hours ago, J.R. said: I'd send them Tanev plus one of Baer/Granlund/Rodin. They get a warm body replacement for a winger with potential/upside and the D they're looking for. In addition to the 'warm body' theory, people need to understand how favorable Tanev's cap-hit is. For the quantity/quality of minutes he plays on a regular basis he's a bargain IMO. If he gets shipped out, someone has to go with him because GL's cap hit is higher than Tanev's and we are up against the cap as it is - salary alone cannot be simply exchanged one-for-one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Explain to me why col has a fit for tanev? Look at their d and get back to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 38 minutes ago, billabong said: Explain to me why col has a fit for tanev? Look at their d and get back to me Because if you ignore their needs, the value seems fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Who bumped this? There's been no more news on this since September. Linden and Benning have both said they're not making trades and if anything are looking to add picks. A deal like this would cost picks and prospects which we won't be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyM Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, billabong said: Explain to me why col has a fit for tanev? Look at their d and get back to me Don't you know that according to our armchair GMs, all 30 NHL GMs live to serve the Canucks interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 We should de-bump this. Let it gather dust in the data center archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Colorado has no need for Tanev, and they certainly won't give up Landeskog for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Green Building said: Colorado has no need for Tanev, and they certainly won't give up Landeskog for him. Doesn't Landeskog have concussion issues? I think Tanev for Mackinon is better for us. Put Mackinon on Bo's wing, and watch out! Yippee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanB Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 3 hours ago, DeNiro said: Linden and Benning have both said they're not making trades and if anything are looking to add picks. That's not my understanding - I believe they would in fact like to make some trades , however there's just no market for what they're offering or for what they're seeking right now . Trying to make deals and getting no results is quite different than deciding not to make trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 4 hours ago, billabong said: Explain to me why col has a fit for tanev? Look at their d and get back to me Beauchemin is absolutely terrible so they could move Barrie to the left side since he's more offensive minded. 2 hours ago, Green Building said: Colorado has no need for Tanev, and they certainly won't give up Landeskog for him. Maybe not Landeskog, but they're in position to get Patrick so maybe Duchene instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 3 hours ago, c00kies said: Because if you ignore their needs, the value seems fair This is true 2 hours ago, EmilyM said: Don't you know that according to our armchair GMs, all 30 NHL GMs live to serve the Canucks interests? I heard a rumour about this once 4 minutes ago, Pears said: Beauchemin is absolutely terrible so they could move Barrie to the left side since he's more offensive minded. Maybe not Landeskog, but they're in position to get Patrick so maybe Duchene instead? Having two righties on the same pair is awkward and Very rare. If they want to add they'll add a leftie, it's an easier transition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, billabong said: Having two righties on the same pair is awkward and Very rare. If they want to add they'll add a leftie, it's an easier transition I doubt it would be any more awkward than two lefties on the same pair. The need is there, and Tanev is a far better defender than anyone the Avalanche currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Doesn't Landeskog have concussion issues? I think Tanev for Mackinon is better for us. Put Mackinon on Bo's wing, and watch out! Yippee! would cost us to much to get him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 23 minutes ago, Pears said: Beauchemin is absolutely terrible so they could move Barrie to the left side since he's more offensive minded. Maybe not Landeskog, but they're in position to get Patrick so maybe Duchene instead? Beauchemin is terrible and someone could likely have him for free, but let me ask you this: If you were Colorado and were struggling as they are, would you move one of your stars for a 27 year defenceman, or even for that defenceman+? Duchene and Landeskog aren't the problem, but if you use one to retool your roster because new prospects you believe in are coming up the pipeline I don't see how Tanev helps all that much. One of those 2 guys could get you a D prospect with top 2 potential that would grow with the team. That's worth it even if you have to add a little from Avs perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Pears said: I doubt it would be any more awkward than two lefties on the same pair. The need is there, and Tanev is a far better defender than anyone the Avalanche currently have. Lefties are more comfortable to play the right side because all lefties are forced to play that side once in awhile growing up because there isn't enough righties to go around so there's a familairity there. On the flip side, righties are never asked to play that side so they have a really hard to time adjusting in the NHL when it's so foreign because There is an abdudance of lefties to occupy that side while the righties stay at home on the right... typically speaking of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 On 13/09/2016 at 4:14 AM, Ghostsof1915 said: What part of stay at home defensemen do people not understand? If Tanev is so useless why do people think we can get Landeskog for him? Is he the best d-man on the Canucks? No. Most physical? No. Does he do his job? Absolutely. With the addition of Gudbranson, Tanev can be our #2 RHD. We have other RHD prospects to provide offence. Maybe lets stabilize our defence first and find someone to outplay him, before starting to move guys around. Landeskog is a pipe dream, unless we are giving up on something major. He's gotten 20 goals plus in 4 out of 5 years. The Av's aren't going to give him away for nothing. 20 goals big deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 2 hours ago, PlanB said: That's not my understanding - I believe they would in fact like to make some trades , however there's just no market for what they're offering or for what they're seeking right now . Trying to make deals and getting no results is quite different than deciding not to make trades. Yes they would like to make trades for picks. Straight out of their mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL97OneTimer Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Alflives said: Doesn't Landeskog have concussion issues? I think Tanev for Mackinon is better for us. Put Mackinon on Bo's wing, and watch out! Yippee! But we'd have to throw in Dorsett and a second... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.