[Speculation] Canucks working on one of Landeskog or Marleau

[Dr. Crossbar]

30 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Very true. I think this summer has seen a tsunami of click bait (with emphasis on bait) for Canucks fans like none in recent history. Most of the articles have been absolute crap, mind you, but as you said, because the fanbase is so active online, the amount of suckers who will buy this crap grows exponentially.

As others have stated, I wouldn't doubt for a second that the majority of bloggers who "write" about the Canucks visit the CDC to determine, not only what to write about, but steal a fair bit of verbiage from many here.

Well, it is a pretty easy way to guarantee traffic when you know exactly the hot button topics that work fans into a frenzy. The writer doesn't have to put much thought into because the fans have already written the article for them.

 

The last obvious one I remember wasn't too long ago about whether we should trade Tanev, and suddenly there's a trade Tanev article in The Province. 

[Monty]

Marleau doesn't waive because, well you know.

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, Monty said:

Marleau doesn't waive because, well you know.

My info is out of date by a couple of years, but previously he was fine waiving for Vancouver.  He has lots of family here.

That isn't to say we want or need him, just referring to the waiving issue.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

6 minutes ago, Monty said:

Marleau doesn't waive because, well you know.

That's what I was thinking.  But, other than that, he's exactly who we should get.  He's a legit top 6 player who plays in all situations and brings a tonne of experience and speed.  At that cap hit we'd be getting him for almost nothing, and most important of all, he's a pending UFA.  I don't know why anyone would object to a future hall of fame player who would definitely make us better.  Obviously if the price was high we wouldn't do it.

 

As for Landeskog, Colorado would be insane to move him.  That said, the proposals that include Virtanen seem ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure there are 29 GMs who would love Virtanen.

[Freeridebc]

7 hours ago, JC2 said:

I agree with this, if it were just Tanev and a pick I would be all for it. Tanev is a very solid defenseman and I think he is definitely underrated for what he does but to think he could get landeskog is wishful thinking. The Avs would probably want Horvat or virtanen plus a high pick thrown in and that is just too much. I'd rather be patient and wait one more year for Boeser and whoever else hits the free agent market.

I can see the price being Tanev + a 1st...

 

Go back in the entry draft for a few years and see what a first round pick can fetch you. 

 

Vancouver logic though, throw a 2nd in for good measure. 

 

 

[kloubek]

2 hours ago, HC20.0 said:

Marleau would set us back. He's old and slowing down.

I don't agree.  (Except that he IS old, and is slowing down).

 

...but he's proven he can still put up respectable points.  If the intent is to not overplay Baertschi in a 2nd line role, acquiring PM would actually HELP development.  He only has a year remaining.  Baertschi then has an extra year to develop without extra pressure, then if all parties are ok with it, PM could sign a short extension for a great price, and switch spots with Sven.  He also provides us with insurance should Baertschi not end up becoming the 2nd line player we all hope he will (moreso if he were to sign an extension), as well as quality and experienced depth for the playoffs. 

 

Again, is he worth his current salary?  No.  But unfortunately, unless we want to give up our future, or we decide to just play the season with a substandard 2nd line, we're going to have to compromise to get someone to fill that role. 

 

We really should have been going hard on Hudler when we had the chance.

[billabong]

Marleau is a mopey player in the dressing room so I'd rather show case the young talent. Landeskog is a tremendous talent but trading either edler or tanev would leave a huge hole on the blue line 

[SilentSam]

If the Landeskog rumours are true, anything could happen..

wouldnt be surprised to see Tanev moved for him. Asset for Asset a good deal for us since our D end should be stronger this year.

A deal like this though usually hinges on position replacement, perhaps a good prospect from each team to cover the positional holes tightens up a trade like this.

... And then I wonder about moving Miller, which is inevitable, as I believe Millers contract expires at season end or at UFA date?

Varlamov and Pickard are the Tenders for Colorado.

interesting month ahead.

[Boudrias]

1 minute ago, SilentSam said:

If the Landeskog rumours are true, anything could happen..

wouldnt be surprised to see Tanev moved for him. Asset for Asset a good deal for us since our D end should be stronger this year.

A deal like this though usually hinges on position replacement, perhaps a good prospect from each team to cover the positional holes tightens up a trade like this.

... And then I wonder about moving Miller, which is inevitable, as I believe Millers contract expires at season end or at UFA date?

Varlamov and Pickard are the Tenders for Colorado.

interesting month ahead.

I'd do Landeskog for Tanev but would be surprised if the Av's would. Marleau is a total non starter and has to be a bit of a joke.

 

I do not see Benning being under huge 'internal' pressure. No one can realistic see the Canucks as serious contenders for 4 - 5 years, if they are lucky. Because of the development timeline Benning has drafting options which will/should save him from lumping any number of players in a desperation trade. Landeskog is a nice piece but I question why he is available and what the bottom line cost would be.

[Noseforthenet]

I think this is one of those things that has to wait til training camp is over. We don't know what we have for NHL ready D-corps depth. We also don't know what we have in Rodin either. If a guy like Stetcher surprises and Tryamkin and Subban do well, then Tanev can go. If not, we are gonna need him. Also, what if Rodin impresses and the team decides to "re-visit" a Landeskog trade at a later date? Too many questions we need answers to at this point.

[SilentSam]

12 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Landeskog is a nice piece but I question why he is available and what the bottom line cost would be.

I read an article in July that said the Av's were looking for help defensively (like many teams).

I have to say, a deal like Tanev for Landeskog, would look so much better than the one the Oilers made (Hall - Larrsen).

Surley a prospect each way could balance out a deal. 

ps. Miller is a free agent at the end of 2017. 

[Apple Juice]

Position wise, I think Edler would make most sense for them. Both Johnson and Barrie are righties so where does bringing in a right handed Tanev factor in? If anything, Edler would be more valuable to them as it gives them a top 4 minute eating left handed defenceman and push down Beauchemin and Tyutin providing better depth.

[GB5]

This thread was in Canucks talk a few days ago and ended getting locked. I suppose it is speculation but the author has no better insight than anyone on CDC given that his opinions are purely observational, he lives in Australia and writes speculative articles on every sport so he is not an insider connected to the hockey world.

[elvis15]

14 hours ago, Ace The Creator said:

Aly Dhanani of Fan Sided has made a few suggestions, both for the present and for a long-term solution to the team's plight. 

Yup.

 

And can we stop posting things from this 'digitaljournal' site and pretending there's some substance behind them? I did a search and it's been posted as a source more than a few times recently. 

 

Either post from the source they've used (assuming there's actual substance behind it) or don't bother.

[JeremyCuddles]

I'd take Marleau, for Burrows and a pick/low tier prospect. Landeskog is gonna cost us a pretty penny. Not sure we can afford him without hurting us elsewhere (Tanev). Unless we have a surprise performances from Larsen/Stetcher. Interesting to see what happens going forward.

[Ryanstorm]

I'd rather Mackinnon lol

[Canuck Surfer]

2 hours ago, Apple Juice said:

Position wise, I think Edler would make most sense for them. Both Johnson and Barrie are righties so where does bringing in a right handed Tanev factor in? If anything, Edler would be more valuable to them as it gives them a top 4 minute eating left handed defenceman and push down Beauchemin and Tyutin providing better depth.

This makes a ton of sense!

 

We cannot afford to give up Tanev. It would leave us Gudbranson as our only established RHD. Create a huge hole without having any blue chip prospect in the background.. And they don't really need him with the same importance they would place on a good LHD.

 

We cannot really afford to give up Edler either. But at least Hutton has played a full year including some (not most of the year) hard minutes. Tryamkin is in town. Sbisa is serviceable. And the real replacement, Olli, is at least drafted even though a year or so away.

 

We could trade Edler + for Landescog and know we at least have the structure in place to Rebuild a good d. Even if it hurt us this year. 

[Alflives]

I like Landeskog, but is he enough for Tanev?  Colorado would have to add, IMHAO.  Larson returned friggin' Taylor Hall!

[aliboy]

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:

I'd take Marleau, for Burrows and a pick/low tier prospect. Landeskog is gonna cost us a pretty penny. Not sure we can afford him without hurting us elsewhere (Tanev). Unless we have a surprise performances from Larsen/Stetcher. Interesting to see what happens going forward.

If the price was cheap enough he'd be OK for now.

[hateleafs]

Come on folks. 

Hall for Larsson strait up worked.  

Dont see landeskog for tanev being a problem. 

Well knowing benning we'll trow in a second:)