[Speculation] Canucks working on one of Landeskog or Marleau

[Maniwaki Canuck]

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 is so true and really ought to put the kaibosh on that rumour.  Tanev isn't a fit for them, pure and simple.  Edler for Landeskog is an interesting proposition.  I expect we might have to add because of the age difference involved, but not to the tune of Virtanen or a first, let alone both.  But again, I suspect that with Roy moving on, so has the moment when Colorado might have traded Landeskog. 

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Quote "Several sources have stated that the youngster and the Avs' are at odds, surprisingly considering the 23-year-old is the team captain, but it now appears the front office in Colorado would like to add more experience to their front line, a move that can help them win more hockey games in 2016-17."

 

The author then goes on to say that the Canucks could offer up Tanev.  News flash!  He's not front line.  The Canucks don't have front line talent to offer other than Eriksson lol.

 

Seriously, Landeskog would be great but what do the Canucks have to offer that wouldn't mean dismantling something pretty important like their newly acquired defense.  Pass.

 

Marlowe would be fine for a year but he's got 1 year left at $6.6M.  How do you shoe-horn that into your line up?  C'mon.

 

I'm convinced the Canucks are going with what they've got.  Unless a sweetheart deal comes out of the wood work.

You are absolutely correct.  Don't know why this thread keeps popping up wearing a different coat once a week or so....same as Evander Kane....(Sbisa and a 2nd BTW lol)...we simply can't make a hockey trade for this guy that makes any sense for both teams.  We have our line up, Benning shored up our future defense in Juolevi, added a premium forward in his late prime that should give the Sedins the chance to play highly effective hockey for as long as they stay here (with apologies to Hansen) - and went forward by detraction in Prust, Weber, Vrbata,  Hamhuis etc. to open up ice time for guys coming up or looking to add to last year (Try, Pedan, Gaunce  Horvat, Baesrtchi, Hutton  etc.).  Add Guddy to the mix and our team is different enough, and is quite a bit better than last years IMO.  Like you said trying to shoe horn Landeskog's cap into the mix would most likely be the same as dropping a bomb into the roster - OR - losing our best young defender, and mortgaging our future draft pick wise.  

[ReggieBush]

I'd be ok with trading for Marleau for say Sbisa, Dorsett and a 2nd?

[Apple Juice]

54 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

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. 

Edler is as important to us as well but for Landeskog, I'd do it. Just means it'll change our perspective and plan from drafting more top line guys and start focusing more on defencemen. 

 

17 minutes ago, IBatch said:

You are absolutely correct.  Don't know why this thread keeps popping up wearing a different coat once a week or so....same as Evander Kane....(Sbisa and a 2nd BTW lol)...we simply can't make a hockey trade for this guy that makes any sense for both teams.  We have our line up, Benning shored up our future defense in Juolevi, added a premium forward in his late prime that should give the Sedins the chance to play highly effective hockey for as long as they stay here (with apologies to Hansen) - and went forward by detraction in Prust, Weber, Vrbata,  Hamhuis etc. to open up ice time for guys coming up or looking to add to last year (Try, Pedan, Gaunce  Horvat, Baesrtchi, Hutton  etc.).  Add Guddy to the mix and our team is different enough, and is quite a bit better than last years IMO.  Like you said trying to shoe horn Landeskog's cap into the mix would most likely be the same as dropping a bomb into the roster - OR - losing our best young defender, and mortgaging our future draft pick wise.  

I dunno... a lineup of this is pretty sick

 

Sedins-Eriksson

Landeskog-Horvat/Sutter-Baertschi

 

Add to the fact that Landy is a Swede too

[canuktravella]

13 minutes ago, ReggieBush said:

I'd be ok with trading for Marleau for say Sbisa, Dorsett and a 2nd?

mmm sbisa has value alot of teams need  a borderline 4 5/6 dman  at moment plus dorsett or sbisa might be claimed in  expansion if van doesnt trade them before hand. 

 

marleau isnt worth that id offer them burrows and a third and a prospect with little chance to make team like mackenzie or mceneny maxxx

[DownUndaCanuck]

Take Tanev away from this club and our right sided defence is left all up to Gudbranson. No thanks. This team is MUCH worse with a top-6 winger and without a top-4 defender.

Use other pieces like maybe Sbisa + prospects or high picks instead of trading a reliable righty and arguably our 2nd best defenceman or don't do anything and let the young forwards replace the offence we need. We can't go back to sacrificing defence for offence because it hasn't worked well in the past.

[NEON.KNEE]

19 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Marleau would be great

 

...if this were 2006.

He would almost be the highest scoring player on the team guaranteed...a 2 year deal would be nothing but positive for the Canucks.... We don't have the depth of youth that people think

[Crabcakes]

8 hours ago, Aircool said:

While I agree with you that the article is logically incoherent, the notion of trading Landeskog for a package including Tanev isn't really ridiculous. I mean, the expectation that you can trade Landeskog and get better up front is a ludicrous one. If you were to get technical you could trade Landeskog for lets say Tanev + VIrtanen + 3rd, and then trade Tyson Barrie for more forward help, and I guess theoretically your defense would be different but no less deep and your forward lines are probably deeper but with less top end talent.

 

I don't think the people involved in these articles have even half the brainpower requires to think this way though.

I think what the Av's are after is a more veteran left winger to replace Landeskog.  Clearly, the Canucks don't have that so they could take a 2 step approach like you suggest but relying on 2 trades to get what you want leaves a lot to chance.  Why wouldn't the Av's just find a partner who had the left winger they wanted?

 

The other thing I don't like is moving a RHD.  It took Benning 2 years to find a top 4 RHD (Gudbranson).  They're like gold.

 

In a year, they will know what they have in Tryamkin, Larsen, Rodin, Baertschi, Etem, Gaunce and Granlund so they may decide that they have an asset to deal then.   Maybe they have 2 LW'ers in the system already who are keepers. Maybe they still need one.   Is Granlund going to be a long term fit as 4C or is he going to be more of a utility forward who can play centre or wing up and down the line up.  Maybe he's our 3LW.  Maybe a top 4 D becomes expendable. 

 

This is a big year and a lot of questions will get answered. 

 

The way they're built right now, Goal is fine and has a future.  They have a decent top 4 D.  They have a good top line and good players at 2 & 3C.  The essentials are covered.  Now they need to work on filling out the roster and developing replacements for the veterans.  I just don't think they should be touching any of these key pieces.   It's the back bone of the team.

 

Sedin Sedin Eriksson

          Sutter

          Horvat

 

Edler Tanev

Hutton Gudbranson

 

Miller Markstrom

 

[Lui's Knob]

Landeskog is a first liner gritty young scoring winger. Canucks need scoring. Give them whoever for him

[Nuxfanabroad]

44 minutes ago, NEON.KNEE said:

He would almost be the highest scoring player on the team guaranteed...a 2 year deal would be nothing but positive for the Canucks.... We don't have the depth of youth that people think

Allowing our Pac rivals to get younger, cheaper & deeper?..Nah, I'd rather we took that route ourselves.

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Allowing our Pac rivals to get younger, cheaper & deeper?..Nah, I'd rather we took that route ourselves.

You and the majority of CDC want our team to take that patient route, but will Aqualini allow it?  

[Nuxfanabroad]

27 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You and the majority of CDC want our team to take that patient route, but will Aqualini allow it?  

It's insanity to push now:

 

-Position of rivals

-Age of our new nucleus

-Twins? Well, they have to be patient & wait for the next cycle(re-sign cheaper)

-Coming EXPANSION. This one is a doozy. No point in adding excess pieces, probably requiring protection next June.

 

We've got to reload with youth, speed & defensively-conscientious additions. Talent like Ana, Edm, Winn & Cal ensure we'll need this approach. We've got some GREAT young 'tenders & D, to get this reload rolling.

[Alflives]

20 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

It's insanity to push now:

 

-Position of rivals

-Age of our new nucleus

-Twins? Well, they have to be patient & wait for the next cycle(re-sign cheaper)

-Coming EXPANSION. This one is a doozy. No point in adding excess pieces, probably requiring protection next June.

 

We've got to reload with youth, speed & defensively-conscientious additions. Talent like Ana, Edm, Winn & Cal ensure we'll need this approach. We've got some GREAT young 'tenders & D, to get this reload rolling.

I'm in complete agreement.

 

WILL AQUALINI ALLOW IT?  

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

I think what the Av's are after is a more veteran left winger to replace Landeskog.  Clearly, the Canucks don't have that so they could take a 2 step approach like you suggest but relying on 2 trades to get what you want leaves a lot to chance.  Why wouldn't the Av's just find a partner who had the left winger they wanted?

 

The other thing I don't like is moving a RHD.  It took Benning 2 years to find a top 4 RHD (Gudbranson).  They're like gold.

 

In a year, they will know what they have in Tryamkin, Larsen, Rodin, Baertschi, Etem, Gaunce and Granlund so they may decide that they have an asset to deal then.   Maybe they have 2 LW'ers in the system already who are keepers. Maybe they still need one.   Is Granlund going to be a long term fit as 4C or is he going to be more of a utility forward who can play centre or wing up and down the line up.  Maybe he's our 3LW.  Maybe a top 4 D becomes expendable. 

 

This is a big year and a lot of questions will get answered. 

 

The way they're built right now, Goal is fine and has a future.  They have a decent top 4 D.  They have a good top line and good players at 2 & 3C.  The essentials are covered.  Now they need to work on filling out the roster and developing replacements for the veterans.  I just don't think they should be touching any of these key pieces.   It's the back bone of the team.

 

Sedin Sedin Eriksson

          Sutter

          Horvat

 

Edler Tanev

Hutton Gudbranson

 

Miller Markstrom

 

I think what you are saying is reasonable, but I don't really agree with you. So to be clear, it's just a difference of opinion, not saying you are stupid or anything.

 

I think finding a player you want on a team is a lot easier than finding a player you want on a team that wants exactly what you want to give up. Sometimes you need to make two trades to make your roster fit the constraints of trades. That being said, the simplest combination of trades is usually the best way to avoid getting fleeced... In a three way trade for example, someone always gets taken to the cleaners. So in that sense I agree.

 

I'm not sold YET on Gudbranson, even if he pans out to what I think is his ceiling, I'm still not excited at all. He is currently a Bottom pair defenseman who COULD be a Top-4 shutdown defenseman, who has no offense to speak of. He's a bigger, slower, harder-hitting, and stupider Tanev. Those differences aren't necessarily pluses... I'm not sold on his ability to play defense, I'm not going to give him credit for being able to play defense just because he is big, when analytics say he is much closer to a pylon than a shutdown D. I can't wait for the day JB gives Gudbranson a 6 year contract at 5.5+ million. It's going to happen, he's on a 1 year 3.5 million dollar contract which is just SO strange. How often do you see players and teams agree to a 1 year deal in RFA... I just worry that Gudbranson thinks he is a player that has lived up to his draft position as a #3 pick, which clearly he hasn't.

 

You talk about this being a big year for the team, so we can find out what we have in our young players. The problem is that half of our team is only going to be effective and worth their contracts for the next, at most, 3 years (or less if they leave as FA or retire etc). Those players are the likes of the Sedins, Edler, Hansen, Eriksson, and you could possibly lump in Sutter in that mix. If he isn't producing around 45+ points next year, he isn't earning his contract really. The other half of our team is extremely young, and I find the decision to try and bridge the gap by acquiring Sutter and Gudbranson to be a mistake. We should have been planning for a future where Bo Horvat is the oldest core player on our team, and we should have been planning to fill in younger talent than our drafted prospects. That would have resulted in a team with far more upside, instead we've given away assets that had tangible value for Sutter and Gudbranson, mediocre players.

 

The problem with the spine you list is that half of the spine is declining, so what is going to replace those players? It's the elite half of the spine too. We need too many things to go right, so I'm a rather underwhelmed Canucks fan at this moment.

[Nuxfanabroad]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I'm in complete agreement.

 

WILL AQUALINI ALLOW IT?  

Sure hope so. If the vast majority of fanbase stays behind this youth-transition, you'd have to assume sanity prevails.

[Alflives]

Just now, Nuxfanabroad said:

Sure hope so. If the vast majority of fanbase stays behind this youth-transition, you'd have to assume sanity prevails.

I hope so too:)

[granpappy]

maybe the hold up is a multi player trade.  to shake up their 'losing' mentality the avalanche take a group of markstrom, tanev (edler), hansen ?? we get another future core in landeskog and increase our chances at getting patrick to fill out the core of our future championship dynasty.  dreaming . . . it's the only way to get by these days

[Alflives]

Just now, granpappy said:

maybe the hold up is a multi player trade.  to shake up their 'losing' mentality the avalanche take a group of markstrom, tanev (edler), hansen ?? we get another future core in landeskog and increase our chances at getting patrick to fill out the core of our future championship dynasty.  dreaming . . . it's the only way to get by these days

It's a friggin proper plan, more so than a dream.  If only our owner would allow JB to do this.  He won't though.  Why?  What's wrong with AQUALINI?  

[Hortankin]

I wonder if we can buy low on him and expose him to the expansion draft. Kind of a rental in a way. Key word" buy "low" ".

 

Doubt it could get done but if it did our team would actually look nice with him on the 2nd line.

 

Sedin Sedin Eriksson

Marleau Sutter Rodin/Hansen

Baertschi Horvat Hansen/Rodin

Etem Granlund Gaunce

 

Edler Tanev

Hutton Gudbranson

Tryamkin Larsen/Sbisa

 

Miller

Markstrom

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

I think what you are saying is reasonable, but I don't really agree with you. So to be clear, it's just a difference of opinion, not saying you are stupid or anything.

 

I think finding a player you want on a team is a lot easier than finding a player you want on a team that wants exactly what you want to give up. Sometimes you need to make two trades to make your roster fit the constraints of trades. That being said, the simplest combination of trades is usually the best way to avoid getting fleeced... In a three way trade for example, someone always gets taken to the cleaners. So in that sense I agree.

 

I'm not sold YET on Gudbranson, even if he pans out to what I think is his ceiling, I'm still not excited at all. He is currently a Bottom pair defenseman who COULD be a Top-4 shutdown defenseman, who has no offense to speak of. He's a bigger, slower, harder-hitting, and stupider Tanev. Those differences aren't necessarily pluses... I'm not sold on his ability to play defense, I'm not going to give him credit for being able to play defense just because he is big, when analytics say he is much closer to a pylon than a shutdown D. I can't wait for the day JB gives Gudbranson a 6 year contract at 5.5+ million. It's going to happen, he's on a 1 year 3.5 million dollar contract which is just SO strange. How often do you see players and teams agree to a 1 year deal in RFA... I just worry that Gudbranson thinks he is a player that has lived up to his draft position as a #3 pick, which clearly he hasn't.

 

You talk about this being a big year for the team, so we can find out what we have in our young players. The problem is that half of our team is only going to be effective and worth their contracts for the next, at most, 3 years (or less if they leave as FA or retire etc). Those players are the likes of the Sedins, Edler, Hansen, Eriksson, and you could possibly lump in Sutter in that mix. If he isn't producing around 45+ points next year, he isn't earning his contract really. The other half of our team is extremely young, and I find the decision to try and bridge the gap by acquiring Sutter and Gudbranson to be a mistake. We should have been planning for a future where Bo Horvat is the oldest core player on our team, and we should have been planning to fill in younger talent than our drafted prospects. That would have resulted in a team with far more upside, instead we've given away assets that had tangible value for Sutter and Gudbranson, mediocre players.

 

The problem with the spine you list is that half of the spine is declining, so what is going to replace those players? It's the elite half of the spine too. We need too many things to go right, so I'm a rather underwhelmed Canucks fan at this moment.

Don't worry.  I've been flamed far worse than this.  It's a discussion.

 

I've heard lots of opinions on Gudbranson ranging from over rated to hard rock future captain.  Who is right?  Let's agree to add him to the list of players we're going to find out about.   He certainly has more of a track record in the top 4 than anybody else in the system.  Honestly, I cringe at the posts that place him on the top pairing or even more so, trading Tanev.

 

So, to be clear, the backbone of the team as I've outlined it holds for the next 2 years at best.  Turnover is constant in the NHL and players will have to be replaced every year.  For aging out or for just not cutting the mustard.  But that back bone has to be looked after and maintained.  That was my point.  They only need to maintain the core group now, not fill holes in it.

 

The Sedins need replacing first. They may sign on for a year after their contracts expire in 2 years but by then, they're probably 2nd liners.  What is Eriksson's time line?  He's 31.  2-3 years on the top line?  Then a couple more on the 2nd?  Next would be Edler who is 30 now (it's not that old and his replacement is drafted).  There is no great pressure to replace anybody other than the Sedins (and yes, there is pressure). 

 

In the mean time, does Horvat develop into a 1C?  We are seeing how all the young guys are coming along and there is the draft, free agency and the trade market.  Like I said, there's a long list of players who are either developing into top 6 or top 4 or are tradeable assets.  We're going to find out a lot this year about quite a few players.

 

Other than Burrows, Dorsett and Hansen who are not that difficult to replace, the rest of the team is 27 or younger.