Outsiders Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Our d-core finally looks rather good and now we wanna trade our 2nd best d-man. Why make our d weak again Edler-Tanev Hutton-Gudbranson Sbisa-Larson/Stecher/Tryamkin (no order) Compared to Edler-Tanev Sbisa-Gudbranson Tryamkin-Larson/Stecher Sbisa in our top for scares me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 35 minutes ago, DontMessMe said: U overvalue Hansen Edler + Virtanen + 1st at least. Or if colorado wants a overpayment Edler + Boeser + 1st (2017)+ 3rd or something u under value edler and virtanen and boeser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Outsiders said: Our d-core finally looks rather good and now we wanna trade our 2nd best d-man. Why make our d weak again Edler-Tanev Hutton-Gudbranson Sbisa-Larson/Stecher/Tryamkin (no order) Compared to Edler-Tanev Sbisa-Gudbranson Tryamkin-Larson/Stecher Sbisa in our top for scares me I don't think anyone's proposing we trade Hutton are they? He definitely wouldn't be enough to acquire Landeskog either way. It would be more like: Edler Gudbranson Hutton Tryamkin Sbisa Larsen That would be more or less what the D looks like with a Tanev trade. It likely puts too much pressure on Hutton and Tryamkin. I would think we'd have to trade for another stop gap D-man to plug in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 2 hours ago, robvp said: Burrows, 3rd, and an AHL prospect for Marleau? That's real CDC. marleau was elite ten yrs ago he makes 7 mill a yr we wont be giving young assets for him if you think that your a fool sharks would have to take burrows and they wont get much for him a trade for him is highly unlikely regardless marleau wont get a first or virtanen or a baertchi or any younggun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aircool Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 53 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: the Avs are having trouble preventing goals. and your saying they need a defenseman who can play offense? Don't they have that person in Barrie? Tanev would compliment Barrie. he's one of the best defensive dman in the league. Tanev and Virtanen? Even Benning would hang up. LMAO. No thanks. with that being said. i don't see Landeskog coming here. not for what the Avs are asking for him. no way. might as well find our own Landeskog through the draft. Tanev + Virtanen for Landeskog is about fair value, maybe Colorado adds a third and if you are a really good negotiator (which Benning is clearly not) they might add a 2nd. Just shows how out to lunch you are if you really think Tanev has so much value that he is worth Landeskog.... Landeskog was literally a 2nd overall pick and is a power forward with 30 goal potential. Colorado do not necessarily need a defenceman that can provide offence. I mean you can never have enough two way defenseman who can do everything (read as superstar defensemen)... Barrie isn't that, you are right. The point I was making, which clearly you aren't intelligent enough to discern (not a shocker!) is that the defensemen in the league who have the most trade value are those that bring offensive qualities while being capable defenders. These are the hardest defensemen to acquire and have the steepest trade value. Adam Larsson is definitely not an elite point producer, but he has shown far more capability to move and shoot the puck in his career than Chris Tanev and at 23 has plenty of time to grow his game into a 40+ point defenseman. Chris Tanev is forever going to be EXACTLY what he is now, or worse. A 20pt defenseman who makes all his points on the second assist and plays strong defense. It's just not as valuable on the trade market, unforunately for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robvp Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 11 minutes ago, canuktravella said: marleau was elite ten yrs ago he makes 7 mill a yr we wont be giving young assets for him if you think that your a fool sharks would have to take burrows and they wont get much for him a trade for him is highly unlikely regardless marleau wont get a first or virtanen or a baertchi or any younggun I don't want Marleau at all. And I don't think the brass do either, goes totally against what their goal is. But in 2013-2014 he put up 70 points(33G 37A). That's damn good and it's certainly not 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I doubt the Sharks are looking to trade Marleau, they would of done it by now if they were. They made it to the finals, no way they don't give him and Thornton one more crack at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 5 hours ago, DeNiro said: He's not in the hot seat right now. But when you consider the average shelf life of a GM is 4-5 years he doesn't have that much time to show results. He's going into year 4 right now and the team has been trending downward since their amazing 2013/14 season. In that time he lost core players in Stastny and O'reilly with little to no return to show for. Grigerenko was included because he was a former player of Roy's, who's not even with the team anymore. They also failed to shore up their D, and it's uncertain whether Zadorov will be a player for them. Roy resigning on Sakic left him scrambling, now he's gotta hope that a coach with zero NHL experience can get his team back to the playoffs. They have a ton of promising talent, but as we've seen that can be squandered if you don't have the right pieces in place. They need to trade for another top 4 D-man IMO. Whether that's Tanev or not or whether they deal Landeskog or not remains to be seen. But if they keep doing things the way they are, I don't see them getting results. Sounds almost like the current Vancouver Canuck's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Warhippy said: He's also not getting a combination of any three of Tanev/Virtanen/Boeser/Hutton/Demko/Edler/Hansen and a first like so many are posting here. As stated, the market was set for young defenders with the Hall trade The market is dynamic. Fluid. Constantly shifting. Reacting to all factors. Including the Hall deal. Its not set. Inject another buyer into the market as desperate as Edmonton? The market may go up further. Odds are it will go down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 14 hours ago, Alflives said: I like Landeskog, but is he enough for Tanev? Colorado would have to add, IMHAO. Larson returned friggin' Taylor Hall! Read my post a couple of pages back and behave yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Apple Juice said: 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. 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 Sure it looks good - but who do we have left on defense, and why would they in a million years trade with us when there are 29 other teams out there, most of which have a better hockey trade available to them (ie an equal player for an equal player). Most mock trades for the 1000 different posts on this have them going from 6.6 mill in payroll to over 9 million....but yes that looks sweet. Benning would be a god in my books if he could make this happen without mortgaging our future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, alfstonker said: Read my post a couple of pages back and behave yourself. You either stayed up too late, or you're up too early. Market is set. Tanev is EASILY worth Landeskog, especially considering Landeskog's recent (and self proclaimed) very very very serious concussion issues. The deal is being held up by JB, who is expecting MORE than Landeskog in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 39 minutes ago, Alflives said: You either stayed up too late, or you're up too early. Market is set. Tanev is EASILY worth Landeskog, especially considering Landeskog's recent (and self proclaimed) very very very serious concussion issues. The deal is being held up by JB, who is expecting MORE than Landeskog in return. I suffer from insomnia. I don't think he was saying his issues with concussion were "very very serious" he was saying ALL concussions were serious and it seems to me Alf, you are mocking him and concussion, intentionally or not. Plenty of players get and successfully recover from concussions if they are properly looked after. We have one in Pedan, although you wouldn't know it given the clambering on here for him to fight every opponent at the drop of a hat. I would love for the Canucks to "land" Landeskog but it will take more than Tanev, who after all wasn't even drafted. (accomplished though he is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 8 hours ago, canuktravella said: u under value edler and virtanen and boeser Damn right! He also thinks JB is an idiot it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 8 hours ago, DeNiro said: I don't think anyone's proposing we trade Hutton are they? He definitely wouldn't be enough to acquire Landeskog either way. It would be more like: Edler Gudbranson Hutton Tryamkin Sbisa Larsen That would be more or less what the D looks like with a Tanev trade. It likely puts too much pressure on Hutton and Tryamkin. I would think we'd have to trade for another stop gap D-man to plug in. Agreed. We need to keep/get our D stable, physical, young and prolific. We have not had that since Ehrhoff left. Now that we possibly have all the pieces to backstop our forward play it seems utterly stupid to trade any of them. We are only a year or so from Boeser and maybe some others like Cassels coming into the team and our D is young enough to wait so I don't see the need to take 3 steps back to move one forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbanezRG Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I've got a Landeskog boner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 8 hours ago, DeNiro said: I don't think anyone's proposing we trade Hutton are they? He definitely wouldn't be enough to acquire Landeskog either way. It would be more like: Edler Gudbranson Hutton Tryamkin Sbisa Larsen That would be more or less what the D looks like with a Tanev trade. It likely puts too much pressure on Hutton and Tryamkin. I would think we'd have to trade for another stop gap D-man to plug in. While Landeskog would be a great addition to the forward corps, it would destabilize the defense. At the present, the defense boasts quite a few different strengths spread evenly throughout the pairings. Removing Tanev, and his cerebral approach to the game, as well as his rock solid positioning, would have negative ramifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Could see the Canucks making a bid for Marleau as they like the veteran presence for the young guys.. Being SJ though and in our conference it would probably cost us more far than it is worth say a Virtanen + late pick, whereas he would go for a late pick alone to the east. Landeskog is not happening... Unless you want to see Colorado take Horvat / Boeser + Tanev + Juolevi /1st round pick (most likely lottery), which would decimate an already poor team.. We just cant afford what it would take to land him if he were even on the block which is still speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, alfstonker said: I suffer from insomnia. I don't think he was saying his issues with concussion were "very very serious" he was saying ALL concussions were serious and it seems to me Alf, you are mocking him and concussion, intentionally or not. Plenty of players get and successfully recover from concussions if they are properly looked after. We have one in Pedan, although you wouldn't know it given the clambering on here for him to fight every opponent at the drop of a hat. I would love for the Canucks to "land" Landeskog but it will take more than Tanev, who after all wasn't even drafted. (accomplished though he is) Where he was drafted or not means little to me. There are lots of examples of NHL players coming out of no where to craft great careers. The opposite is also true where high picks never amounted to much. My willingness to move Tanev is all about his ability to handle playoff physical play. With experience he is getting craftier but he was played very tough in the Calgary playoff series 2 years ago and last year it became very obvious that opposing teams focus on that. A bigger tougher Van d-core might be a boom for Tanev. Gudbranson has plus and minus for Tanev's long term tenure. I did not know about Landeskog's concussion history and that is a big deal and lowers his value. Tanev for Landeskog is still a deal IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 11 hours ago, LarsEller said: That is true but Tanev has basically 0 offensive upside. The market for 1 dimentional defencemen is not the same. Also Tanev is basically at his peak development wise, where a player like Larsson likely will still improve and end up being a well rounded #1 dman. \] They're barely 2.5 years apart and are almost neck and neck for point production with Tanev being the better overall defenceman\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.