Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(Discussion) Would you include Virtanen in a deal for Landeskog?


Recommended Posts

There's still plenty of unrest regarding the future of Colorado and whether Landeskog, who has produced immensely since being drafted should be Captain or Nathan McKinnon.

 

Simply put, it depends on what you value right now compared to later, and what you think the Avs captain Landeskog (23) brings towards the future compared to Virtanen.

 

Van gets:

Gabriel Landeskog

 

Col gets:

Virtanen

Tryamkin

2nd

3rd

 

Haven't checked the salary cap or anything, but I wouldn't be against adding Sven if we needed to throw a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

Obviously, but Colorado laughs at that deal and hangs up. If we are serious about Landeskog, then kiss Tanev good bye.

I can see them requiring an overpayment like

 

Tanev

Virtanen

1st

 

So no thanks LOL. Rather just tank if we are really that bad. I know people will hate me for this but whatever..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landeskog would be a player I could consider moving Virtanen for. It would really depend on the total package going back.  It would take more than what you offered

 

Landeskog would shore up our top 6 wingers for the foreseeable future. 

 

Even after we lose the twins we’d still look strong.

 

Landeskog and Baertschi as our top 6 LW.

Eriksson and Boeser on the right wing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

Obviously, but Colorado laughs at that deal and hangs up. If we are serious about Landeskog, then kiss Tanev good bye.

 

Does having Juolevi and Stecher make that OK though? If OJ puts on some weight and Stecher continues to improve... maybe its worth it. We have to get a real top line from somewhere and whats the point of developing an excess of D if you don't use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sedin Brothers said:

There's still plenty of unrest regarding the future of Colorado and whether Landeskog, who has produced immensely since being drafted should be Captain or Nathan McKinnon.

 

Simply put, it depends on what you value right now compared to later, and what you think the Avs captain Landeskog (23) brings towards the future compared to Virtanen.

 

Van gets:

Gabriel Landeskog

 

Col gets:

Virtanen

Tryamkin

2nd

3rd

 

Haven't checked the salary cap or anything, but I wouldn't be against adding Sven if we needed to throw a contract.

While i would include Virt in a trade for GL any day (and i have nothing against Virt aside from him not being quite ready for the NHL yet).

 

Colorado on the other hand would not even respond to that deal proposed and I highly doubt anyone has any interest in Virt now for anything more than a late 2nd or 3rd round pick.

 

To get GL youre going to lose Tanev and Boeser and most likely a 1st round pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sedin Brothers said:

There's still plenty of unrest regarding the future of Colorado and whether Landeskog, who has produced immensely since being drafted should be Captain or Nathan McKinnon.

 

Simply put, it depends on what you value right now compared to later, and what you think the Avs captain Landeskog (23) brings towards the future compared to Virtanen.

 

Van gets:

Gabriel Landeskog

 

Col gets:

Virtanen

Tryamkin

2nd

3rd

 

Haven't checked the salary cap or anything, but I wouldn't be against adding Sven if we needed to throw a contract.

No, Alf is off of Landeskog since learning about his concussion history.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to have Landeskog for any foreseeable future, but as others have pointed out, it will take more than Virt, Trym and a couple picks to get him. Tanev would be gone for sure, don't think we would throw in Boeser, but stranger things have happened.

 

Tanev

Hansen (very attractive contract)

Virtanen

3rd

 

Might get it done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

Does having Juolevi and Stecher make that OK though? If OJ puts on some weight and Stecher continues to improve... maybe its worth it. We have to get a real top line from somewhere and whats the point of developing an excess of D if you don't use it?

 

No, not at all. If anything we need to draft another RHD before we get to the deep rounds next year.

 

Look what happened last year when Tanev was our only capable RHD.   Stecher (or Larsson) at the very least need to be sheltered for a year or two before we can roll them out as legit all situation D.   Trade Tanev now and we're back to just Gudbranson to handle the back end side of things. It will set us back years.

 

Stay the course.  We do need Ericsson to surface. While we wait for Boeser if Bo, Jake and Baer all develop? Then we're on our way! .  If they're not quite up to it? A very real possibility... 

 

Then we get another top 5 pick. And we should get another Landeskog without setting ourselves backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...