[Rumour] TSN - Canucks still kicking tires on Kane

[Phil_314]

If Eddie for Kane works (and if only Loui could be moved!) that would be quite a suitable move for the team moving forward IMO.  Kane represents the kind of player that the team should add in terms of talent and playing style, since the league is becoming more skating-oriented.  In the context of splitting the Twins, I think he would be an excellent fit alongside Hank, as he brings elements that are necessary to thrive along with the Swedes-- speed, grit and shooting ability.

In the event that Burr, Hansen and Eriksson (if only) were traded, this would have been quite the group moving forward (ignoring potential retur:

Kane - Hank - _______
Sven - Bo - Boeser
Danny - Sutter - Granlund

Then on the back end, I feel like the team might not really miss a beat, esp. if Olli comes to form soon

Sbisa - Tanev (if Luca remains this good, this can become the heavy-minute shutdown duo)
Tryamkin - Stecher (potential future top pairing, with Tree and Troy)
Hutton - Gudbranson

/daydream (but yeah Kane would be a decent fit)

[flickyoursedin]

In my personal opinion I don't want to see management go for Kane. I said in the summer we're gonna be hurting for goals, we can't be picky and add them anyway we can. Kanes value then was rock bottom and now management sees Kane playing like we all know he could and now his value is higher and we want to trade for him. I'd hate to see management be kind of clueless and buy high on players when really they should be selling.

[DownUndaCanuck]

Just scored his 20th goal in 46 games. That's a 35 goal pace.

 

Got to give the kid credit for fixing his game at least. That's pretty damn impressive to bounce back like that, shows SOME sort of character. I wouldn't go after Kane as our first preference forward, but wouldn't be against him. He'll be a nice consolation prize for a lot of teams in the Landeskog sweepstakes.

 

Boosting his trade value a lot though, what would it take to get him now?

 

Essentially a 1st + young prospect?

 

For the Canucks maybe Virtanen + Subban + 2nd or 3rd round pick

 

(Then trade Tanev for Nylander):

 

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser

Granlund - Nylander - Kane

2017 1st round pick - Sutter - UFA

[CaptainLinden16]

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Just scored his 20th goal in 46 games. That's a 35 goal pace.

 

Got to give the kid credit for fixing his game at least. That's pretty damn impressive to bounce back like that, shows SOME sort of character. I wouldn't go after Kane as our first preference forward, but wouldn't be against him. He'll be a nice consolation prize for a lot of teams in the Landeskog sweepstakes.

 

Boosting his trade value a lot though, what would it take to get him now?

 

Essentially a 1st + young prospect?

 

For the Canucks maybe Virtanen + Subban + 2nd or 3rd round pick

 

(Then trade Tanev for Nylander):

 

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser

Granlund - Nylander - Kane

2017 1st round pick - Sutter - UFA

I would definitely trade for Kane in the summer after the expansion draft.  Any of virtanen, Hutton, Sbisa, Gaunce, Subban, Markstrom or whatever else from the farm or picks 2-7.  

 

Kane is perfect for the twins!  Definitely a career extender.  I know he is a LW, but he can play right and shoot left.

 

Hook it up JB!

[TheHawk]

On 2016-11-15 at 4:22 PM, Monty said:

 

Sabres wouldn't trade their 1st rounder for Tanev alone.

Good!

[Monty]

1 minute ago, TheHawk said:

Good!

[VIC_CITY]

21 hours ago, SilentSam said:

If Tanev is our best, and we continue to think that is the "bar"..

then we have serious problems.

 

 

Tanev is OUR best but not THE best. Big difference. But the best way to explain how Tanev is our best is with shot suppression. Tanev is far and away our best defensive defenseman. His shot suppression has a greater impact on the result of any given game than any of our other defensemen's skillset can provide. I know Tanev's offense is extremely limited but take a look at our defense as a whole. They're all pretty limited offensively. However, the gap between Tanev and the rest of our D defensively is bigger than Tanev and the rest of our D offensively, thus making him our most valuable defenseman. 

 

Now, that is by no means 'the bar'. Tanev is a good # 2-3 dman depending on the team. We still lack top pairing defensemen and bay need one or two of Stetcher, Tryamkin and Juolevi to reach that potential. That may be wishful thinking but they are solid young defensemen to have none the less. 

[morrissex95]

I'm a proponent on not acquiring a guy like Kane but maybe trading Tanev for Nugent-Hopkins. Acquiring RNH, a 23-year old, would solidify our team down the middle for years to come. 

[SilentSam]

7 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Tanev is OUR best but not THE best. Big difference. But the best way to explain how Tanev is our best is with shot suppression. Tanev is far and away our best defensive defenseman. His shot suppression has a greater impact on the result of any given game than any of our other defensemen's skillset can provide. I know Tanev's offense is extremely limited but take a look at our defense as a whole. They're all pretty limited offensively. However, the gap between Tanev and the rest of our D defensively is bigger than Tanev and the rest of our D offensively, thus making him our most valuable defenseman. 

 

Now, that is by no means 'the bar'. Tanev is a good # 2-3 dman depending on the team. We still lack top pairing defensemen and bay need one or two of Stetcher, Tryamkin and Juolevi to reach that potential. That may be wishful thinking but they are solid young defensemen to have none the less. 

Stetcher, Tryamkin,  Juolevi, and possibly Mceneney will possibly all prove to be better than Tanev.. certainly more durable..   I'm a proponent of moving Tanev by the TDL,. Hopefully for  Forward Power, presence, and points.

 

[VIC_CITY]

5 hours ago, morrissex95 said:

I'm a proponent on not acquiring a guy like Kane but maybe trading Tanev for Nugent-Hopkins. Acquiring RNH, a 23-year old, would solidify our team down the middle for years to come. 

Decent trade in theory but I wouldn't make that deal just because it's Edmonton. I'm pretty sure we can find a good young forward equal to or even better than RNH without trading Tanev within the division.

[N4ZZY]

46 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Decent trade in theory but I wouldn't make that deal just because it's Edmonton. I'm pretty sure we can find a good young forward equal to or even better than RNH without trading Tanev within the division.

yeah. could haunt us for years. 

[Type R]

I don't see RNH as a solution for this team.  He's not a big body and I think that detracts from his game.  He has ability, but too easy to shut him down with western conference style of play.  I would be more interested in Kane than RNH, and i'm not convinced Kane would be a great pickup for us yet.

[missioncanucksfan]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Monteeun said:

Without our best defenseman, our butts would be far more bruised. But nice try.

Ahhhh yes....losing 7 out of 10 with our "best defensemen" is much better than losing 9 straight without them

 

How's that for a try?

[missioncanucksfan]

5 hours ago, Type R said:

I don't see RNH as a solution for this team.  He's not a big body and I think that detracts from his game.  He has ability, but too easy to shut him down with western conference style of play.  I would be more interested in Kane than RNH, and i'm not convinced Kane would be a great pickup for us yet.

Oh...I would gladly trade Eriksson for RNH

[morrissex95]

On 2/19/2017 at 1:53 PM, Type R said:

I don't see RNH as a solution for this team.  He's not a big body and I think that detracts from his game.  He has ability, but too easy to shut him down with western conference style of play.  I would be more interested in Kane than RNH, and i'm not convinced Kane would be a great pickup for us yet.

We already have a physical power forward in Virtanen that could complement RNH. RNH is locked-up long term at a reasonable $6,000,000 and although he isn't playing up to his pay check he's been slotted in as a third-line centre with sub-par line mates, which is not where his strengths lye.

 

Meanwhile, Kane is a UFA after next season so he could easily walk to another team. Not to mention his attitude sucks, he slumps constantly and he's not a centre. Our team needs centres and we need them now especially after trading away McCann(not JB's finest moment IMO). 

 

18 hours ago, missioncanucksfan said:

Oh...I would gladly trade Eriksson for RNH

Yeah, but Edmonton wouldn't bite IMO. Although it would be a good way to shore up their depth on the wings, I just think RNH is too valuable of a trade chip to let go for the 31-year old Eriksson. 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 11:35 PM, VIC_CITY said:

Decent trade in theory but I wouldn't make that deal just because it's Edmonton. I'm pretty sure we can find a good young forward equal to or even better than RNH without trading Tanev within the division.

First line centres like RNH rarely come available. Since he's likely available at this point, I suggest we pounce. 

[Tower102]

4 minutes ago, morrissex95 said:

We already have a physical power forward in Virtanen that could complement RNH. RNH is locked-up long term at a reasonable $6,000,000 and although he isn't playing up to his pay check he's been slotted in as a third-line centre with sub-par line mates, which is not where his strengths lye.

 

Meanwhile, Kane is a UFA after next season so he could easily walk to another team. Not to mention his attitude sucks, he slumps constantly and he's not a centre. Our team needs centres and we need them now especially after trading away McCann(not JB's finest moment IMO). 

 

Yeah, but Edmonton wouldn't bite IMO. Although it would be a good way to shore up their depth on the wings, I just think RNH is too valuable of a trade chip to let go for the 31-year old Eriksson. 

 

First line centres like RNH rarely come available. Since he's likely available at this point, I suggest we pounce. 

As a fan of RNH and someone that is really cheering for him to hit his potential, he is definitely not a first line center right now, nor would I gamble that he will become one, maybe if his price tag was lower. 

[morrissex95]

35 minutes ago, Tower102 said:

As a fan of RNH and someone that is really cheering for him to hit his potential, he is definitely not a first line center right now, nor would I gamble that he will become one, maybe if his price tag was lower. 

He's had two 56-point seasons and he's a pretty good two-way player not to mention he's only 23. If he's not going to be a first line centre he's definitely good enough to slot in as a 2C behind Horvat. 

[Tower102]

1 minute ago, morrissex95 said:

He's had two 56-point seasons and he's a pretty good two-way player not to mention he's only 23. If he's not going to be a first line centre he's definitely good enough to slot in as a 2C behind Horvat. 

Ok, that is fine. I never said I was against having him on the team, nor that he couldn't be a number 2 C. I was simply commenting on your statement declaring him a first line C, you weren't even referring to potential first line C. You stated he was a first line center and that they don't come around often. That is the statement I was disagreeing with. 

[morrissex95]

15 minutes ago, Tower102 said:

Ok, that is fine. I never said I was against having him on the team, nor that he couldn't be a number 2 C. I was simply commenting on your statement declaring him a first line C, you weren't even referring to potential first line C. You stated he was a first line center and that they don't come around often. That is the statement I was disagreeing with. 

He's definitely got the chops to be a first line centre, that's for sure. It's not like he's a bust or anything, although maybe he shouldn't have been drafted first overall. 

 

Players even with the chops to be a first line centre don't come around often. With this year being a weak draft year, I think now is the time for us to acquire RNH. 

[VIC_CITY]

3 hours ago, morrissex95 said:

First line centres like RNH rarely come available. Since he's likely available at this point, I suggest we pounce. 

RNH is not a 1st line center. He's only scored 20 goals once and never more than 56 points. He's a 2C and probably an average 2C at that. Nothing against the guy. An average 2C would be around the 45th best centre in the NHL. That's a pretty damn good player. But there's nothing about his game that suggests he's a 1C. He's still young enough that he has room to improve but we tend to see less improvement at this age out of players that step right into the NHL after their draft year.