J.I.A.H.N Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Vancouver Tanev, Baertschi, 2017-1st for Colorado Landeskog, Jost, and 2017-2nd Would you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Goblin Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Depends if the 2017 1st is a lottery pick or a "just missed the playoffs" pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 24 minutes ago, Green Goblin said: Depends if the 2017 1st is a lottery pick or a "just missed the playoffs" pick. Let's just say lottery pick for arguments sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Absolutely. Canucks are giving up a lot, but I absolutely love Jost's game. In terms of value, IMO, Tanev > Landeskog. Baertschi = Col 2017 2nd. Jost < Van 2017 1st. I'd even give up another 4th because of Benning's mandatory give the extra pick gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Goblin Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 56 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: Let's just say lottery pick for arguments sake. Considering our luck, if we trade the pick; it will be a 1st overall. For argument's sake, no because of the lottery pick. But if it wasn't a lottery pick; we throw in Virtanen and they add Duchene, you've got a deal. Here's a breakdown value-wise: Virtanen = 45% Landeskog Baertschi = 55% Landeskog 75% 1st pick = Jost 25% 1st pick + Tanev = Duchene And then watch Baer and Virt turn it up with the Avs... Baertschi 22 goals, 44 assists Virtanen 33 goals, 19 assists TBH I'd rather keep Baertschi Maybe they'll take the 36 million dollar guy? Eriksson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 I honestly don't know if I would do this - though most probably would. Art, imo you are undervaluing Baertschi and overvaluing Tanev. (The latter of which is probably somewhat accurate, but I'm not sure it is in the eyes of most) This sounds weird for me to even type, since I have seemed down on Baertschi and up on Tanev over the last year. A well rounded, second line winger with age to continue to still improve is worth more than Colorado's 2nd, imo. Considering how many players end up missing after being drafted, and the fact that Jost - though he's looked excellent - has been playing against lesser talent, I'd say he's worth about the same as Baertschi at this point in time. Baertschi = Jost Tanev = Landeskog Vancouver 1st > Colorado 2nd To me, value-wise, we just trade down our pick. Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to have Landeskog. But I'd really hate to lose Tanev; it is so incredibly rare to find defensemen who truly shut down as well as he does. And this was positioned as a lottery pick, which I trust Benning would do well with... even though we'd get screwed on our position again, I'm sure of it. Now make it Edler, and I'm all over that trade and I believe it to be pretty evenly valued. Not sure if Colorado needs d or not.... Edler, Baertschi, Vancouver 1st for Landeskog, Jost, Colorado 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 F yes I would! We get Captain Landeskog and a 2016 10th overall pick in a strong draft (Jost) and likely a high second. In exchange for the Muffin man a 2nd round pick (Baer) and a potentially lower than 10th overall pick in a weak draft year. Talk about asset management. The Avs would have to be nutzo for Tanev. Even with Barrie and Erik Johnson both Rhd scoring at a .5 ppg pace where does Tanev fit? I wont trash your proposal without giving one of my own trashy proposals for you to sling muck at though. So hows about. to Avs Virtanen Edler Hansen To Van Mackinnon + a toss in player under contract to make them fit .... maybe Gabriel Bourque 5'10 210lbs yo yo'd between AHL and NHL most of his career. Seems to fit the bill. Drop a suitcase of money by accident on Edlers lawn with instructions to waive that ntc and Bobs your uncle. Honestly I still don't think they do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnhl Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 LOL everyone's just making adjustments to your proposal eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 1 hour ago, kloubek said: I honestly don't know if I would do this - though most probably would. Art, imo you are undervaluing Baertschi and overvaluing Tanev. (The latter of which is probably somewhat accurate, but I'm not sure it is in the eyes of most) This sounds weird for me to even type, since I have seemed down on Baertschi and up on Tanev over the last year. A well rounded, second line winger with age to continue to still improve is worth more than Colorado's 2nd, imo. Considering how many players end up missing after being drafted, and the fact that Jost - though he's looked excellent - has been playing against lesser talent, I'd say he's worth about the same as Baertschi at this point in time. Baertschi = Jost Tanev = Landeskog Vancouver 1st > Colorado 2nd To me, value-wise, we just trade down our pick. Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to have Landeskog. But I'd really hate to lose Tanev; it is so incredibly rare to find defensemen who truly shut down as well as he does. And this was positioned as a lottery pick, which I trust Benning would do well with... even though we'd get screwed on our position again, I'm sure of it. Now make it Edler, and I'm all over that trade and I believe it to be pretty evenly valued. Not sure if Colorado needs d or not.... Edler, Baertschi, Vancouver 1st for Landeskog, Jost, Colorado 2nd They need D they need the D baaad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 27 minutes ago, canucksnhl said: LOL everyone's just making adjustments to your proposal eh? That's OK .......If I can get a decent proposal out us, I would be happy. Baer = 2nd 1st = Jost Edler + for Landeskog What's the + ?...............................GAUNCE/LEBATE/sUBBAN or Just Edler and 2017-1st for Landeskog and Jost,,,,,,,that would be guttsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 5 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Vancouver Tanev, Baertschi, 2017-1st for Colorado Landeskog, Jost, and 2017-2nd Would you do it? We would. Dyu think Colorado, a non play off team, gives up two under age 22 Top ten draft picks? Including their captain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 11 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Vancouver Tanev, Baertschi, 2017-1st for Colorado Landeskog, Jost, and 2017-2nd Would you do it? JB would not do this, but ALF WOULD! Excellent trade for both teams. Very fair value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 6 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said: We would. Dyu think Colorado, a non play off team, gives up two under age 22 Top ten draft picks? Including their captain... That is a good question Surfer. (had to edit my first line Surfer, lol Sorry, hope you didn't see it, before I corrected it!) No slight meant!) My post was based on the speculation and talk that Colorado was looking to trade Landeskog. Personally, I think you are right, if we want him so much, why would Colorado want to get rid of him? Fair question! I do think however, that if Colorado is wanting to put more into now, they get 2 current competitive NHL players for the price of one, and the first for the second is heavily slanted to Colorado gaining much more long term, but again I can certainly see you point, clearly, The question really is the trade worth the risk of Jost fully developing? For that reason, I think Vancouver over pays on risk, that is why I made the proposal, it has multiple risk factors for both teams and helps both teams. If Baertschi further develops and moves closer to Landeskog in ability, and the first turns into a high end lottery pick, Colorado clearly would win just on the fact they get Tanev a first pairing Defensive Dman, if a variation of that happens, it may be more a equal trade. If Jost develops into a 1st line Center, and Landeskog continues being the player he is, then we could win or tie the trade..it is subjective in the many ways it could turn out. I do know that Landeskog for Tanev, Baertschi and a lottery 2017-1st is over payment by Vancouver if Jost doesn't turn out........the second is just a sweetener, and has a 17 % chance of turning out on average. So, for Vancouver and Colorado there is peril, but I think it is very fair........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 Just as another thought to my last comment. I believe 1st line players are either acquired in the first part of the first round through drafting, or by trade, not generally in the later rounds and with Vancouver rebuilding on the fly, this moves a piece (Tanev) and a 2017-1st for a player now a 1st line player (Landeskog). Jost could very well end up a 2nd line player at best, and they are much easier to find, as we did for a 2nd rounder (Baertschi)...........or as being illustrated by Chaput in some ways right now (albeit a weak 2nd liner/3rd line player) (Talk about coming out of the blue!!) Like I say, there is risk/reward for both teams.................therefore a pretty even trade/proposal, I think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Wonder how drastically Colorado's situation has changed since learning Johnson is out for 2 months? Perhaps their situation hasn't changed at all? How desperate is their last place standing making Sakic? Not going to lie, Jost/Boeser/Virt could be amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 10 hours ago, Fanuck said: Wonder how drastically Colorado's situation has changed since learning Johnson is out for 2 months? Perhaps their situation hasn't changed at all? How desperate is their last place standing making Sakic? Not going to lie, Jost/Boeser/Virt could be amazing! Thats what I been saying in my proposals;) that line could be something special if it were to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Image if we had these lines in one to two years possibly 3.... with the right moves, strategies, trades! I think things are looking up for Vancouver Canucks! For instance, things like our current Cap issues, Fans, ticket sales, owner , Management the entire Organization perhaps! Let the Rebuild, Retool begin lol! Oh and we definitely need a new Coach that's for damn sure lol:) 1. Kane Barkov Puljajarvi 2. Sedin Sedin Rodin 3. Boeser Jost Virtanen 4. Gaunce Granlund Skille 1. Joulevi Stetcher 2. Trymkin Hutton 3. Brisebois Subban 1. Demko 2. Markstrom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.