Gurn Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Dave Pratt, the plagiarizer, not worth quoting or listening to. Tanev for Drouin is a deal I would do, I would also be very reluctant to add anything to the deal, can't give up too many assets or pieces as the Nucks are still thin on pospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 It's a reasonably fair deal, though I feel like we might have to add a small extra bit or take on a bit of cap to make it happen. Tanev is a sure thing and the Lightning would know what they're getting with him. Drouin has a higher ceiling than Tanev, but is much less of a sure thing. He might turn out to be a middle six forward and nothing more...or he could turn into a top line all-star. It would be an interesting trade for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin's Dog Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I think it would be a good idea to pursue Drouin. A future Drouin-Horvat-Virtanen/Boeser line has a lot of potential for a lot of years. I would suggest that Tampa would not want to give up Drouin this year though, before playoffs. I would suggest a Tanev for Garrison trade In the near future for pure cap reasons (they need to clear cap to receive Tanev). Plus future considerations. I know we traded Garrison away but he is a near expiring contract and could be exposed to Las Vegas if his contract could be adjusted at trade (he has a no trade but I am not sure of details). I think I read that a no trade clause does not protect a player in the same way a no movement clause does (because expansion draft is not a trade). He could also be bought out at the end of season if he is not drafted. Would he wave to come to Vancouver after being traded, I don't know. I don't want to trade Tanev but he plays so hard and gets hurt so much that he may not be the same player by the time we are competing in deep playoff run. The future considerations is a deal for Drouin in the summer. To Vancouver: Drouin, 1st To Tampa: 3rd, lower prospect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Take Drouin JB and run like heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I'd rather see Gudbranson for Druin personally!! i don't think we should give up Tanev for Druin we can get more then Druin for Tanev, I think personally! I would do, Gudbranson and a third for Druin is more then enough! Then we can use Tanev for other Forward options! Like a Pkg deal for Landeskog and Jost! Get these three players then things are looking up:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 25 minutes ago, Knucks16 said: I'd rather see Gudbranson for Druin personally!! i don't think we should give up Tanev for Druin we can get more then Druin for Tanev, I think personally! I would do, Gudbranson and a third for Druin is more then enough! Then we can use Tanev for other Forward options! Like a Pkg deal for Landeskog and Jost! Get these three players then things are looking up:) Can't see Tampa trading for Gudbranson, unless Eric signs a new deal prior to the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, gurn said: Can't see Tampa trading for Gudbranson, unless Eric signs a new deal prior to the trade. Fair enough:) but why? when they can snag Gudbranson with a cheaper salary aswell with a pick and possible prospect like Cassels they can afford that for sure;) Tanev at 4.5 mill it's gonna be hard to do so with Tampas cap situation;) I would save Tanev for a better deal imho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Knucks16 said: I'd rather see Gudbranson for Druin personally!! i don't think we should give up Tanev for Druin we can get more then Druin for Tanev, I think personally! I would do, Gudbranson and a third for Druin is more then enough! Then we can use Tanev for other Forward options! Like a Pkg deal for Landeskog and Jost! Get these three players then things are looking up:) Yea and if we trade Gudbranson why any other free agent want to sign here ever again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 36 minutes ago, Pears said: Yea and if we trade Gudbranson why any other free agent want to sign here ever again? Imo it was a mistake to trade for guddy we could have got a better dman imo;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, Knucks16 said: Imo it was a mistake to trade for guddy we could have got a better dman imo;) No we really couldn't have....Let me ask you, how often do 23 year old defensemen who are right handed, are his size and have the kind of potential that he does become available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, Pears said: No we really couldn't have....Let me ask you, how often do 23 year old defensemen who are right handed, are his size and have the kind of potential that he does become available? Dougie Hamilton? Seth Jones? Adam Larson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, Alflives said: Dougie Hamilton? Seth Jones? Adam Larson? Gudbranson is a tier below those three but yea, not often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, Pears said: Gudbranson is a tier below those three but yea, not often. Hamilton and Jones yes, Adam Larson is less than Gudbranson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 30 minutes ago, Pears said: No we really couldn't have....Let me ask you, how often do 23 year old defensemen who are right handed, are his size and have the kind of potential that he does become available? Yah I agree, but what about Trymkin? I think we could have gotten a more versitile speedy playmaker shooter type player;) idk it is what it is;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 I think Tanev is too valuable to this team as we've recently seen, unless the plan is to really start tanking and go for Liljegren. He's still got a decent 3-5 years of top-4 play in him, I'd rather keep that as Gudbranson is clearly a bottom-4 defenceman and Stecher needs some sheltering or we'll ruin him just like we've clearly broken Hutton. Drouin would be lovely and complement this oversized, underskilled forward group, but I'd rather hang on to our 1st/2nd best defenceman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 17 hours ago, Warhippy said: I'm still trying to figure that out W hiskey T ango F oxtrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBacon Strips Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 Stamkos is gonna go LTIR so he can full heal and Tampa can pull a 15-16 Chicago by stacking up using the cap space. I just made this proposal in my thread and still think it would be a very real possibility. The Canucks should really the advantage of Tanev's value and Tampa's desperation for a top RD. It would more than make up for the debacle that was the last trade deadline. To Tampa: Tanev Burrows (50%) retained CBJ 2nd, if they'll bite on it, or Van 2017 2nd To Van: Drouin Tampa Bay 2017 3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said: W hiskey T ango F oxtrot I took it as he understood my post but didn't understand the post we replied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 2 hours ago, IBacon Strips said: Stamkos is gonna go LTIR so he can full heal and Tampa can pull a 15-16 Chicago by stacking up using the cap space. I just made this proposal in my thread and still think it would be a very real possibility. The Canucks should really the advantage of Tanev's value and Tampa's desperation for a top RD. It would more than make up for the debacle that was the last trade deadline. To Tampa: Tanev Burrows (50%) retained CBJ 2nd, if they'll bite on it, or Van 2017 2nd To Van: Drouin Tampa Bay 2017 3rd Stamkos' LTI for the rest of the season would help fit Tanev and Burrows in, but it wouldn't help beyond this year once Stamkos is healthy again. They could go after another young defender on an ELC in a swap for Drouin to get better value back, or they'd have to look at moving one of Stralman or Coburn since they're making similar to Tanev with term left on their deals. I don't think that works as you've suggested for Tampa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 5 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said: W hiskey T ango F oxtrot That about sums it out right there:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.