brian42 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Many teams will be looking to unload guys for some sort of asset in fear that Vegas will pick them up. With so many sellers and not many buyers it will be cheap to acquire these players. If the Canucks acquire players like this they will be expendable to vegas but Vegas can only take 1 player. My proposal is to trade Burrows and Miller to free up cap space who as UFAs do not have Vegas implications and then load up with 3 or 4 good players for minimal return. The Canucks could also trade a d-man so they know they would lose a forward to Vegas. Players like Gaunce Megna & Chaput could all be waived or sent down to make roster space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 But, then how can we win the cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian42 Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 a step in the right direction doesn't hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Its a good idea in theory as long as we can stay under the contract limit and don't have to give up too much. I'm for the idea of muddying the waters. Just take into account that we're not exceeding the value of what we possibly loose in assets to acquire and what we inevitablly loose to vegas to build this smoke screen. It would make a whole lot more sense if we were a playoff team also acquiring depth..............instead of looking at acquiring a draft pick. As this smoke screen could seriously compromise our draft position while getting us no closer to a cup. Ja feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 nvm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 You realize teams are going to lose a player no matter what right? They aren't going to dump a player just to get minimal return when they're STILL going to lose another player anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 29 minutes ago, qwijibo said: You realize teams are going to lose a player no matter what right? They aren't going to dump a player just to get minimal return when they're STILL going to lose another player anyway. ^^THIS^^ People seem to forget too quickly the 2 basic principles involved in the trade market: 1/ Teams don't trade to improve another team 2/ Teams make trades to improve their own situation (regardless of #1 above) And this season we can add a special 2 conditions: 1/ Teams won't trade to improve another team's expansion draft position 2/ Teams will make deals to improve their own expansion draft position (regardless of #1 above) Maybe if we keep these principles in mind when making any trade proposition on here then we would see the end of the Chris Tanev (RHD) trade proposals to Colorado... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 53 minutes ago, qwijibo said: You realize teams are going to lose a player no matter what right? They aren't going to dump a player just to get minimal return when they're STILL going to lose another player anyway. While this is true, some teams will be in a situation that they currently will loose an important player, where as they could make a move and only have to loose a less player. But where i differ with the OP is that I don't think that means players will be moved for cheap. For example, currently with the canucks, if we protect: Danny, Hank, Eriksson, Sutter, Horvat, Baertschi, Hansen Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson That means our top 3 players left exposed are: Sbisa, granlund, Dorsett But if we move Tanev for a young asset/picks (just for arguments sake say Tanev + Granlund for Domi) then instead of losing Sbisa for nothing, we now have a spot to protect him. Now our top 3 players left protects are: Dorsett, Rodin Gaunce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 32 minutes ago, ABNuck said: ^^THIS^^ People seem to forget too quickly the 2 basic principles involved in the trade market: 1/ Teams don't trade to improve another team 2/ Teams make trades to improve their own situation (regardless of #1 above) And this season we can add a special 2 conditions: 1/ Teams won't trade to improve another team's expansion draft position 2/ Teams will make deals to improve their own expansion draft position (regardless of #1 above) Maybe if we keep these principles in mind when making any trade proposition on here then we would see the end of the Chris Tanev (RHD) trade proposals to Colorado... I don't really agree with this. We've seen plenty of these trades happen this year. Hawks sent teravainen just so that they could free up bickells cap. Panthers sent Crouse to do the same with Bolland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I hope JB can figure this one out, losing Sbisa or Granny for nothing would suck. Biega needs more games in order to be exposed, Rodin's on a 1yr contract, thus won't be exposed (as a Canuck). Burr should be headed to UFA, and get resigned on July 1 as a stealth protection. Gotta load the deck right so Biega, Dorsett and Bauchman are our exposed players. If JB could get that done and get good haul for 1 F and 1 D, I'd be really stoked. Edler and Eriksson or Hansen on the move for a fair return would be my preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian42 Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: While this is true, some teams will be in a situation that they currently will loose an important player, where as they could make a move and only have to loose a less player. But where i differ with the OP is that I don't think that means players will be moved for cheap. For example, currently with the canucks, if we protect: Danny, Hank, Eriksson, Sutter, Horvat, Baertschi, Hansen Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson That means our top 3 players left exposed are: Sbisa, granlund, Dorsett But if we move Tanev for a young asset/picks (just for arguments sake say Tanev + Granlund for Domi) then instead of losing Sbisa for nothing, we now have a spot to protect him. Now our top 3 players left protects are: Dorsett, Rodin Gaunce Good post, I like your line of thinking but most teams are at least as deep as the Canucks and therefore likely wouldn't want to give up picks or prospects to acquire one and especially not two guys which they would have to protect or risk losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian42 Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 hours ago, luckylager said: I hope JB can figure this one out, losing Sbisa or Granny for nothing would suck. Biega needs more games in order to be exposed, Rodin's on a 1yr contract, thus won't be exposed (as a Canuck). Burr should be headed to UFA, and get resigned on July 1 as a stealth protection. Gotta load the deck right so Biega, Dorsett and Bauchman are our exposed players. If JB could get that done and get good haul for 1 F and 1 D, I'd be really stoked. Edler and Eriksson or Hansen on the move for a fair return would be my preference. I agree with everything here but realistically there is no way Eriksson is moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, brian42 said: I agree with everything here but realistically there is no way Eriksson is moved. Oh, for sure. I was outlining a dream scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: I don't really agree with this. We've seen plenty of these trades happen this year. Hawks sent teravainen just so that they could free up bickells cap. Panthers sent Crouse to do the same with Bolland Hawks benefit by dumping Bickell's salary Panthers benefit by dumping Bolland's salary Neither of those trades happen unless there's a benefit for the team dumping the salaries. Semantics. Each team feels they got the benefit. My point is this: A trade proposal that doesn't (REALLY) benefit the other team as well, is a pointless proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.