RetroCanuck Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Trade Hansen and Tanev at the deadline so that we may protect more of our young up and coming players. If you don't trade you probably protect. Hank Dank Loui Horvat Sutter Hansen 7th forward Sven? Tanev Edler Gudbranson Markstrom Which leaves exposed Granlund Boucher(19games remaining or else ineligible.) Sbisa Gaunce Biega(8 games remaining) Therefore we lose promising player in Granlund and Sbisa. But if we trade them... Canucks Tanev to Lightning for Garrison(Cap dump)+ A prospect (Cirelli?)+ pick and Canucks Hansen to Columbus for pick(1st or 2nd) or Prospect(Karlsson?) If the Canucks do this they can protect granlund and Sbisa as well, and the best player we could lose is Gaunce. Plus with the emergence of young players(Tryamkin, Stetcher, Granlund etc) and players needing a shot(Boucher, Rodin, Pedan) the team can remain competitive and get younger. The team has been fine without Hansen in the lineup(even though i love the guy). Tanner will be missed but with the emergence of young players it won't be to bad. Note: This is what I think will be best for the team in the future, not so much the present. Let me know what your opinion is but if its rude or obscene then hold it in lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Trade guddy!!! we don't need him we got Trymkin;) we need more scoring a 25-30 + scorer!!! preferably 25 year old range:) aswell a young centerman prospect to play along side of Boeser, Virtanen;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 35 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said: Canucks Tanev to Lightning for Garrison(Cap dump)+ A prospect (Cirelli?)+ pick How is it a cap dump if Tanev and Garrison have nearly the same cap hits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCanuck Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, goalie13 said: How is it a cap dump if Tanev and Garrison have nearly the same cap hits? Reports are they want to move Garrison and this evens out the Cap. Maybe Cap dump is the wrong term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucks16 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said: Reports are they want to move Garrison and this evens out the Cap. Maybe Cap dump is the wrong term? Why Garrison???? We just got rid of him.... now we want him back??? Lmfao!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just now, Knucks16 said: Why Garrison???? We just got rid of him.... now we want him back??? Lmfao!!!! JB will not take that big, soft, overpaid, slug Garrison back. JB bent Yzerman over a log getting rid of Garrison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said: Reports are they want to move Garrison and this evens out the Cap. Maybe Cap dump is the wrong term? Completely. A cap dump would be intentionally unbalanced. Team A would trade a high cap player to Team B for a low cap player. There may be other pieces involved, but the idea is to reduce the cap for Team A. Plus, if I am not mistaken, Garrison still has the NTC the Canucks gave him in the first place. So we would be required to protect him in the expansion draft which negates the reason (protecting Sbisa) you are proposing to trade for him in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 why the hell would we trade tanev for a dman we already got rid of if anything wed trade tanev for a winger still on entry level contract plus pics. i m sure benning has a plan for deadline one to three of hansen, tanev, burrows, sbisa, miller will be traded horvat, guddy, tryamkin, gaunce will be resigned we will protect granlund sedins eriksson baertchi sutter guddy edler sbisa tanev markstrom horvat stecher hutton tryamkin are ineligible to be poached Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 NMC - gotta protect NTC - don't think so At least that's what I thought they said. If wrong, someone pls clarify. OP, funny you thought of that TBay, Garr idea. Had been kicking around the same thing. Believe they have a lot of nice fwd prospects. IF we could land their 1st, AND a top prospect, Tanev for the old White Rock slowpoke makes some sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Jay 22 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 You guys are insane if you want to trade Tanev for an ugly contract and just a good prospect and pick coming back. We can do so much better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, RetroCanuck said: Trade Hansen and Tanev at the deadline so that we may protect more of our young up and coming players. If you don't trade you probably protect. Hank Dank Loui Horvat Sutter Hansen 7th forward Sven? Tanev Edler Gudbranson Markstrom Which leaves exposed Granlund Boucher(19games remaining or else ineligible.) Sbisa Gaunce Biega(8 games remaining) Therefore we lose promising player in Granlund and Sbisa. But if we trade them... Canucks Tanev to Lightning for Garrison(Cap dump)+ A prospect (Cirelli?)+ pick and Canucks Hansen to Columbus for pick(1st or 2nd) or Prospect(Karlsson?) If the Canucks do this they can protect granlund and Sbisa as well, and the best player we could lose is Gaunce. Plus with the emergence of young players(Tryamkin, Stetcher, Granlund etc) and players needing a shot(Boucher, Rodin, Pedan) the team can remain competitive and get younger. The team has been fine without Hansen in the lineup(even though i love the guy). Tanner will be missed but with the emergence of young players it won't be to bad. Note: This is what I think will be best for the team in the future, not so much the present. Let me know what your opinion is but if its rude or obscene then hold it in lol Hansen would retire before he would ever play for Tortorella again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 48 minutes ago, canuktravella said: why the hell would we trade tanev for a dman we already got rid of if anything wed trade tanev for a winger still on entry level contract plus pics. i m sure benning has a plan for deadline one to three of hansen, tanev, burrows, sbisa, miller will be traded horvat, guddy, tryamkin, gaunce will be resigned we will protect granlund sedins eriksson baertchi sutter guddy edler sbisa tanev markstrom horvat stecher hutton tryamkin are ineligible to be poached We cannot protect the players you propose. You can either protect 8 skaters OR 7 forwards and 3 d-men. You are recommending protecting 6 forwards and 4 d-men. Also, Horvat is not exempt. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592 The link below will show players under contract to all teams, those that must be protected and those that you will have to protect or leave exposed. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Anything with Tanev has to have a 1st round pick + a top line winger, or an real #1C under 25. Otherwise why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: Anything with Tanev has to have a 1st round pick + a top line winger, or an real #1C under 25. Otherwise why do it? Would RNH be a fair trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: Would RNH be a fair trade? The 'nuge... I'm not sure. I would hope for more toughness. MacKinnon would be nice. Plus screw Edmonton. Tanev probably takes them on a long cup run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: The 'nuge... I'm not sure. I would hope for more toughness. MacKinnon would be nice. Plus screw Edmonton. Tanev probably takes them on a long cup run. I heard Landeskog to LA rumoured by Dregger today. Mackinon would cost too much. Duchene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I like RNH, always have but his production this year is concerning. I might have considered Tanev for him in the past but that is pretty firm no for me. The Canucks need a legitimately great talent if the cost is Tanev. It is highly unlikely that someone will trade that kind of talent so its better just to hold onto him. He is young enough to be part of the next core Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 34 minutes ago, Toews said: I like RNH, always have but his production this year is concerning. I might have considered Tanev for him in the past but that is pretty firm no for me. The Canucks need a legitimately great talent if the cost is Tanev. It is highly unlikely that someone will trade that kind of talent so its better just to hold onto him. He is young enough to be part of the next core I watch almost every Oiler game just so I can cheer for whoever they are playing against. RNH's production is down but I don't think it is his play that has fallen off but rather the new role he has embraced with the team. He is their no. 1 PK, he is often used to play against the other team's best centre and this year he has been relegated to the 2nd PP unit. He was even their 3rd line centre for much of the season behind McDavid and Leon before Leon was moved onto McDavid's line. I think he is still a very good hockey player, probably a more complete player than ever before, and I would love to have him on the Canucks even at the expense of Tanev. It won't happen but I think a Horvat and RNH as our 1 and 2 centre men would set us up for years IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsulk Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 VAN Tanev, Hansen COL Landeskog, Jost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, kingsulk said: VAN Tanev, Hansen COL Landeskog, Jost Yes, we would LOVE that deal. I think Sakic would need to be a sock monkey to make that deal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.