Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(Proposal) Devils-Canucks


Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

As it is pretty obvious this my first post. I’ve been on these message boards for years but just as a guest reading your guys opinions and updates on our prospects. There has been so many trade Tanev proposals but they all have us taking back a forward who we would have to protect in the upcoming draft. I believe we should be trying to trade for a player that isn’t expansion draft eligible. 

 

New Jersey: Tanev

Vancouver: Pavel Zacha

 

Pieces may have to be added on both sides to make the cap work or even out thw but the 2 main pieces would be those players. Even though Tanev is our most consistent reliable defender he also holds the most trade value. I believe our depth at D allows us to make this trade. Zacha is a former 6th overall pick from 2015 who has so far had a below average start to the beginning of his nhl career. With combination of him not putting up a lot of points, being a healthy scratch numerous times and the fact that the Devils are weaker on defence since the departure of Larrson that they would be open to the idea of trading the former 6th overall pick. The Canucks as a team get weaker following this trade as we lose our best defensemen and insert a guy who hasn’t contributed a lot of offence this season, but I think it fills a need for the future as Zacha has the size and skill to fill our future top 6 centre/left wing that we need. Then come expansion draft Biega will be our defensemen left exposed and management will have to make a decision on whether to expose granlund, hansen or baerstchi (I think they should trade Hansen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the above poster on your name. I wouldn't do this because I am not a fan of Zacha but this is mostly from junior viewings of him with the Sting. I haven't had many viewings of him in the NHL so I will refrain from making any definitive statements about his potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't really seen Zacha play, therefore, I can't say if he's going to be good or not. But, New Jersey is pretty weak upfront and are kind in a rebuilding mode, those are two things that should work in favor of Zacha getting ice-time, so raise a little flag for me....but at the same time he's only 19.

 

Was he drafted by the current administration or by Lamoriello?  If the ladder, I can see NJ moving on from him, otherwise I would expect them to see a lot a value in him, similar to Virtanen, Juolevi, Boeser to us.  There, I don't think Tanev would be enough, from NJ's perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toews said:

I have to agree with the above poster on your name. I wouldn't do this because I am not a fan of Zacha but this is mostly from junior viewings of him with the Sting. I haven't had many viewings of him in the NHL so I will refrain from making any definitive statements about his potential.

Yea i haven't seen him play much either. Just saw an article on him and did a little research on him and he seemed to be a decent prospect who was struggling a bit and could maybe be traded for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timberz21 said:

I haven't really seen Zacha play, therefore, I can't say if he's going to be good or not. But, New Jersey is pretty weak upfront and are kind in a rebuilding mode, those are two things that should work in favor of Zacha getting ice-time, so raise a little flag for me....but at the same time he's only 19.

 

Was he drafted by the current administration or by Lamoriello?  If the ladder, I can see NJ moving on from him, otherwise I would expect them to see a lot a value in him, similar to Virtanen, Juolevi, Boeser to us.  There, I don't think Tanev would be enough, from NJ's perspective.

I believe Shero drafted him so guess your right he would probably be a little more reluctant to give up on one of the first players he drafted as a new jersey GM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timberz21 said:

did you mean?

 

As good as Tanev is, he's still a defensive defenseman.  Teams don't sell the farm for a guy like that. 

No, I meant Tanev, and while he isn't a power play quarterback or offensive dynamo, Chris Tanev has considerably greater value in a trade than the OP or you are alluding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timberz21 said:

There, I don't think Tanev would be enough, from NJ's perspective.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Tanev gets waaaaaay more than just Zacha.

 

I always think it is interesting/fun that almost any trade proposal always has at least response that it wont work due to insufficient pay in EITHER direction. I wonder how many trade proposals (even within organisation spitballing) are met with that kind of divide. The universal "Lol WUT" that indicates how difficult it is to have any kind of consensus on player value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

No, I meant Tanev, and while he isn't a power play quarterback or offensive dynamo, Chris Tanev has considerably greater value in a trade than the OP or you are alluding to.

While to us he may be valuable, I don't think other teams value him as high as we do.   IMO his value wouldn't be much higher than last year's reported offer for Hamhuis. 

 

Them trading Zacha is like us trading Juolevi a year from now.    I wouldn't trade Juolevi for another Tanev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, #1megnafan said:

Yea i haven't seen him play much either. Just saw an article on him and did a little research on him and he seemed to be a decent prospect who was struggling a bit and could maybe be traded for

So essentially you know nothing about this guy but let's trade away our most consistent defenceman for him anyway.

 

Sounds about right for CDC:picard:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sygvard said:

 

 

I always think it is interesting/fun that almost any trade proposal always has at least response that it wont work due to insufficient pay in EITHER direction. I wonder how many trade proposals (even within organisation spitballing) are met with that kind of divide. The universal "Lol WUT" that indicates how difficult it is to have any kind of consensus on player value. 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timberz21 said:

While to us he may be valuable, I don't think other teams value him as high as we do.   IMO his value wouldn't be much higher than last year's reported offer for Hamhuis.

According to McKenzie, Tanev would be a highly sought after defenseman should he be made available in a trade.

 

And comparing the trade value of a 27 year old, highly regarded (by the likes of Connor McDavid, Brendan Gallagher, and Michael Stone to name a few) defensive defenseman to a 34 year old declining veteran is just silly. Just like this....fail-gif-shopping-cart.gif

Quote

Them trading Zacha is like us trading Juolevi a year from now.    I wouldn't trade Juolevi for another Tanev.

Cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...