Blazer8717 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 To Van: Duchene, 3rd round pick To Col: Baertschi, Sbisa, 1st Rnd Pick Van: When the Sedins retire, Duchene, Horvat & Sutter will form a nice 1 2 3 down the middle. Right now Duchene would play on the wing with Horvat (he has been a winger in Colorado) and would provide extra offense and help on the power play. Col: The big thing here for Colorado is the 1st round pick. It would be really attractive for a team who seems to want to start over. It looks like the Canucks are going to finish middle of the pack (outside top 10) which makes me wonder if our first pick would be better spent aquiring a proven, quality, young player. Especially with the draft class being weaker than the last couple of years. (Though I would like to draft Eeli Tolvanen). Sbisa adds depth on defence and Baertschi adds depth on offence. Vans Line Up Sedin Sedin Hansen Duchene Horvat Burrows Granlund Sutter Eriksson Megna Gaunce Chaput Tanev Edler Stetcher Gudbranson Hutton Tryamkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhukini Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Don't think Colorado accepts, with his performance, Sbisa and the third cancel out, leaving just Baertschi and a first for Duchene, I'm sure they would get much better offers elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I don't mind this proposal but two things. 1) Av's are really looking for a young LHD they can build around, so av's would expect the D to be the focal point of the offer. Sbisa has been better this year but he's not really going to be a top pairing guy. 2) Canucks 1st round pick would have to be protected. We aren't a gaurentee to be a playoff team, in fact at 48 game mark last year we had 51 points, where this year we are only at 50 points. So we aren't out of the woods from being a draft lottery team yet. 3) We've gave the av's two pieces that they would need to protect in expansion. That extra forward (if they go with the 8 players) means they loose Baertschi or Grigorenko in expansion. It takes away value when the player you trade for means you lose another for nothing. Now my issues 2 & 3 could be solved if this moved was made after expansion draft. If a deal like this is done after expansion draft. canucks would know where their pick is set, and AV's wouldn't have to worry about loosing any new additions in the expansion, But there's a good chance canucks would have lost Sbisa during the expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I still think Duchene ends up in CBJ for a package revolving Murray and Jenner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaerToBo Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I think a better deal would be Hutton and a 1st for Duchene. Hutton has higher upside that Sbisa and higher value which means we could leave out Baertschi. Colorado needs a young LD with upside to play with Johnson or Barrie and our 1st could give them a top 6 player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, BaerToBo said: I think a better deal would be Hutton and a 1st for Duchene. Hutton has higher upside that Sbisa and higher value which means we could leave out Baertschi. Colorado needs a young LD with upside to play with Johnson or Barrie and our 1st could give them a top 6 player Hutton has to prove something at the NHL level before he can command a Duchene caliber player, Right now he's still a bottom 4 D who's got some offensive promise. But the Av's have a younger version of that in Bigras. If there moving Duchene they are going to want a young proven NHL player with upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, BaerToBo said: I think a better deal would be Hutton and a 1st for Duchene. Hutton has higher upside that Sbisa and higher value which means we could leave out Baertschi. Colorado needs a young LD with upside to play with Johnson or Barrie and our 1st could give them a top 6 player I'd prefer we hang on to our draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 No, the Canucks don't have the appropriate D-man that the Avs want in a Duchene trade. A young top 3 LD between the age of 21-24 with top pairing upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Considering that the Canucks will not be in the playoffs this year, they should be adding draft picks not subtracting them. (Only took 6 tries on the simulator to get to first) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: I don't mind this proposal but two things. 1) Av's are really looking for a young LHD they can build around, so av's would expect the D to be the focal point of the offer. Sbisa has been better this year but he's not really going to be a top pairing guy. 2) Canucks 1st round pick would have to be protected. We aren't a gaurentee to be a playoff team, in fact at 48 game mark last year we had 51 points, where this year we are only at 50 points. So we aren't out of the woods from being a draft lottery team yet. 3) We've gave the av's two pieces that they would need to protect in expansion. That extra forward (if they go with the 8 players) means they loose Baertschi or Grigorenko in expansion. It takes away value when the player you trade for means you lose another for nothing. Now my issues 2 & 3 could be solved if this moved was made after expansion draft. If a deal like this is done after expansion draft. canucks would know where their pick is set, and AV's wouldn't have to worry about loosing any new additions in the expansion, But there's a good chance canucks would have lost Sbisa during the expansion. Quoted for emphasis. As far as value..this is prob pretty good to all parties. It makes sense from many angles, & OP makes a nice proposal. The hang-ups are well-explained here by FTG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 This might be what it would cost to make it happen but that doesn't mean we should pay it. I strongly vote no to moving Bae what he and Bo have brewing is special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.