oldnews Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 6 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said: PHI might be a good trade partner. Tanev would be a perfect compliment to Provorov or Gotisbehere. Plus he's tough as nails which I think their fanbase would love. Maybe with their top pick might make a vet like Schenn available, or if the heavens lifted the curse on the Canucks and Couturier .... That's an interesting idea. Moving a F for D could make sense for Philly in the ED. Couturier is probably not someone they'd prefer to move, but if you want a Tanev, you need to pony up. I'd seriously consider him as a principle. Highly under-rated still imo. Elite puck possession player - has handled hard minutes throughout his young career and is to the point where he's now a dominant two way shutdown center. 54.7% corsi with 26.9% offensive zone starts (44% relative to defensive). 55.1% faceoff guy. 46 takeaways. 34 points in that context is very good - and 32 of them came at even strength or shorthanded - meaning his production is pretty deflated relative to his upside. I know the team is looking for a playmaking center - but having a pair of guys like Couturier and Sutter would be utterly suffocating / very difficult to play against - the team would dominate in the faceoff circle with Horvat also upticking, and Bo would be freed up to play some very opportune minutes. It wouldn't be a conventional lineup down the middle, but it sure as hell would be a potent two way center group, something I personally would seriously consider, particularly with the talented young wingers (some good playmakers among them) now in the group.... Would free them up to draft a pmd this year, which is probably what I'd elect to do nevertheless - and buy them some time to add another playmakiing center for the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I would not be shocked if Tanev fetches a very high price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nessnuck27 Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 What about Tanev to Buffalo for Sam Reinhart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Maybe Edmonton for Jesse Puljujärvi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Hortankin said: Granlund is worth way more than just a 3rd round pick. 21 year old 20G scorer on a low scoring team 24 year old - he was drafted in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Tanev for Eberle makes sense for both teams Baertchi Horvat Eberle Sedin Sedin Boeser Granlund Sutter Goldobin Eriksson Dahlen Virtanen Edler Stretcher Hutton Sbisa Joelevi Gudbranson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, 70seven said: At 23 Carrick is still a solid B level RHD prospect that's NHL ready. Stecher And gudbranson can play top 4. Leipsic is a solid B level LW prospect. 17 OA can get us another A-B level prospect. Would also give give us more ammo to move into the top 2. I have no issues with this deal. Great time to add some much needed prospect depth to the organization. 3x B level prospects for an injury prone defensive dman that plays on a rebuilding team = no brainer imo actually it's a no-brainer to say no imo. B prospects where we don't need them - what exactly is the point? We're not desperate to move Tanev nor add redundancies. In addition, taking Carrick back would mean he - or Sbisa - remain exposed - so that also mitigates this return negatively. This deal would be a lost opportunity to acquire what we do actually need in return if we did move a key asset like Tanev. Dealing Tanev for spare B assets is about as bad an idea as we can possibly come up with - which is why it originates from a TSN Onterrible media dreamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 14 hours ago, Warhippy said: I guess you missed his TSN team off season review where he slotted them in to his projected lines. We covered how laughable that was. But we also covered how Toronto makes a lot of sense based on Tanevs age, being an RHD their need for a D of his calibre and skill set but also the fact his contract is nice and he's a local boy. Kapanen and a 1st or Nylander and a 2nd. Scraps don't get it done and this is literally no different than Dregers tampering of the Sedins or his endless years of suggesting player X Y or Z to the Canucks for a return that leaves the Canucks gaping or somehow props up the most insignificant Leafs player in to a future HOF star speculations Well said. Connor + lepisic + 1st is an insult. Has to be Nylander + in my books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 If Toronoto thinks they're getting Tanev that cheap... Tanev will simply be going elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, bolt said: Tanev for Eberle makes sense for both teams Baertchi Horvat Eberle Sedin Sedin Boeser Granlund Sutter Goldobin Eriksson Dahlen Virtanen Edler Stretcher Hutton Sbisa Joelevi Gudbranson I just barfed in my mouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 To Toronto: Edler CBJ 2nd To Van: Tor 1st 17 Kapanen Edler Reilly Gardiner Zaitsev Marincin Carrick That's the best you're getting from us Toronto - if you don't like it (suck rocks) - that is, if Edler wouldn't mind the snow and the even stupider media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Jays_Canucks Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 No way should we get rid of tanman. I like how just because it's a rebuild fans think we should automatically get rid of all our good players in favor of younger ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortankin Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 44 minutes ago, mll said: 24 year old - he was drafted in 2011. My bad. He's still worth more than a 3rd lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I'd be dangling Tanev to teams with a higher first than TO, though I do like kapanen. No way they trade Nylander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainhorvat Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Blue_Jays_Canucks said: No way should we get rid of tanman. I like how just because it's a rebuild fans think we should automatically get rid of all our good players in favor of younger ones. I agree, dont understand why fans think we need to completely gut it out. Once were competitive (2-3yrs) were gonna be looking for a tanev only to give up an asset to aquire another tanev type player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, Blue_Jays_Canucks said: No way should we get rid of tanman. I like how just because it's a rebuild fans think we should automatically get rid of all our good players in favor of younger ones. It's more about some depth on D and Tanev having the most value to fill holes at other spots. Additionally, he is injured a lot, and that's only going to get worse, not better, as he ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuck1991 Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Screw said: I would not be shocked if Tanev fetches a very high price. yep me too i think a first rounder and grade a prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, Blue_Jays_Canucks said: No way should we get rid of tanman. I like how just because it's a rebuild fans think we should automatically get rid of all our good players in favor of younger ones. 6 minutes ago, captainhorvat said: I agree, dont understand why fans think we need to completely gut it out. Once were competitive (2-3yrs) were gonna be looking for a tanev only to give up an asset to aquire another tanev type player. Moving one player is not 'gutting it' FWIW. 27, going to be exiting his prime when we're contending again. Frequently injured, Impending NTC. High trade value for a team that's clearly rebuilding. And FWIW, we have Juolevi, Brisebois and Chatfield who all play a similar style to Tanev (some higher, some lower ceilings). We've already 'acquired' replacements who will be in their primes when we're contending again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adarsh Sant Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 14 hours ago, NUCKER67 said: It's not crazy. Carrick is a 23-year old RHD with similar numbers to Tanev. Leipsic is a 22-year old LW who was over a point a game with the Marlies. In his 6 NHL games with the Leafs he got 3 points. Plus TOR's 1st. That would give us two 1sts. They're not stars, but they're young and could become good players. Carrick does not have similar numbers. Tanev has insane shot suppression numbers. No one is gonna trade Tanev for the occasional fluke goal. Tanev's value is in actual defence, which Carrick is terrible at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Tre Mac said: I know the rumour du jour was Tanev + for Drouin. As long as the + isn't unreasonable I think we should pull it off. In other words only trade Tanev for a blockbuster piece even if we have to add. Pass on Drouin unless there's more coming back. Like Kapanen he's a good piece, but we don't need any more top-9 wingers unless it's a clear upgrade and we move someone else. Besides that, there's enough smoke around him in regards to other issues as it is. 31 minutes ago, bolt said: Tanev for Eberle makes sense for both teams No it doesn't. If deals are to be made, BOTH sides have to benefit. Just because it's great for one side doesn't mean there's a deal to be made when it makes no sense for the other. Not to mention in this case, even if Eberle were a fit the valuations are way off and Edmonton would be adding significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.