[Report] Bruins willing to move #18 pick

[70seven]

19 hours ago, Provost said:

Biega

Chatfield

Subban

 

That is reasonable depth for a team that will be bad next year.  It is likely we use one of that top picks for a D who will be ready in 1-3 years, so a piece for the future.

 

There are other ways to add depth in that position.  Free agency, waiver wire, trades.

 

Vegas will have an option to pick way more D than they need.  We could have a deal in place where we trade a later pick this draft or next for someone we ask them to select.

 

There is no question our team will be worse this year without Tanev, but with him we are still one of the worst teams in the league so there isn't a long way to drop.

Thats not reasonable depth at all.  Youre listing AHL players for starting roster jobs.  Not to mention youre depending on a 3rd pair stay at home Gudbranson and a sophomore Stecher to absorb top 4 minutes.

 

lol

 

horrible plan.

[ilduce39]

20 hours ago, 70seven said:

I'd agree if there was more depth at the discussed position, but there's not.  After Tanman, you have gudbranson and stecher.  That's about it.  

 

You think were we're going to find a rhd via free agency?   

 

34 year old Dennis Wideman

29 year old Cody Franson

 

Thats pretty much the list lol

 

 

I'm not against moving Tanev if there's a succession plan to fill the void, but the only spot that'll be coming from is via trade.   

 

You simply cannot trade trade him without any sort of replacement.  

 

That is the problem - it's easy to say "sign veteran FAs and dump them at the deadline" but it's easier said than done.  

 

Anyone close to Tanev's league isn't signing a pump and dump contract and anyone else is going to have some serious warts - such as not being in Tanev's league and we're putting a lot of pressure on Stech and Guddy to carry the mail and stay healthy.  

 

That said, I still move Tanev if it's for the right piece - the 3OA for example - but I'd think long and hard about accepting a mid round pick to TO or Boston.  

 

As much as it's hard to have patience, Tanev's NTC is only an 8 team no-go.  That's hardly prohibitive to moving him in the future and we could very realistically get a better deal at the deadline or farther in the future.  Receiving a prospect back in this scenario wouldn't change the rebuild timeline at all.

[Provost]

4 hours ago, 70seven said:

Thats not reasonable depth at all.  Youre listing AHL players for starting roster jobs.  Not to mention youre depending on a 3rd pair stay at home Gudbranson and a sophomore Stecher to absorb top 4 minutes.

 

lol

 

horrible plan.

Umm no, I listed AHL players as AHL roster players, not starting roster players in the NHL.

 

Biega is not an AHL player and the other guys aren't in roster spots, but available for injury call ups.

 

Without Tanev we have:

Edler-Stecher

Hutton-Gudbranson

Sbisa-Biega

Juolevi-Subban

Pedan-Chatfield

 

You also add in the top 5 draft pick D we get in that process.  

 

You also add in random cheap veteran depth signing and waiver wire 3rd pairing guys depending on injuries.

 

That is as solid a level of depTh as anywhere on the roster.  Depending on injuries, other guys can slide over to the left side if needed on an emergency basis.

 

As for complaining about Stecher playing too minutes, did you notice that was the case for a large chunk of last season?

 

You are aware of where this team is right?  Half our forwards will be prospects moving into meaningful NHL minutes for the first time.  Our starting goalie has never been a starting goalie before,.

 

The difference next year in having Tanev is losing 3-2 vs. losing 5-2... and maybe being as good as 25h place vs. 29th place if he manages to stay healthy for once.

 

Conpare that with getting to draft a future top pairing guy and it is no contest which is a better plan and ALL the hockey experts and pundits seem to agree.

 

Lol, terrible plan on your part, I mean aside from the parts where you were just lying.

[70seven]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Umm no, I listed AHL players as AHL roster players, not starting roster players in the NHL.

 

Biega is not an AHL player and the other guys aren't in roster spots, but available for injury call ups.

 

Without Tanev we have:

Edler-Stecher

Hutton-Gudbranson

Sbisa-Biega

Juolevi-Subban

Pedan-Chatfield

 

You also add in the top 5 draft pick D we get in that process.  

 

You also add in random cheap veteran depth signing and waiver wire 3rd pairing guys depending on injuries.

 

That is as solid a level of depTh as anywhere on the roster.  Depending on injuries, other guys can slide over to the left side if needed on an emergency basis.

 

As for complaining about Stecher playing too minutes, did you notice that was the case for a large chunk of last season?

 

You are aware of where this team is right?  Half our forwards will be prospects moving into meaningful NHL minutes for the first time.  Our starting goalie has never been a starting goalie before,.

 

The difference next year in having Tanev is losing 3-2 vs. losing 5-2... and maybe being as good as 25h place vs. 29th place if he manages to stay healthy for once.

 

Conpare that with getting to draft a future top pairing guy and it is no contest which is a better plan and ALL the hockey experts and pundits seem to agree.

 

Lol, terrible plan on your part, I mean aside from the parts where you were just lying.

 

Trust me when I say they dont want Troy Stecher playing that much.  Sbisa is also likely to be taken via expansion, unless Tanev is dealt before which is extremely unlikely as the opposing team would have to protect him.

 

Again, Im not against moving Tanev for the right return.  And as far as Im concerned that return HAS to have a plan of bringing in someone else that can absorb top pairing minutes, or at least share the load.  The Canucks DONT currently have that guy in their organization.  And they certainly dont have much depth.  Biega is NOT a top 6 NHL Dman.  Hes a fringe D man on the current Canucks which = AHL caliber.  Hes depth, nothing more.  Having him in the starting 6 is just asking for failure.  Were talking Avs like failure.  Talk to anyone in the league about their situation.  Not good.

 

I just think the timing is off here.  Tanev will still have value at the deadline, likely more value.  So unless someone comes along and blows their socks off, he's a Canuck.

 

 If there was some way to obtain the #3 for Tanev before expansion while picking up an Anaheim or Minni D for Virtanen, Id say getter done.  But lets be honest, this aint NHL17, and its unlikely that we see much trade movement from Vancouver until next TDL.

 

As you said, this team is losing with or without Tanev.  His presence wont really effect the standings.  But his presence WILL impact the future players, and its just as important to protect that future by building a positive culture and insulating your kids, as it is to build it by obtaining more assets.

 

I apologize for saying terrible plan in an earlier post.  Its your opinion and your right to it.  

 

 

 

 

[Podz92]

If Callan Foote is available at 18 I would be interested...depending on the price of course..

[wildcam]

Nobody has mentioned Sutter C, 6'3  age 28, plays soft but could be a great addition for a  top 10 team,,

So I would be shopping Tanev and  Sutter 4.3 million...

 

Tanev one of best trade assets: Need a very good young forward under 25 back and a draft pick..

 

Sutter:  Now 28 we should trade him for younger assets with grit..Plays very soft and when we are ready for playoff run in 3 years

he will be 31....Now is the time to trade Sutter

[wildcam]

Lets not be making stupid trades, NO TRADING VIRTANEN 6'1, 215 will be a power forward he is only 20 very fast and gritty....Green will have Jake ready to go just give him time, PATIENCE PATIENCE

[messier's_elbow]

2 hours ago, JamesBlondage said:

If Callan Foote is available at 18 I would be interested...depending on the price of course..

I'd bet money he won't be.