[Rumour] Canucks being approached about Tanev

[Honky Cat]

30 minutes ago, Screw said:

I would pass.  This is a drat where the best player could be a 2nd or 3rd round guy.

You could be right..but the odds are not with you...Usually you wind up with a depth player in the 2nd/3rd round (which is a win,but not what we need)....What the Canucks lack,is elite talent,and that is found at the top of the draft.

 

The current circumstances of the Canucks puts them in a position to make very bold move on draft day

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

In a bigger package with Tanev+33+55, I'd consider Johns. He'd fill in nicely on our 3rd pair, right side.

 

But IMO, it's 33rd OR a goalie dump, not both.

 

Tanev + 55 and one of taking Lehtonen back/our 33rd.

If you made that move for tanev who would you take? 

You only over pay if you are completely sold on the player you can take at 3rd.  I think we are putting to much emphasis on the value of the 3rd overall. Heck we can't even agree on who the best player is a 3. Seem like a massive over payment to me.

 

I'd be more inclined to move Tanev for a middle range pick and a prospect, than to give up more to move up. 

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

Here's a fun thought.  JUST FOR FUN

 

Bear with me because it's gonna suck to be Vancouver for a few seasons 

 

To Dallas:  Edler 20% retained, 55th, rights to Rodin 

 

To Vancouver:  3rd OA and Lehtonen allowing them to buy out Niemi instead at the cheaper cap hit.

 

To Philly:  5th OA and 3rd OA

 

To Vancouver:  2nd OA and McDonald 15% retained.  I know Philly said no to trading but losing that contract just to move down would be awfully attractive while adding basically a late 1st as well.

 

To Arizona:  Tanev

 

To Vancouver: 7th OA, 38th OA

 

Draft:

2nd OA Hischier/Patrick

3rd OA Vilardi

7th OA  Liljegren/Makar

 

Yes I'm self medicating.  But thank you Friedman for setting the bar so high! 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If you made that move for tanev who would you take? 

You only over pay if you are completely sold on the player you can take at 3rd.  I think we are putting to much emphasis on the value of the 3rd overall. Heck we can't even agree on who the best player is a 3. Seem like a massive over payment to me.

 

I'd be more inclined to move Tanev for a middle range pick and a prospect, than to give up more to move up. 

 

 

 

Probably Mittel, but I'm still pondering my list.

 

It's basically Tanev + 55 for 3rd OA and either a goalie cap dump or 33rd for Johns. I don't really see that as an 'over pay'.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Probably Mittel, but I'm still pondering my list.

 

It's basically Tanev + 55 for 3rd OA and either a goalie cap dump or 33rd for Johns. I don't really see that as an 'over pay'.

But that's what I'm saying, why move up to 3rd and pay extra when you can likely get mittel at 5?

 

But instead why not take the top center left at 5 and then move tanev for a mid round pick+

 

7th overall (liljegren)+ Merkley or Dineen

14th overall (foote/Pettersson) + radyssh or Koekkeok

17th overall (suzuki/Kostin) +  Bracco + Nielsen

 

Is the player you take a 5 going to be better than what other packages you can get with tanev?

 

[SilentSam]

1 hour ago, Ossi Vaananen said:

5 fits for Tanev from Sportsnet:

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/chris-tanev-trade-rumours-destinations-dallas-stars-toronto-maple-leafs-buffalo-sabres/

 

We're through the looking glass.

I think it's Dallas or Buffalo for Tanev,  Ossi.

Kane at 25 yrs old is a solid beast move..

But then to possibly land Vilardi or better through Dallas's 3rd is a strong "black ace" move.

[aGENT]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

But that's what I'm saying, why move up to 3rd and pay extra when you can likely get mittel at 5?

 

But instead why not take the top center left at 5 and then move tanev for a mid round pick+

 

7th overall (liljegren)+ Merkley or Dineen

14th overall (foote/Pettersson) + radyssh or Koekkeok

17th overall (suzuki/Kostin) +  Bracco + Nielsen

 

Is the player you take a 5 going to be better than what other packages you can get with tanev?

 

Not paying 'extra'. Paying what it's worth so I can get Mittel at 3 and one of Glass/Vilardi/Lilj at 5.

 

I'm game for attempting to get ARZ's 7th or BUF's 8th or TBL's 14th as well. In fact I've said I'd probably prefer it. People were talking about DAL, so I talked about DAL.

[Mattrek]

5 hours ago, Odjick_fan said:

https://fansided.com/2017/06/04/nhl-trade-rumors-3-best-fits-chris-tanev/

 

This article suggests 3 trade options with Buffalo, Dallas and Toronto.  The Buffalo trade option he downplays big time lol

 

But here are the 3 options

 

Buffalo:  Tanev for Reinhart and 2017 1st (8 OA)

 

Dallas:  Tanev for Ana 2017 1st (29 OA)

 

Toronto:  Tanev for 2017 1st (17 OA), Kapanen and Bracco

 

the Buffalo trade would be the better of all 3 IMO.  It would be cool to watch Reinhart play alongside the Sedins (I am only thinking out loud here)

 

But then what if the Dallas trade were a bit more interesting.

Dallas:  Tanev and rights to Boucher

Van:  2017 1st (ANA), Antti Niemi and rights to Nichushkin

 

This option would fill a couple extra needs (goalie and LW)

 

You're all over the place. How the hell does Tanev get a Reinhart (unlikely even straight across) AND a 1st when Dallas only gets us basically a 2nd?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Not paying 'extra'. Paying what it's worth so I can get Mittel at 3 and one of Glass/Vilardi/Lilj at 5.

 

I'm game for attempting to get ARZ's 7th or BUF's 8th or TBL's 14th as well. In fact I've said I'd probably prefer it. People were talking about DAL, so I talked about DAL.

Yeah and i'm just pointing out that is would make more sense to not pay that price for the 3rd overall.

 

In moving tanev for a mid pick +  prospect, we gain more assets, we give up less assets, we don't have to take on a bad contract and we don't really loose on player value for the player that we can draft. 

[aGENT]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yeah and i'm just pointing out that is would make more sense to not pay that price for the 3rd overall.

 

In moving tanev for a mid pick +  prospect, we gain more assets, we give up less assets, we don't have to take on a bad contract and we don't really loose on player value for the player that we can draft. 

I agree. Been saying so for a while now. Doesn't meant that there's a trade there between those other teams though. There might be one with DAL.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yeah and i'm just pointing out that is would make more sense to not pay that price for the 3rd overall.

 

In moving tanev for a mid pick +  prospect, we gain more assets, we give up less assets, we don't have to take on a bad contract and we don't really loose on player value for the player that we can draft. 

Hey, I've harped on here about keeping (and getting more) second round picks.  But this is different.  If we can get 3 overall, while sacrificing two second rounders, I think it's a good move.  We need elite prospects, not just a lot of prospects.  3 and 5 would get us two elite guys.  33 and 55 gets us a guys with a chance, but not likely.

[Gaudette Celly]

42 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Draft:

2nd OA Hischier/Patrick

3rd OA Vilardi

7th OA  Liljegren/Makar

Didn't the 3rd go with the 5th to Philly?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Hey, I've harped on here about keeping (and getting more) second round picks.  But this is different.  If we can get 3 overall, while sacrificing two second rounders, I think it's a good move.  We need elite prospects, not just a lot of prospects.  3 and 5 would get us two elite guys.  33 and 55 gets us a guys with a chance, but not likely.

Not in this draft.  There isn't enough separetion among prospect between 3-15

 

the player taken at 7-14 has just as good as a chance to being a better player in the long run than the player taken at 5.  Heck the player we would plan on taking at 5 has a really good chance of still being around in the 7-10 range.

[Agoork]

 

Not sure if this is a legit source, but interesting.

[BabychStache]

2 minutes ago, Agoork said:

 

Not sure if this is a legit source, but interesting.

Well now, that is interesting. I hate the idea of losing Tanev, but the rebuild must go on. Moving Tanev and potentially Edler leaves a giant hole on the defence... Tryamkin leaving hurts big time. it'll be real hard to watch:

Gudbranson - Stecher

Hutton - Sbisa

Subban - Holm

 

 

[stawns]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

I agree. Been saying so for a while now. Doesn't meant that there's a trade there between those other teams though. There might be one with DAL.

I still the proposal with TO is a decent one.  kapanen looked real gud in their series against washington and he's been a strong presence for the Marlies.....he's ready to make an impact in the NHL.  The TO pick might get them Foote, or could be packaged with one of Van's seconds to move into the top 10.

[aGENT]

Just now, stawns said:

I still the proposal with TO is a decent one.  kapanen looked real gud in their series against washington and he's been a strong presence for the Marlies.....he's ready to make an impact in the NHL.  The TO pick might get them Foote, or could be packaged with one of Van's seconds to move into the top 10.

Kapanen's a good player but we don't 'need' him like TOR 'needs' Tanev.

 

If we're using @ForsbergTheGreat's suggestions from earlier, 14th OA and Koekkoek is a far better package for us IMO. Higher pick and more useful player to the Canucks.

[stawns]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

Kapanen's a good player but we don't 'need' him like TOR 'needs' Tanev.

 

If we're using @ForsbergTheGreat's suggestions from earlier, 14th OA and Koekkoek is a far better package for us IMO. Higher pick and more useful player to the Canucks.

that doesn't mean they are trade partner.......it's pretty widely understood that TO has interest in Tanev.  Personally, I have always liked kapenen, and though he's smaller in stature, Finns always play gritty and bigger than their size.  They may not need him, like TO needs Tanev, but there might be a deal there and they do need another first.

[cbdoubleu]

I'm scare of us actually somehow moving Tanev for the 3rd pick, and then messing up both the 3rd and 5th picks.

[stawns]

1 minute ago, cbdoubleu said:

I'm scare of us actually somehow moving Tanev for the 3rd pick, and then messing up both the 3rd and 5th picks.

what basis do you have for that insecurity?