Honky Cat Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, Alflives said: We just finished 28th and 29th with Tanev. So we finish 30th or 31st? Maybe we will...but to trade Tanev now would be a 'tire fire'...It would be completely detrimental to the development of players like Juolevi....If Tryamkin and Sbisa were still on the team,maybe we could have weathered the loss of Tanev....Unless there's a trade out there that we 'cant refuse' ..you keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayinblack Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 hour ago, brian42 said: I think it would make sense for Vancouver to pick up a D-man from Vegas. Montreal got one for a 5'th round pick. That way you can Trade Tanev and not demand a D-man back. Get the most value and the prospect/pick with the most value. Tanev's value could go down and it's important to sell high. The Canucks lost their chance at trading many players who could have had us further along in the rebuild. If it wasn't for Methot's trade clause I'd say trade both 2nds to LV for him and then flip him to Dallas for 3OA + goalie dump + Nichuskin's rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuck1991 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Honky Cat said: Maybe we will...but to trade Tanev now would be a 'tire fire'...It would be completely detrimental to the development of players like Juolevi....If Tryamkin and Sbisa were still on the team,maybe we could have weathered the loss of Tanev....Unless there's a trade out there that we 'cant refuse' ..you keep him. yes i agree. We just cant afford to loose 3Nhl dman in matter of 2months. Tryamkin left us hanging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, Honky Cat said: Maybe we will...but to trade Tanev now would be a 'tire fire'...It would be completely detrimental to the development of players like Juolevi....If Tryamkin and Sbisa were still on the team,maybe we could have weathered the loss of Tanev....Unless there's a trade out there that we 'cant refuse' ..you keep him. We still have Edler and Gudbranson for experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jayinblack said: If it wasn't for Methot's trade clause I'd say trade both 2nds to LV for him and then flip him to Dallas for 3OA + goalie dump + Nichuskin's rights or Vegas could just make the deal directly with Dallas. As it happens McKenzie says that Dallas has been talking to Vegas on Methot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Alflives said: We still have Edler and Gudbranson for experience. Agreed. Educated risk needs to be exercised. Someone send GMJB Gladwells, "David and Goliath" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, mll said: or Vegas could just make the deal directly with Dallas. As it happens McKenzie says that Dallas has been talking to Vegas on Methot. I honestly think Dallas needs to move a goalie if they really are in "win now" mode like people say. If true, this could/should be leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHitman Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 22 minutes ago, Alflives said: We still have Edler and Gudbranson for experience. You can't be serious mentioning Gudbranson rn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Tanev is our best defenseman right now. He was a plus player on one of the very worst teams last year. Given the loss of Tryamkin and Sbisa, I'm all for keeping Tanev. He has next to no offense, but the quiet and effective job he does on the back end is gold, and that type of talent isn't easy to replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 19 minutes ago, Hoosierdaddy said: I honestly think Dallas needs to move a goalie if they really are in "win now" mode like people say. If true, this could/should be leverage. They have the green light to buy out a goalie..thats what Nill said if they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Honky Cat said: It won't happen....unless we are going to throw the whole of the upcoming season (and I don't think JB is prepared to do that),...Tanev will not be traded Throw? Don't get me wrong, moving Tanev isn't going to help us this season but we'd still have a capable if underwhelming D AND better futures for the rebuild. Something like Tanev to TBL for Koekkoek and 14th OA and you get: Edler, Stecher Hutton, Gudbranson Koekkoek, Mceneny/UFA Pedan, Biega Holm, Chatfield Brisebois, Suban etc. I'd be fine with that personally while adding Koekkoek and a good player at 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ice orca said: They have the green light to buy out a goalie..thats what Nill said if they have to. True ... but some money does still stay on the cap doesnt it? Full trade with no salary retention and they are clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Throw? Don't get me wrong, moving Tanev isn't going to help us this season but we'd still have a capable if underwhelming D AND better futures for the rebuild. Something like Tanev to TBL for Koekkoek and 14th OA and you get: Edler, Stecher Hutton, Gudbranson Koekkoek, Mceneny/UFA Pedan, Biega Holm, Chatfield Brisebois, Suban etc. I'd be fine with that personally while adding Koekkoek and a good player at 14. Honestly if the Canucks can get 14 its a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Throw? Don't get me wrong, moving Tanev isn't going to help us this season but we'd still have a capable if underwhelming D AND better futures for the rebuild. Something like Tanev to TBL for Koekkoek and 14th OA and you get: Edler, Stecher Hutton, Gudbranson Koekkoek, Mceneny/UFA Pedan, Biega Holm, Chatfield Brisebois, Suban etc. I'd be fine with that personally while adding Koekkoek and a good player at 14. So for Tampa it's basically 1st, 2nd, 4th, Gusev, Koekkek for Tanev and moving Garrison. Seems expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ice orca said: They have the green light to buy out a goalie..thats what Nill said if they have to. It's hard to believe 100% what any GM says. They would likely prefer to trade one of the nasty contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorvatToBaertschi Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 24 minutes ago, TheHitman said: You can't be serious mentioning Gudbranson rn. Why can't he be serious? Gudbranson is 25 and has played 6 nhl seasons, playing 20+ minutes in all situations, with highly touted leadership skills. He's a fricking gem. Its also easy to forget that we have 17 Mil in cap space when dmen like shattenkirk and alzner are UFA's. We can and should trade tanev. Just like we should have traded X amount of canucks before we lost them for less value, or nothing at all (see linden, naslund, morrison, ohlund, salo, etc...). This is a business and we need to start selling when the value is high and buying when low. This is what teams like chicago and pittsburgh do (bickell Saad Shaw hossa neal kessel bonino etc.....). If we don't trade him it won't bother me that much, but we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, Hoosierdaddy said: Honestly if the Canucks can get 14 its a win. Pretty much. I really wanted 3rd OA but it would likely cost us at least both 2nd round picks in addition to Tanev, maybe more. I think if we got 14th OA for Tanev and also got to keep all of our other picks, we would still have an amazing draft year. We could probably get a B prospect or 3rd round pick thrown in too. I think we would have to seriously consider it. If we wait until the deadline, we run a huge risk that Tanev gets injured again this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Pretty much. I really wanted 3rd OA but it would likely cost us at least both 2nd round picks in addition to Tanev, maybe more. I think if we got 14th OA for Tanev and also got to keep all of our other picks, we would still have an amazing draft year. We could probably get a B prospect or 3rd round pick thrown in too. I think we would have to seriously consider it. If we wait until the deadline, we run a huge risk that Tanev gets injured again this year. Agreed. Pittsburgh just won with Doumelin as their best D through the playoffs. Canucks can manage short term. Example, Schemklo for a 5th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancouvercanucks2010 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I don't see a point of trading Tanev, he is in his prime right now, which he would act as a veteran players to lead the new players. Furthermore, the return for him is not going to be great so I think it is better off if we keep him instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 37 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Pretty much. I really wanted 3rd OA but it would likely cost us at least both 2nd round picks in addition to Tanev, maybe more. I think if we got 14th OA for Tanev and also got to keep all of our other picks, we would still have an amazing draft year. We could probably get a B prospect or 3rd round pick thrown in too. I think we would have to seriously consider it. If we wait until the deadline, we run a huge risk that Tanev gets injured again this year. Benning sounded like there was little to no chance of trading Tanev on 1040 today, i wouldn't get my hopes up to high. Bob Mac also said the only real possibility would be maybe Tampa or Toronto and it would be slim. It seems to be a buyers market right now and you would be dealing off the back foot with Yzerman or Satan Lou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.