aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 To ARZ: Tanev with $1-2m retained (let's say $1.5) for their 7th OA and preferably Dvorak (if not Strome). Maybe we swap our CBJ 2nd and there's as well. The cap retention and 2nd rounders could be fiddled with to get the deal done. ARZ gets a much needed top 4 RHD for CHEAP ($2.95m with retention) and Dvorak will be coming off his ELC after this coming season with them having plenty of upcoming C depth. All of the above addressing their very real financial issues and making them an overall far more competitive team. Their GM's also an analytics guru/Tanev an analytics darling. We draft Glass at 5 and whoever's left/best of Liljegrin/Makar/Necas/Petterson at 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortankin Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Tanev retires... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuck1991 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, J.R. said: To ARZ: Tanev with $1-2m retained (let's say $1.5) for their 7th OA and preferably Dvorak (if not Strome). Maybe we swap our CBJ 2nd and there's as well. The cap retention and 2nd rounders could be fiddled with to get the deal done. ARZ gets a much needed top 4 RHD for CHEAP ($2.95m with retention) and Dvorak will be coming off his ELC after this coming season with them having plenty of upcoming C depth. All of the above addressing their very real financial issues and making them an overall far more competitive team. Their GM's also an analytics guru/Tanev an analytics darling. We draft Glass at 5 and whoever's left/best of Liljegrin/Makar/Necas/Petterson at 7. BULL SH** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory_Days Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 So Tanev for 7th pick and one of Dvorak/Strome? No way they do that, why do they even want Tanev? They're years away from being a contender, going to groom their young ones. That's like saying Anaheim will trade us Lindholm for our 5th and Boeser, sounds like a horrible deal for us and Lindolm is several years younger then Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 No to retaining for 3 years. One assigned retention slot is used up by Luongo till he decides to hang it up. A second one is used on Hansen which should expire next summer. I don't like the idea of not having a retention slot for next deadline and only have 1 of them available for the next three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Glory_Days said: So Tanev for 7th pick and one of Dvorak/Strome? No way they do that, why do they even want Tanev? They're years away from being a contender, going to groom their young ones. That's like saying Anaheim we'll trade us Lindholm for our 5th and Boeser Because they need to sell tickets (by winnning games) while keeping costs under control. A $2.95m Tanev and plenty of C depth to cover the loss of Dvorak does that. It's not about 'contending', they're in desperate need for a top 4, right side D (Tanev) to be competitive., And FYI, Tanev's only 1 year older than OEL. They've got a bunch of guys on or coming on ELC's and bridge contracts. This their time to make a push at, at least appearing competitive and making the playoffs. Not only as a hockey team but as a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, J.R. said: To ARZ: Tanev with $1-2m retained (let's say $1.5) for their 7th OA and preferably Dvorak (if not Strome). Maybe we swap our CBJ 2nd and there's as well. The cap retention and 2nd rounders could be fiddled with to get the deal done. ARZ gets a much needed top 4 RHD for CHEAP ($2.95m with retention) and Dvorak will be coming off his ELC after this coming season with them having plenty of upcoming C depth. All of the above addressing their very real financial issues and making them an overall far more competitive team. Their GM's also an analytics guru/Tanev an analytics darling. We draft Glass at 5 and whoever's left/best of Liljegrin/Makar/Necas/Petterson at 7. The only difference here is the retention on the contract which might actually be enticing to them. Since Dallas is reportedly out of the mix we're looking at a pick between 7-14 IMO for Tanev and I'd be perfectly fine sending him to Arizona the same way Dallas shafted us in the Hamhuis/Russel saga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Toews said: No to retaining for 3 years. One assigned retention slot is used up by Luongo till he decides to hang it up. A second one is used on Hansen which should expire next summer. I don't like the idea of not having a retention slot for next deadline and only have 1 of them available for the next three years. If it accomplishes us adding Dvorak and another top prospect....I'd do it. The alternative would be to take a bad contract back...which they don't really have. Goligoski's probably the closest thing on their roster and he's not what I'd consider a 'bad contract'. We could take back bad contracts from those TDL teams though instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuman491 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, J.R. said: To ARZ: Tanev with $1-2m retained (let's say $1.5) for their 7th OA and preferably Dvorak (if not Strome). Maybe we swap our CBJ 2nd and there's as well. The cap retention and 2nd rounders could be fiddled with to get the deal done. ARZ gets a much needed top 4 RHD for CHEAP ($2.95m with retention) and Dvorak will be coming off his ELC after this coming season with them having plenty of upcoming C depth. All of the above addressing their very real financial issues and making them an overall far more competitive team. Their GM's also an analytics guru/Tanev an analytics darling. We draft Glass at 5 and whoever's left/best of Liljegrin/Makar/Necas/Petterson at 7. Just curious as to why we need to retain salary? It seems like Arizona has a lot of cap space to play with. I agree with you that Tanev would really help Arizona and that their GM would like analytics darling like him. I agree we should get more than just he 7OA pick. I don't think we could get Dvorak though. I think Arizona would be more willing to part with Strome. I think we would have to throw in a pick to balance it out. Maybe a 3rd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 1 minute ago, stuman491 said: Just curious as to why we need to retain salary? It seems like Arizona has a lot of cap space to play with. I agree with you that Tanev would really help Arizona and that their GM would like analytics darling like him. I agree we should get more than just he 7OA pick. I don't think we could get Dvorak though. I think Arizona would be more willing to part with Strome. I think we would have to throw in a pick to balance it out. Maybe a 3rd round pick. They have no cash. I think they'd be open to Dvorak because Strome has an extra year on his ELC and Dvorak's expires this year meaning he's due a raise. See: above point regarding cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuman491 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: They have no cash. I think they'd be open to Dvorak because Strome has an extra year on his ELC and Dvorak's expires this year meaning he's due a raise. See: above point regarding cash. Just read your post above. That makes sense then. I'm on board. I'd love to have a guy like Dvorak on our roster. He would have been our 5th leading scorer last year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I'd settle with Tanev (no retention) for the 7th overall + Merkley but why are we so worried about filling every hole this draft? We have multiple years to build and acquire assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 Just now, stuman491 said: Just read your post above. That makes sense then. I'm on board. I'd love to have a guy like Dvorak on our roster. He would have been our 5th leading scorer last year! Baer, Horvat, Eriksson Sedin, Sedin, Granlund Rodin, Dvorak, Boeser (sheltered, ozone line) Gaunce, Sutter, Dorsett (matchup dzone line) Crammarosa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: I'd settle with Tanev (no retention) for the 7th overall + Merkley but why are we so worried about filling every hole this draft? We have multiple years to build and acquire assets. Merkley with no retention could work too though I think ARZ would be more inclined if they could get Tanev for under $3.5m-$4m. But yeah, Merkley'd be fine too Who said I was worried? With the ED gobbling up Dmen, poor UFA market for D, Tanev healthy and no NTC yet etc... I simply don't see when he'll have more value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Could see Arizona tempted to give up the 7th for Tanev (with money retained) but do not see them offering up a prospect as well. Canucks may have to eat a cap dump as well to get this done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: Merkley with no retention could work too though I think ARZ would be more inclined if they could get Tanev for under $3.5m-$4m. But yeah, Merkley'd be fine too Who said I was worried? With the ED gobbling up Dmen, poor UFA market for D, Tanev healthy and no NTC yet etc... I simply don't see when he'll have more value. I don't think Tanev's value is going to drop to much anytime soon, sure his NTC kicks in but he's a valued player. I think next year our goal should be to land a top offensive defense men, and as it stands right now, Tanev is our best trading piece to help make that come to fruition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said: I don't think Tanev's value is going to drop to much anytime soon, sure his NTC kicks in but he's a valued player. I think next year our goal should be to land a top offensive defense men, and as it stands right now, Tanev is our best trading piece to help make that come to fruition NTC = less market competition = lower value. No ED = no artificially inflated D market = lower value. Risk of injury = potentially lower value. Haven't even looked at the 2018 UFA D class but I can't imagine it's worse = potentially lower value. Have to disagree with that assessment Forsy. Our best chance at that offensive D next year will be our (presumably high) 1st round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 This deal would be heavily weighted in our favour, but the salary retention evens it out quite a bit. I'd say on paper it's a fairly even deal for both teams. I'd consider giving it a shot if we were to trade Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 i'd do this hands down in a heart beat. I love Tanman, but his durability scares me to wait til the trade deadline or next summer to move him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: NTC = less market competition = lower value. No ED = no artificially inflated D market = lower value. Risk of injury = potentially lower value. Haven't even looked at the 2018 UFA D class but I can't imagine it's worse = potentially lower value. Have to disagree with that assessment Forsy. Our best chance at that offensive D next year will be our (presumably high) 1st round pick. Did you just state assumption as fact? Two can play that game. Tanev has another solid year = value increased 4 contending teams at TD have injuries to D = value increased As it stands today, the ED has done nothing but hurt Tanev's value as VGK has said they are open for business. = next year has higher value http://www.tsn.ca/golden-knights-leafs-in-trade-talks-as-deadline-nears-1.784337 UFA market always stays relatively the same every year. Next year will likely be no different. = same value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.