Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Proposal] Moving Markstrom and Tanev for picks and/or prospects


Recommended Posts

[proposal] Moving Markstrom and Tanev for picks and/or prospects
 

I don’t want people to think that I’m making this post in light of our loss earlier today.   The Canucks are obviously competing for a playoff spot this year and are likely to make the playoffs at this point, but is there something to be said about accumulating draft picks and not dishing out long term contracts to players that are at or near 30 years of age?   
 

Markstrom is a legit Vezina candidate this year and should be able to land a 1st rounder at minimum, or even an elite prospect of some kind.   Tanev could probably net a low 1st rounder as well.  
 

Would I personally trade Markstrom and Tanev?  Probably not.  I’m definitely in the “sign both of them” camp, but the other side of the coin is quite compelling as well.  

  • Wat 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea if the Canucks are consistent contenders and you need to constantly refresh/reload.  

But the Canucks aren't there yet.  

 

They have a few pieces in the pipeline, thus it's not a bad idea to take some "economic" loss now to figure out exactly how they will perform in the post-season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, qwijibo said:

Canucks are 2nd in the division. Granted it’s a close race and a losing skid could see them on the outside looking in. But they won’t be selling important roster players for futures when the playoffs are in their sights 

but what about those shiny draft picks?

aren't those appealing

better then actual players we currently have ?

 

they are a chance of getting better players in the future

that is why we all are fans, because tomorrow (the future) will always be better

who cares about today

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal] Moving Markstrom and Tanev for picks and/or prospects
 

I don’t want people to think that I’m making this post in light of our loss earlier today.   The Canucks are obviously competing for a playoff spot this year and are likely to make the playoffs at this point, but is there something to be said about accumulating draft picks and not dishing out long term contracts to players that are at or near 30 years of age?   
 

Markstrom is a legit Vezina candidate this year and should be able to land a 1st rounder at minimum, or even an elite prospect of some kind.   Tanev could probably net a low 1st rounder as well.  
 

Would I personally trade Markstrom and Tanev?  Probably not.  I’m definitely in the “sign both of them” camp, but the other side of the coin is quite compelling as well.  

So, you want to have a knee jerk reaction to a one off game and gut our team of its chances to make an impact in the playoffs, to gamble and pull a, OHHHHH, Shiny NEW DRAFT PICK? 

 

Some fans think it would be an awesome idea if we stay permanently in rebuild mode and never compete.

 

When we traded for Miller last summer, it was signaling to Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat and Boeser, that we are moving out of rebuild and into compete and win now mode. It was a show of faith that we believe in them and that we will support them and surround them with the guys who will help them compete, and you want to just throw that away from one off game from a team that's missing a LOT of its regular guys.

 

Amazes me.

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

so.... no playoffs then? re-tool for 2024? I don't really get moving Marky, who would you go get on the market thats better?

Not necessarily.   I was thinking something along the lines of this:

 

-1st or an elite prospect + “1A goalie” for Markstrom

-low 1st for Tanev

-3rd for Simmonds

-we help break Tryamkin’s contract when his season finishes and we bring him back over here immediately.

 

New roster:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Virtanen

Roussel-Gaudette-Simmonds

Motte-Beagle-Sutter

 

Edler-Stecher
Hughes-Tryamkin

Fantenberg-Myers

 

Demko

1A goalie

 

End result:

 

1) Canucks still likely make the playoffs with the above line-up (and get much needed playoff experience for their young core).

2) Canucks clear massive long term cap space and would have more than enough to sign Pettersson, Hughes, Virtanen, Stecher, and Leivo long term.

3) The Canucks get more prospects in their pipeline.

 

Having Markstrom and Tanev is nice, but we also can’t forget where they are with respect to their age and careers.   The Canucks need to have a mindful eye for both the short term and long term.   How many good years does Tanev have left?  Do we want Markstrom for 4-5 more “good” years, or Demko for the next 10-12?

 

Again, I re-iterate the following:

 

1) My post isn’t a lame reactionary post to our loss earlier tonight (as I stated in my original post).

2) I likely wouldn’t go this route as I’d be far more inclined to hold onto Marky and Tanev.

 

 

 

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Not necessarily.   I was thinking something along the lines of this:

 

-1st or an elite prospect + “1A goalie” for Markstrom

-low 1st for Tanev

-3rd for Simmonds

-we help break Tryamkin’s contract when his season finishes and we bring him back over here immediately.

 

New roster:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Virtanen

Roussel-Gaudette-Simmonds

Motte-Beagle-Sutter

 

Edler-Stecher
Hughes-Tryamkin

Fantenberg-Myers

 

Demko

1A goalie

 

End result:

 

1) Canucks still likely make the playoffs with the above line-up (and get much needed playoff experience for their young core).

2) Canucks clear massive long term cap space and would have more than enough to sign Pettersson, Hughes, Virtanen, Stecher, and Leivo long term.

3) The Canucks get more prospects in their pipeline.

 

Again, I re-iterate the following:

 

1) My post isn’t a lame reactionary post to our loss earlier tonight (as I stated in my original post).

2) I likely wouldn’t go this route as I’d be far more inclined to hold onto Marky and Tanev.

 

 

 

I'm OK with the idea of moving Tanev high - it looks like it could be a sellers market. Or NJ just knows how to sell high. Its so hard to know whats really going on among the GMs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm OK with the idea of moving Tanev high - it looks like it could be a sellers market. Or NJ just knows how to sell high. Its so hard to know whats really going on among the GMs. 

I’d love to see JB sell off Tanev and Sutter.  There is zero chance he does though.  JB is all in on making the playoffs this year.  He’s wrong IMO.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm OK with the idea of moving Tanev high - it looks like it could be a sellers market. Or NJ just knows how to sell high. Its so hard to know whats really going on among the GMs. 

And seriously - if we were able to move Tanev for a 1st AND bring back Tree this year (contract break), couldn’t we agree that this would be a BIG gain for us long term, while only a very minor loss in the short term?

 

Same thing with moving Marky (for what I imagine what would be a huge return).   Moving Marky for an elite prospect or a mid to high 1st rounder + a “1A goalie” would be a BIG gain in the long term, while only resulting in a minimal loss short term (Markstrom is awesome obviously, but Demko is no spring chicken either.   This kid is the goods).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to know how to destroy team morale for several years.... this is how you destroy team morale for several years.

 

Why the heck would anyone ever give effort for the team if they knew that success would mean pulling the rug out from under them and sell off pieces.

 

Players don’t have a lot of chances to make the playoffs or win a Cup.  Stealing one from them by making us worse would create a stunning level of apathy.

 

Don't sugar coat it, replacing a Vezina calibre goalie and our best defensive D... and replacing them with an untested goalie and a KHL player who we can’t even try to get under contract for a month... that is making us much worse.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

And seriously - if we were able to move Tanev for a 1st AND bring back Tree this year (contract break), couldn’t we agree that this would be a BIG gain for us long term, while only a very minor loss in the short term?

 

Same thing with moving Marky (for what I imagine what would be a huge return).   Moving Marky for an elite prospect or a mid to high 1st rounder + a “1A goalie” would be a BIG gain in the long term, while only resulting in a minimal loss short term (Markstrom is awesome obviously, but Demko is no spring chicken either.   This kid is the goods).

I’d move Tanev and Sutter, but no way would I move Marky.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT trading our All-Star goalie for a 1st when the core needs to learn to win together.  

Demko's also not yet good enough on a consistent basis to be the guy in net.

Add removing Tanev to the equation and we'd really be hemorrhaging chances against. 
If anything, we need to add guys who aren't that expensive to the current group (add some affordable solid defenders and forward grit) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you want trade marky  ,  a guy that just set a canucks record for saves in a shutout  for a 1a goalie  , are you serious ?  lol and then mention needing room for stecher and leivo  , those 2 are more likely to be moved than marky and tanev  

Edited by the grinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...