Speculation: Canucks Fire Sale

[Liferleafer]

The Kings would likely have interest in either Tanev or Gudbranson.

Leafs as well....at least for Tanev, possibly Gudbranson.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Leafs as well....at least for Tanev, possibly Gudbranson.

Slapfight, winner take all?

 

[Superlative Soup]

Please don't take this as bashing, it isn't....but why would a lottery team trade for Tanev?

Trading Tanev=losing more=more lottery balls

 

[Liferleafer]

Slapfight, winner take all?

You're on!!

 

[Liferleafer]

Trading Tanev=losing more=more lottery balls

Ok, sorry...i misunderstood what that meant.

 

[BROCK HUGHES]

Gonna be hilarious when he trades a 2nd round pick for Brett Connolly

We really need to stop trading for garbage project players.Think we just need to ride this out until the tdl then try to sell off the dead weight we have on this team.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Trading Tanev would CRIPPLE this franchise.

1) Trading Tanev means that Gudbranson and Stetcher move up into roles that are too difficult for them.....which leads to....

2) Our defense as a whole being terrible, which leads to Hutton's development being further stalled....which leads to

3) Markstrom and Nillson being lit up and losing confidence....which leads to our team getting destroyed game in game out....which leads to

4) Our young forwards losing confidence and inspiration even if Horvat and Baertschi return.

Trading Tanev is an absolute no-no. Canucks should be trying to add more RHD.

 

[Canucks1096]

Because Bo is the only player he can play with. Eventually he will be replaced and slide down the line up where he will become ineffective.

Canucks would be very wise to ditch him now for a asset instead of paying him and signing up for another 4-6 years

He has 5 ppg as well. Most of those goals without Horvat on the 2nd unit. Yeah but I agree at even strength he can only play with Horvat

 

[Liferleafer]

Trading Tanev would CRIPPLE this franchise.

1) Trading Tanev means that Gudbranson and Stetcher move up into roles that are too difficult for them.....which leads to....

2) Our defense as a whole being terrible, which leads to Hutton's development being further stalled....which leads to

3) Markstrom and Nillson being lit up and losing confidence....which leads to our team getting destroyed game in game out....which leads to

4) Our young forwards losing confidence and inspiration even if Horvat and Baertschi return.

Trading Tanev is an absolute no-no. Canucks should be trying to add more RHD.

I am not pushing for the Canucks to move Tanev, but there are so many factors here...the Sedins contracts are up this year, so what's the plan? Does Benning re-sign them them, or is it time to rebuild completely? If the idea is to keep the Sedins and compete, then i agree with you....but if the idea is to rebuild, then don't half ass it. Tanev has very good return value, you don't keep that to mentor during a rebuild, you take the assets and sign 1 year vets as mentors.

Again, if the idea is to actually rebuild, guys like Edler and Tanev should be on the table as they will bring back solid futures for the rebuild, guys like Horvat/Boeser/Hutton should be kept.

 

[steveat]

I really don't think you guys will have any problem with someone taking Vanek off of you. The Isles won't (personal) and I'm sure he's kicking himself for not signing the contract we offered.

Come TDL..watch offers come in. He's a PP specialist (now) and has elite hands. I haven't watched him play in a few years..has his defensive game gone down the toilet? I can't imagine a guy with 20-ish points and getting only 12-13 min a game

 

[Mergatroidskittle]

I am not pushing for the Canucks to move Tanev, but there are so many factors here...the Sedins contracts are up this year, so what's the plan? Does Benning re-sign them them, or is it time to rebuild completely? If the idea is to keep the Sedins and compete, then i agree with you....but if the idea is to rebuild, then don't half ass it. Tanev has very good return value, you don't keep that to mentor during a rebuild, you take the assets and sign 1 year vets as mentors.

Again, if the idea is to actually rebuild, guys like Edler and Tanev should be on the table as they will bring back solid futures for the rebuild, guys like Horvat/Boeser/Hutton should be kept.

Tanev isn’t that old. Crippling the d like the other poster says just opens up so many other cans of worms

 

[Liferleafer]

Tanev isn’t that old. Crippling the d like the other poster says just opens up so many other cans of worms

I agree, and again, my post was contingent upon Vancouver going full rebuild mode. If they do decide to do that, then i think they should deal Tanev, not because he's to old now, but because the return would be a nice kick start to said rebuild.

 

[WHISTLERNATE]

Who cares, still guarantees us a top pick, and possible firing of Benning, which is a bigger win than Dahlin.

I think they have to give Benning a few more years. He has completely rebuilt our prospect pool, and not only with high picks. He has also made some very solid trades for us. Every GM makes bad deals over the long run, it just seems like Benning's get magnified around here. The Canucks don't have much depth at this point in the rebuild and will drop significantly in the standings due to injury, but if they were playing some pretty good hockey for the first 25 games or so. I can see us being pretty solid next year or the year after that. A 5 year rebuild is not an easy thing to do.

 

[member 105785]

The Kings would likely have interest in either Tanev or Gudbranson.

Take Guds, we keep big T

 

[Scott Stevens]

Gonna be hilarious when he trades a 2nd round pick for Brett Connolly

Will it? Like maybe you’ll laugh so hard that you pee a little? Years later you randomly break into nonstop guffaws at the memory?

That “hilarious”?

 

[Liferleafer]

Will it? Like maybe you’ll laugh so hard that you pee a little? Years later you randomly break into nonstop guffaws at the memory?

That “hilarious”?

I friggin' love this post!!

 

[Horse McHindu]

Again, if the idea is to actually rebuild, guys like Edler and Tanev should be on the table as they will bring back solid futures for the rebuild, guys like Horvat/Boeser/Hutton should be kept.

It's that type of mediocre thinking that gets rebuilding teams into trouble.

Yes - prospect accumulation is important, but not when your depth in certain positions is so low that it forces the kids into roles that they are too green for and they end up getting smacked around (which is pretty much what would happen if the Canucks traded Tanev and Edler right now). Only move Edler and/or Tanev is some of the other younger guys on the team are proving to be better than them. Right now - that's not even close.

 

[Liferleafer]

It's that type of mediocre thinking that gets rebuilding teams into trouble.

Yes - prospect accumulation is important, but not when your depth in certain positions is so low that it forces the kids into roles that they are too green for and they end up getting smacked around (which is pretty much what would happen if the Canucks traded Tanev and Edler right now). Only move Edler and/or Tanev is some of the other younger guys on the team are proving to be better than them. Right now - that's not even close.

That's why you sign 1 year vets for the 1st couple years of your rebuild. Again, if the plan is to rebuild, then moving Tanev/Edler at the deadline for futures and a couple warm body Dmen in return will push your rebuild along much faster. Take it from a Leafs fan who used to think the same way about having a team that's less than good...it's a necessary evil unfortunately. You have to get out of the mindset of "if we lose Tanev, then we will be horrible the rest of the year", if you are rebuilding, being horrible is step 1. In my opinion, this is a good year to do it, the draft is deep with solid players....and especially Dmen.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Trim the fat off that list please.

so... Other than Tanev almost everything else?

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

so... Other than Tanev almost everything else?

I guess in a way yes and realistically it goes like this(imo):

Good interest
Tanev
Edler
Hutton
Some interest
Gudbranson
Baertschi
Vanek
Markstrom
Nilsson

Minimal A.K.A Dirt Cheap/What are you giving ME for that player ?

Gagner
Eriksson
Sutter
Burmistrov
Granlund

 

[Canuck Luck]

I guess in a way yes and realistically it goes like this(imo):

Good interest
Tanev
Edler
Hutton
Some interest
Gudbranson
Baertschi
Vanek
Markstrom
Nilsson

Minimal A.K.A Dirt Cheap/What are you giving ME for that player ?

Gagner
Eriksson
Sutter
Burmistrov
Granlund

something is not like the rest

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

something is not like the rest

I'm saying that they won't get much. Burmistrov and Granlund would get pretty minimal assets in return/if at all thus they're in the same category as the other three. Most teams have a Burmistrov/a Granlund.

 

[BROCK HUGHES]

Trading Tanev would CRIPPLE this franchise.

1) Trading Tanev means that Gudbranson and Stetcher move up into roles that are too difficult for them.....which leads to....

2) Our defense as a whole being terrible, which leads to Hutton's development being further stalled....which leads to

3) Markstrom and Nillson being lit up and losing confidence....which leads to our team getting destroyed game in game out....which leads to

4) Our young forwards losing confidence and inspiration even if Horvat and Baertschi return.

Trading Tanev is an absolute no-no. Canucks should be trying to add more RHD.

Well this is allready happening and Tanev is still with us..Id still keep Tanev tho...

 

[Tryamkin]

We don’t need the 1st pick, all we need is a top 5 pick.

No. We need a franchise player.

 

[Tryamkin]

Njd would have to add ..Zacha would probably be our 4C when everyone is healthy.

However its best offer right now so ill put it up

That’s crazy. I’d take Zacha and run for our old, injury prone, mistake prone, prone past Swedish defenseman.