Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
Leafs as well....at least for Tanev, possibly Gudbranson.The Kings would likely have interest in either Tanev or Gudbranson.
Leafs as well....at least for Tanev, possibly Gudbranson.The Kings would likely have interest in either Tanev or Gudbranson.
Slapfight, winner take all?Leafs as well....at least for Tanev, possibly Gudbranson.
Trading Tanev=losing more=more lottery ballsPlease don't take this as bashing, it isn't....but why would a lottery team trade for Tanev?
Ok, sorry...i misunderstood what that meant.Trading Tanev=losing more=more lottery balls
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.Gonna be hilarious when he trades a 2nd round pick for Brett Connolly
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
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.
Tanev isn’t that old. Crippling the d like the other poster says just opens up so many other cans of wormsI 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
Who cares, still guarantees us a top pick, and possible firing of Benning, which is a bigger win than Dahlin.
The Kings would likely have interest in either Tanev or Gudbranson.
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?Gonna be hilarious when he trades a 2nd round pick for Brett Connolly
I friggin' love this post!!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”?
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.
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.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.
Trim the fat off that list please.
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
something is not like the rest
Well this is allready happening and Tanev is still with us..Id still keep Tanev tho...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.
No. We need a franchise player.We don’t need the 1st pick, all we need is a top 5 pick.
That’s crazy. I’d take Zacha and run for our old, injury prone, mistake prone, prone past Swedish defenseman.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