Proposal: Leafs - Canucks

[clunk]

Pssst..........hey Vancouver..........there's a REASON that your team is so crap these days.

Your players aren't that good.

You won't be getting as much as you dream about for them.

Sounds about right.

Rather we get good value for our players that actually hold it, though.

 

[Liferleafer]

Pssst..........hey Vancouver..........there's a REASON that your team is so crap these days.

Your players aren't that good.

You won't be getting as much as you dream about for them.

Tanev has been excellent so far this season...

 

[Tryblot]

much more mobile and much better hands than emelin has ever had.

Settle down, zeke.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

"Middling/mediocre" sooo you agree. Not lowballing but not offering the moon. A self interested version of fair that isn't calculated to excite, but is all that really can be expected from a fan board.

Lol how dare people hold value in a 23 yr old NHL rhd with top 4 potential. If the shoe was on the other foot and your "fellow" fans were complaining that a 1st+Nhl ready former 1st round ppg at in ahl @ 20 + 23 year old proven NHL rhd was "not even close" to getting Gardiner you'd be right in there with the patronizing comment about overvaluing Leaf assets.

I was being somewhat generous by saying Middling/mediocre. There's plenty of lowball offers. I have no idea what you said. That's OK (for me). If we think so highly about Carrick, why is he is so many trade proposals?

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Could you please define what you mean by that, and maybe give some examples? Because this mantra is an largely just an HF boards cliche. Next to no precedent in recent reality.

I can. It's not that hard. It means that several (multiple) lesser assets are offered for a player that is much better than any & all of the multiple assets being offered. When it comes to top-4 defenders, there are no examples because GMs don't do those kind of deals.

 

[4thline]

I can. It's not that hard. It means that several (multiple) lesser assets are offered for a player that is much better than any & all of the multiple assets being offered. When it comes to top-4 defenders, there are no examples because GMs don't do those kind of deals.

Find me 3 examples of prime age support players with less than 3 years to UFA being traded for "one big piece" (a core asset with 5 or more years of team control). Those are the "kinds of deals that don't happen". Hockey trades for players of comparable value and contract status -perhaps horting on one to gain on the other- sure. Packages on the other hand happen every year. "Quality not quantity" was born in response to EA style offers akin to Marincin+Soshnikov+Timashov+Valiev+2nd, and has morphed into a justification for wanting things without precedent.

If we think so highly about Carrick, why is he is so many trade proposals?

Lol the circular logic of the contrarian."You have to give to get" --> "Well if you're willing to give it it simply can't be valuable". That Carrick would b e blocked and made expendable by the acquisition of an older better rhd is pretty simple to understand, and does not lessen his value.

It's like a segment of HF has adopted this lens of socialist vindictiveness/masochism (depending on your perspective) where a trade "has to hurt" and that anything deemed expendable is valueless, which is silly and ignores the simple truth that some teams are richer in assets (whether at a specific position or across the board) than others. Kinda renders whole sub board moot. Anything that any fan of any team is willing to offer is worthless. Bam. That was fun, let's close the trade board.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Maybe the other two have more value but I'd only trade Borgman for Tanev.

Hilarious how much you guys expect when Hamilton and Hamonic have both gone for values near a 1st and a 2nd, it'll be fun to see the disappointment

And those trades looked bad for the team trading those defensman both times Everyone laughed at Boston for making that trade and everyone knows its still awful. Just because other defenseman got underwhelming offers doesn't mean we should trade our defensman for the same. We'll gladly hold on to our top pairing defenseman...

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Find me 3 examples of ......

Let's go back to OP and confirm we are talking about the same thing. Assuming we are talking about "actual trades" for top-4 defenders, here are some examples:

1. Larsson/Hall
2. Jones/Johansen
3. Hamonic/1st and two 2nds.

Even a top defender prospect like Sergachev landed Drouin, one of the better young NHL forwards.

None of the above involved:

• Bottom pairing defender i.e., Carrick
• AHL prospect e.g. Rychel
• Collection of lesser assets
• One-year rental i.e., JVR

I assume actual NHL trades would be valid/good/better to look at than enigmatic theories, and nation trade proposals. I felt it was important to include my 1st sentence to set up the framework because your posts are confusing (not easy to figure out what point you are trying to make).

 

[HarryLime]

Tanev was a major influence on Bobby Orr

 

[Holymakinaw]

Let's go back to OP and confirm we are talking about the same thing. Assuming we are talking about "actual trades" for top-4 defenders, here are some examples:

1. Larsson/Hall
2. Jones/Johansen
3. Hamonic/1st and two 2nds.

Even a top defender prospect like Sergachev landed Drouin, one of the better young NHL forwards.

None of the above involved:

• Bottom pairing defender i.e., Carrick
• AHL prospect e.g. Rychel
• Collection of lesser assets
• One-year rental i.e., JVR

I assume actual NHL trades would be valid/good/better to look at than enigmatic theories, and nation trade proposals. I felt it was important to include my 1st sentence to set up the framework because your posts are confusing (not easy to figure out what point you are trying to make).

Wait.........are you actually trying to compare Tanev to any of Larsson, Jones and Hamonic?

LMAO!!!

 

[HoweHullOrr]

LMAO!! Let's not change the topic or put words in my mouth. The topic (clearly stated in the 2nd sentence) is "top 4" defenders and all of the examples I listed are top 4. Personally, I think Jones is the best of the lot, however that was not the topic.

 

[Liferleafer]

Wait.........are you actually trying to compare Tanev to any of Larsson, Jones and Hamonic?

LMAO!!!

For me....Larsson=Tanev...although Larsson's offence probably tips the scales his way.

Hamonic<<Tanev

Jones>>>Tanev

 

[HoweHullOrr]

For me....Larsson=Tanev...although Larsson's offence probably tips the scales his way.

Hamonic<<Tanev

Jones>>>Tanev

I think Jones is the best of the lot, and Hamonic is 2nd pairing. But, let's get back to the actual topic (the OP). As stated, "none" of those actual trades for a top-4 defender involved:

• A bottom pairing defender i.e., Carrick
• AHL prospect e.g. Rychel
• Collection of lesser assets
• One-year rental i.e., JVR

Although the OP involved all of those elements, mysteriously we/some seem to prefer these theories versus the actual NHL trades.

 

[Liferleafer]

I think Jones is the best of the lot, and Hamonic is 2nd pairing. But, let's get back to the actual topic (the OP). As stated, "none" of those actual trades for a top-4 defender involved:

• A bottom pairing defender i.e., Carrick
• AHL prospect e.g. Rychel
• Collection of lesser assets
• One-year rental i.e., JVR

Although the OP involved all of those elements, mysteriously we/some seem to prefer these theories versus the actual NHL trades.

For me, the deal would be Kap+2nd+Carrick. Carrick is only there because he gets bumped by Tanev, and Van would have a hole.

Not saying i endorse it, or that Van would accept, but Tanev's injury history and lack of offence will/should be a factor. If Van denands that the 2nd be a 1st, then they could add something as well.

 

[GoodbyeLuongo]

Pssst..........hey Vancouver..........there's a REASON that your team is so crap these days.

Your players aren't that good.

You won't be getting as much as you dream about for them.

Yeah we're not good. Doesn't mean our entire team is terrible. And yes as Lifer said, Tanev has been terrific.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

For me, the deal would be Kap+2nd+Carrick. Carrick is only there because he gets bumped by Tanev, and Van would have a hole.

Not saying i endorse it, or that Van would accept, but Tanev's injury history and lack of offence will/should be a factor. If Van denands that the 2nd be a 1st, then they could add something as well.

The Tanev that I've seen recently was not showing a lack of offense. He was definitely carrying the puck out of his zone in to the offensive zone with some speed and skill. But, take that as an aside mostly.

I would like the deal you proposed from the Leafs perspective but I'd have to wonder if Vancouver could do better elsewhere, or if they'd do it if that were the deal.

 

[Liferleafer]

The Tanev that I've seen recently was not showing a lack of offense. He was definitely carrying the puck out of his zone in to the offensive zone with some speed and skill. But, take that as an aside mostly.

I would like the deal you proposed from the Leafs perspective but I'd have to wonder if Vancouver could do better elsewhere, or if they'd do it if that were the deal.

It would be a decent base i think, as i said....it could be Kap+1st+Carrick for Tanev+something small. I just don't see any team giving up a stud young player in a 1 for 1 deal as has been suggested in here. And no, Van doesn't have to deal him....

 

[4thline]

Let's go back to OP and confirm we are talking about the same thing. Assuming we are talking about "actual trades" for top-4 defenders, here are some examples:

1. Larsson/Hall
2. Jones/Johansen
3. Hamonic/1st and two 2nds.

.

Larsson/Hall- like for like. 24 year old top line wing with 4 years of team control for 23 yearold 2/3D with 5 years of team control.
Jones/ Johansen- like for like . 21 year old top 4 D with top pair potential in last elc year for 23 year old emerging 1C in second non elc year
Hamonic- 27 year old top 4 D seasons from UFA for package of lesser futures.

Of your three examples two are non-applicable based on contract status/ asset type, and one was contrary to your point. Still waiting for three examples (I'd be impressed by one really) of a player like Tanev (27 yearold 2-3 , in his 3rd season before UFA) returning 1 big young piece. That's all I'm really saying, that a 1st+Kapanen+ Carrick is a reasonable offer, and that the "that's not even close" and "1 big young piece" are not realistic

 

[Ace of Hades]

This is fair value for Tanev. Canucks fans want the moon for him and thats understandable but realistically a mid to late first (JVRs rental value), 2nd, and B level (NHL ready) prospect is a solid return for a really good 1 dimensional defensive dman with some health concerns.

Tanev isn't even that one dimensional. His breakout outlet passes is pretty damn solid, and is developing into a solid shot with 2 goals already and a post . Most of his so called injury concerns have been freak injuries.

Pssst..........hey Vancouver..........there's a REASON that your team is so crap these days.

Your players aren't that good.

You won't be getting as much as you dream about for them.

A crap team can still have good players. Not a hard concept to follow.

Your logic is outstanding really. Just as outstanding as that avi of yours.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Still waiting for three examples ...

What would be the point? I gave you three applicable/relevant actual top-4 defender trade examples already.

In summary, all three examples did involve a top 4 defender, but none involved a "package" like the one stated in the OP that you claim is common.

Let's call this a role reversal from the perspective of who needs to provide examples. Your the one using the theory that a package of lesser assets lands a top 4 defender. I'm wasting time here, so I'm out.

 

[Ace of Hades]

Wait.........are you actually trying to compare Tanev to any of Larsson, Jones and Hamonic?

LMAO!!!

This is an uneducated post. Learn to be objective about players rather than post stupidity.

Tanev is > Hamonic and Larsson.

 

[Cquant]

Larsson/Hall- like for like. 24 year old top line wing with 4 years of team control for 23 yearold 2/3D with 5 years of team control.
Jones/ Johansen- like for like . 21 year old top 4 D with top pair potential in last elc year for 23 year old emerging 1C in second non elc year
Hamonic- 27 year old top 4 D seasons from UFA for package of lesser futures.

Of your three examples two are non-applicable based on contract status/ asset type, and one was contrary to your point. Still waiting for three examples (I'd be impressed by one really) of a player like Tanev (27 yearold 2-3 , in his 3rd season before UFA) returning 1 big young piece. That's all I'm really saying, that a 1st+Kapanen+ Carrick is a reasonable offer, and that the "that's not even close" and "1 big young piece" are not realistic

The difference between Larsson and Tanev isn't that huge. Tanev isn't that old, he still has many years of play left. But I thought I'd look around for trades on non-expiring contracts and honestly (i didn't go back that far) but I didn't find much. But a couple of blasts to the past, things I found interesting - not necessarily examples that can be related to Tanev:

o 2012/2013: Bouwmeester for Cundari, Berra, Cond 1st, Cond 4th.
o 2012/2011: Burns + 2nd for Setoguchi, Coyle and a 1st (28th)
o 2011/2012: Turris for Rundblad + 2nd
0 2011/2012: Zidlicky for Foster, Palmiere, Veilleux, 2nd and Cond 3rd.

Any trade involving Tanev is going to be difficult, because it's going to be mostly unprecedented. A trade will most likely be very close to the Hamilton and Hamonic deals. Something like a 1st and a 2nd.
I'm happy with a 1st and a 2nd coming back, but the 1st has to be at a suitable spot. Anywhere around the 20 mark is good, but too far back would be bad asset management. But since you can never guarantee the spot and since Tanev will most likely make you a better team, I'd ask for some assurance.
Kapanen isn't a need and not a very attractive piece to a D and C lacking prospect pool. I just wouldn't target him.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

It's time for the Leafs to add Tanev.
We become more respectable with;
Gardiner-Zeitsev
Rielly-Tanev
Hainsey-Carrick/Borgmann

--
Marincin (help with the tank) + Kapanen (NHL ready) + 2nd(SJ [looking good]) + 2nd (2019)
--
NSH: JvR
VAN: Fabbro + 2nd(SJ)
TOR: Tanev

 

[4thline]

What would be the point? I gave you three applicable/relevant actual top-4 defender trade examples already.

In summary, all three examples did involve a top 4 defender, but none involved a "package" like the one stated in the OP that you claim is common.

Let's call this a role reversal from the perspective of who needs to provide examples. Your the one using the theory that a package of lesser assets lands a top 4 defender. I'm wasting time here, so I'm out.

Lol, two were not at all applicable due to the age and contract status of players involved.You can't ignore those aspects of a trade. The one that was (Hamonic) was a 1st+ 2x 2nds, that's package of lesser assets (and arguably a weaker package). Hamilton- ditto. Yandle with one less year- 1st+2nd+young bottom pair dman + prospect. Pronger x2, albeit on a far larger scale as befitting his being a much more valuable player. Methot- prospect+2nd. Hjalmarsson- younger lesser dman (but with more team control) + prospect Theory indeed.

 

[Ace of Hades]

It's time for the Leafs to add Tanev.
We become more respectable with;
Gardiner-Zeitsev
Rielly-Tanev
Hainsey-Carrick/Borgmann

--
Marincin (help with the tank) + Kapanen (NHL ready) + 2nd(SJ [looking good]) + 2nd (2019)
--
NSH: JvR
VAN: Fabbro + 2nd(SJ)
TOR: Tanev

Canucks pass.