Roster and Fantasy GM Thread: Pre-Draft Silly Season

[clunk]

We should try to sign Maxim Lapierre, Linden Vey, Andrew Ebbett, Derek Roy, Mason Raymond, and Gragnini. I bet you they make us a more competitive team

I'd take Lappy back over most of the trash on this team, tbh.

 

[ginner classic]

For as bad as people want to trade Guddy,,just remember how bad the rest of the garbage that will b left playing defence.And our best one is injury riddled and brittle.All of this falls on Benning.We need to be looking at moving all of them not just point fingers at 1 and say he is the worst.

Except he is the worst. You can make a pretty strong case that taking him out of the lineup improves our team.

 

[BROCK HUGHES]

Except he is the worst. You can make a pretty strong case that taking him out of the lineup improves our team.

Thanks for pointing that out,,,im saying they all suck,,not just him.

 

[Nuckles]

Mike Halford wrote a piece about trading Tanev on the athletic, and something funny caught my eye.

Why the time is right for the Canucks to shop Chris Tanev (paywall)

TSN analyst Mike Johnson came on our show Thursday and suggested the assets would be significant.

“He would get great value. There would be large demand for Chris Tanev and his services around the NHL, that's for sure,” Johnson said. “He's a first-rounder [in return]. From a good team that's going to pick 28th or 29th, at the bottom of the first round? I think so.

“Or maybe not the best prospect, but the third or fourth best prospect in an organization.”

That high bar was first established in June, when Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman laid out the following after a few teams inquired about prying Tanev out of Vancouver.

“The one thing I've heard is other GMs who say they've reached out to Vancouver have been told this is no guarantee and if Chris Tanev is going anywhere, the price is going to be very high for him,” Friedman said. “He's got three more years under contract. He's a good player at a good price.
“I don't think Vancouver is looking to do this unless it's a great deal.”

A very late 1st and a good (not great) prospect..."significant"

 

[ginner classic]

Mike Halford wrote a piece about trading Tanev on the athletic, and something funny caught my eye.

Why the time is right for the Canucks to shop Chris Tanev (paywall)


A very late 1st and a good (not great) prospect..."significant"

Toronto media. Figures.

Hamonic deal sets the expectation. Injuries or not. Tanev is better than Hamonic. Would not even entertain moving him unless it was a mid first +. It makes no sense. a 50/50 shot of landing a regular NHL player four years from now for a rhd in his prime that is a posession monster. They can **** off.

 

[Nuckles]

Toronto media. Figures.

Hamonic deal sets the expectation. Injuries or not. Tanev is better than Hamonic. Would not even entertain moving him unless it was a mid first +. It makes no sense. a 50/50 shot of landing a regular NHL player four years from now for a rhd in his prime that is a posession monster. They can **** off.

What people seem to ignore when they bring up Hamonic is that he has also missed a decent number of games in the past four seasons.

I've said this a million times already, don't trade him for quantity. Teams that trade for quantity usually end up with very little in the end. You need to get a very high-end piece in return for him, and I'm not talking about a mid 1st round pick.

 

[Soups On]

What people seem to ignore when they bring up Hamonic is that he has also missed a decent number of games in the past four seasons.

I've said this a million times already, don't trade him for quantity. Teams that trade for quantity usually end up with very little in the end. You need to get a very high-end piece in return for him, and I'm not talking about a mid 1st round pick.

The Canucks are an excellent example. Who does this team have to show for that Kesler trade?

 

[Addison Rae]

What people seem to ignore when they bring up Hamonic is that he has also missed a decent number of games in the past four seasons.

I've said this a million times already, don't trade him for quantity. Teams that trade for quantity usually end up with very little in the end. You need to get a very high-end piece in return for him, and I'm not talking about a mid 1st round pick.

Yup, spot on. If a team like LA wants him I want Vilardi, enought with these bogus 1st + mid tier prospect proposals that usually result in junk for the team trading away the good piece. Also enough with Kasperi Kapanen who's the most overrated asset on this forum, he doesn't have much value for f***s sakes.

 

[racerjoe]

There has been lots of talk of us no longer having a ton to sell off, that it is basically Tanev, but do we trade him, will this team be good when he is still around. So with this mind, I thought I would through this out for funsies. So with NHL Prime ages being 25-29, if you don't think this team will be good for atleast 5 years. Would you trade Bo for a for a draft pick in the 5-8 range?

I would say no because if we do suck for that long if we hold onto him we may get more then.

 

[vancityluongo]

Yup, spot on. If a team like LA wants him I want Vilardi, enought with these bogus 1st + mid tier prospect proposals that usually result in junk for the team trading away the good piece. Also enough with Kasperi Kapanen who's the most overrated asset on this forum, he doesn't have much value for ****s sakes.

Yup exactly. Vilardi, Chytil, Sergachev, Chabot level assets in a one-for-one swap would be preferred. If Benning needs an earlier dividend than a teenager, go for someone like Anthony Mantha. Otherwise just sit tight.

 

[VanCity Millionaires]

What about something like Taylor Raddysh, Callan Foote, and a 2nd round pick for Chris Tanev?

 

[Duckhugs]

What about something like Taylor Raddysh, Callan Foote, and a 2nd round pick for Chris Tanev?

I would take Foote for sure

 

[Nuckles]

What about something like Taylor Raddysh, Callan Foote, and a 2nd round pick for Chris Tanev?

This is the kind of quantity trade I'd stay away from. Raddysh and Foote are very good prospects, but we need something high-end. I know Foote was taken 14th overall last draft, but I personally wouldn't have taken him there.

From Tampa you need someone like Sergachev...or Brayden Point.

 

[vancityluongo]

This is the kind of quantity trade I'd stay away from. Raddysh and Foote are very good prospects, but we need something high-end. I know Foote was taken 14th overall last draft, but I personally wouldn't have taken him there.

Yup.

I'd even shy away from trading him for players like Eriksson-Ek and Zacha that have already made the NHL as teenagers and can contribute for years to come, but possibly don't have high end upside anymore.

The only reason to trade a top pairing defenseman now is to get a first liner/top pairing d later. Not for a few of middle-6/4 assets.

 

[flamesftw]

No way Tanev goes for a top end prospect, I'd say a late first rounder or a very solid prospect.

 

[vancityluongo]

No way Tanev goes for a top end prospect, I'd say a late first rounder or a very solid prospect.

Luckily there are still GMs like Treliving that set the market by paying mid first rounders+ for average defenseman like Hamonic, so we'll continue to hope for more for a much better player

 

[timw33]

No way Tanev goes for a top end prospect, I'd say a late first rounder or a very solid prospect.

Late first won't cut it IMO. If it's a picks package from a contending team it needs to be minimum 1st + 2nd + a conditional pick that can become a 2nd round pick if he stays healthy.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Yup exactly. Vilardi, Chytil, Sergachev, Chabot level assets in a one-for-one swap would be preferred. If Benning needs an earlier dividend than a teenager, go for someone like Anthony Mantha. Otherwise just sit tight.

Nobody is trading players of that quality for glass tanev. And def not point level young stars.

 

[vancityluongo]

Nobody is trading players of that quality for glass tanev. And def not point level young stars.

Then don't trade him. If Adam Larsson can get Taylor Hall, you don't settle for a package of meh.

I'd much sooner add to Tanev for a better asset than accept quantity.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Tyler Seguin and filip forsberg got traded for trash too. Its better to rely on the rule not the exception.

 

[racerjoe]

No way Tanev goes for a top end prospect, I'd say a late first rounder or a very solid prospect.

If that is the case, I don't mind a team telling us no too much. Tanev can be sooo valuable to us to help with say stabilizing a young dman like Bovquist, this can have great long term benefits. So if we don't get what I would WANT, keep him.

 

[Addison Rae]

No way Tanev goes for a top end prospect, I'd say a late first rounder or a very solid prospect.

I frankly don't care what you think, he's significantly better than the guy your GM traded for this summer.

But yeah I'm sure Chris Tanev will return less than Travis Hamonic and Griffin Reinhart.

 

[bobbyb2009]

IMO, if Tanev doesn't return >Reinhart or >Harmonic, you simply do not trade him yet. If he is basically going to get a low level return of a B prospect and a late 1st/early 2nd, you do not trade him for a couple of years and you wait until he becomes a rental. Those are rental returns for a guy who can play as a number 2 or 3.

He is someone really valuable to shelter young defenders as they step up into big minutes. As Juolevi or god willing Dahlin (please dear god) develop into top 4 guys, they will need the right partner to shelter them and allow them to be them. We will all be looking for a Tanev at that point for just that reason.

A Morgan Reilly would flourish with a Tanev beside him. Teams are always seeking this type of player.

And we will be too, if we move him.

So, IF the return is no different now than it will be two or three years from now, then there is absolute no reason to move him and every reason to keep him. It follows that IF the return is very good, then you consider the reward of the return against going through the pain of looking for another him for the next 5 plus years. In the meantime, I do not want us to do any favours for any of those teams out there seeking a player like this to solve their challenges.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

There has been lots of talk of us no longer having a ton to sell off, that it is basically Tanev, but do we trade him, will this team be good when he is still around. So with this mind, I thought I would through this out for funsies. So with NHL Prime ages being 25-29, if you don't think this team will be good for atleast 5 years. Would you trade Bo for a for a draft pick in the 5-8 range?

I would say no because if we do suck for that long if we hold onto him we may get more then.

Yeah, I also think it's way too hard to predict things five years out — so much can happen in that span. Five years ago (i.e., right before the Erat-Forsberg trade) Nashville's future looked pretty bleak, and today it's just a completely different team. I'd be hesitant to trade any valuable core players for picks unless they're a year or two away from UFA status. (Not that we have very many...)

 

[Donuts]

Does nyi want to make a playoff push and show tavares they want to win now with him, then:

Tanev for cgy 1st + bellows