Speculation: Best Trade Partner?

Discussion in 'Vancouver Canucks' started by SpaceCowboy, Nov 19, 2013.

View Users: View Users
  1. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Hey All!

    Read a post recently that talked about our lines and how our strengths really aren't being reached. Truth of the matter is we have holes on our 2nd line.

    Sedin Sedin Burrows
    _____ Kesler _____
    Higgins Santorelli Hansen
    Weise Richardson Kassian

    Santorelli/Higgins/Hansen are all fantastic but they aren't able to play the roles they fill best when they're plugged into the 1st and 2nd lines. Higgins is a fantastic two way player that works hard along the boards, can pot some points, and works wonders on our PK. Santorelli has been awesome as a new 2C allowing Kesler to produce on the wing with the Sedins but we shouldn't expect that his production will continue as the season goes on. It's unfair and it's more realistic to use him best against weaker opposition and really allowing him to win some drops. Whereas Hansen being what he is is a fantastic third line wing that produces when possible but more than anything exhausts the other team and runs circles around defenders.

    We need players for Kesler. Booth was an experiment that didn't work. Kassian isn't ready. Higgins/Hansen can work out occasionally but aren't consistently on the same level as Kes. Burrows would work well but that leaves a hole with the Sedins.

    Who can we trade with and what would it take?

    NYR: Callahan? Hagelin? Dorsett?
    NJ: Ryder? Brunner? Jagr?
    BUF: Stafford? Kaleta? Moulson?
    PHI: Hartnell? Simmonds? Downie? B. Schenn?
    WAS: Grabovski? Erat? Brouwer? Ward?
    OTT: Bobby Ryan?

    Obviously some of those names would cost an arm and a leg - or be near impossible. But who would you part with to have them? Obviously the tangibles are what they are in regards to realistic pieces.

    I feel like if we can upgrade our 2nd line to producing levels - we should. We have a good crop of young guns in training but sometimes you gotta sacrifice to win now. With the Sedins our only reliable points and the team struggling when they realistically shut down Henrik - it's going to be tough and we need to give the pieces for Torts to start working the lines to where it makes sense.

    Tanev? Kassian? Jensen? Gaunce?

    I think we should pay big to either find a first line player for the twins to allow Burr to fall to the 2nd with Kesler, or push for two 2nd line and pay for it if necessary.

    If rumours are true and Cammaleri is an 'option' we should only take it if it's cheap and removes Booth. Otherwise we should make the proper play and fill the roles needed.

    Any other teams with players that would make a good fit?
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2013
  2. MISC*

    MISC* Guest

    Ottawa
    Philly


    Loaded upfront. Bare bones on the back end.
     
  3. nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6

    nekyvGkOPaiWICTscLl6 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sudbury
    To be dead honest with you guys, I'd rather sell than buy this year.

    For that reason I think our best trade partners are Pittsburgh and Detroit.
     
  4. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Specific reason? More picks in this years draft?
     
  5. Zombotron

    Zombotron I mean, honestly.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    13,734
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    156
    New Jersey. Brunner - Kesler - Jagr could be a great line, though of course, it might take a lot to acquire both of those players.

    A dream scenario for me involves Vancouver acquiring Ryder and one of Brunner and Jagr.
     
  6. vector209

    vector209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'm with 0bjective on this one: team shouldn't sacrifice assets to bring in pieces that MAY give the team a better shot at going far in the playoffs. IMO, you only do that if the team is already a contender and wants to get over the top (ie. Boston trying to acquire Iginla last year, etc.).

    The Canucks are no longer the powerhouse from 2011 and shouldn't sacrifice the already bare cupboard for players that won't push them over the top. I think this team, if its assets are managed correctly, can undergo a quick retool (nothing like the Oilers) and be back on top within 2 years.
     
  7. Pure West

    Pure West Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,782
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Unfortunately we don't have a whole lot to sell due to the NTCs. Our best trade asset might be Tanev and Santorelli as sad as that is. I don't see either of those guys getting a worthwhile return.
     
  8. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Who'd you give for it?

    The all too familiar chip of Tanev always comes up. But would you consider including Kassian to help make it happen with Ryder involved?
     
  9. Zombotron

    Zombotron I mean, honestly.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    13,734
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    156
    New Jersey has to forfeit its first-round pick this year, so a trade for those players starts with Vancouver's own first. Tanev for two of them? I'd do it without hesitation. Tanev is the best trade chip Vancouver has right now, and can be replaced by Frank Corrado immediately. As for Kassian, that's hard to say. However, I get the vibe that Hunter Shinkaruk could usurp his position on the depth chart immediately. I could be crazy, but I feel that he could flank Kesler right off the bat next season...
     
  10. fancouver

    fancouver Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,964
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    54
    Location:
    Vancouver
    one trade

    sedin - sedin - burrows
     
  11. TheWanderer

    TheWanderer Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Best trade partner is anyone who will take Booth for a 7th.

    Second best is any team that Edler will waive his NTC to go to.
     
  12. Ronning On Empty

    Ronning On Empty Formerly BleachClean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    1,400
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Those 3 NJ players were all free for the Canucks to sign this past offseason...

    NJ might make for a decent trade partner to dump salary to though.

    NYR makes for a good partner considering they have good C depth. Beyond them, there's always FLA, PHI for the Cs, and I think CLB could make for a good partner too, depending on who they are willing to move.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Mutagenesis

    Mutagenesis Nucks/Isles

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    29
    Occupation:
    Mad Scientist
    Location:
    Representin' the ABQ
    Uh hello. We can just trade Kesler over to New Jersey for Schneider :naughty:
     
  14. Lord Flacko*

    Lord Flacko* Guest

    Tanguay. He's injured right now though.
     
  15. Outside99*

    Outside99* Guest

    Detroit.
     
  16. Free Edler

    Free Edler Enjoy retirement, boys.

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    25,385
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    ad copywriter
    Location:
    Surrey, BC
    Ottawa wouldn't trade Ryan. Not yet.
     
  17. TheWanderer

    TheWanderer Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    51
    In theory, our best trade partner is Edmonton...

    They have good, young forwards at their disposal.
    We have a surplus of decent D-men, and we are even deep in young goaltenders.

    I mean, RNH REALLY wanted to be drafted by us...

    But... it's Edmonton. We're just going to have to wait until these guys' contracts are up and they don't want to play there anymore, because everyone (especially Gillis) is terrified of trading within the division for some stupid reason.

    I would be totally fine with helping Edmonton take some points away from the rest of the teams in our division. I don't know about you guys...
     
  18. Betamax*

    Betamax* Guest

    Which team do you think is dumb enough to give up an asset (even how little) for Booth? I think if the Canucks were to make a hockey trade for Booth, they would have to give a high draft pick or decent prospect for another team to even considering biting on taking on the financial risk.
     
  19. TheWanderer

    TheWanderer Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    51
    I didn't say someone would do it, lol. But dont you agree that if someone were that stupid, they would be the best trade partner ever?
     
  20. JuniorNelson

    JuniorNelson Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    E.Vancouver
    The Canucks have limited trade options because guys do not want to come here. THe NJ guys, for example, could have signed here and chose not to. Why trade for them, now?

    Simply adding another winger isn't going to fix anything because if the guy can skate Torts will plunk him on the Sedin line and the second line will still be non functional.

    Canucks must have known this roster would not be able to work with Tortorella. Torts must have mentioned it. So, it looks like they didn't bother. That's crazy, though, right? Well, remember Malhotra? He was utterly done, but the Canucks did not axe him because they are all buddies. Okay, now look at the roster again and tell me they did everything they could to prepare the team for Tortorella.

    Canucks have to grow some and do the right thing for the team, even if it means somebody gets hurt feelings and his wife cries. Even if it means eating a massive contract that was just a monument to the owner's ego. Instead they are running the team into the ground before our eyes, too timid to change. The Schneider trade cost them any lingering chance at free agents because it proved they are idiots. These same FAs who laughed and went elsewhere for far less money are not going to embrace a trade to Vancouver.

    It's over and this is what it looks like.
     
  21. Betamax*

    Betamax* Guest

    Uh, I think the main reason why the Canucks weren't really active in the UFA market this season was because of the shrinking cap for this season, therefore they didn't have the cap space to even be in the mix for the upper echelon of UFAs.
     
  22. Free Edler

    Free Edler Enjoy retirement, boys.

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    25,385
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    ad copywriter
    Location:
    Surrey, BC


    Also, cap space. Canucks didn't have any.
     
  23. TheWanderer

    TheWanderer Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    51
    What a massive pile of ill-informed vomit. I sincerely do NOT endorse this post.
     
  24. oceanchild

    oceanchild Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,428
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Victoria B.C.
    I agree in Part. I dont want to see us giving up any assets or futures without the player returning being for a term (I.E 2+ years), Resignable, and perferable cheaper/younger.

    I am open to a Hockey Trade. I would love to see an Evander Kane or Schenn added but I am not sure its available.

    I think we are in a position to sell a couple parts and make room for some free agents. The question then becomes are they signable at a resonable cost and will they select Vancouver. It is possible in doing so that we will we be blocking spots for guys that could be ready (horvat etc.)

    Booth is an obvious move, But if you think young players will be ready and need a couple years, then I would trade Edler, Burrows etc and only keep the true core of the Sedins, Kesler, Hamhuis, Garrison and in this context Tanev and Kassian (I would also advocate keeping hanson due to his contract).

    I think at this point Management is mulling this very thing over and its hard to peg at this point on how Horvat etc. project to do next year.
     
  25. BB6

    BB6 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    72
    Location:
    Canada
    The only way I'd be willing to buy is if its a real addition to the line up, not a rental, not someone who's done in four years.

    So yeah, I agree.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"