More like build Nucks good enough so that Quinn can sign them instead
Rumor: "Hughes has told management Tanev is a guy you guys should target."
- Thread starter viper0220
- Start date
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,774
- 16,911
Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 5,763
- 5,010
Big trade time:
To Vancouver
Lindholm
Tanev
To Calgary
2024 1st
2024 3rd
Protected 2025 1st
Podkolzin
Myers
To Vancouver
Lindholm
Tanev
To Calgary
2024 1st
2024 3rd
Protected 2025 1st
Podkolzin
Myers
vanarchy
⠀
- May 3, 2013
- 9,124
- 8,380
At this price, might as well just wait for both of them to be UFA this summer.
HansonBro
Registered User
- May 3, 2006
- 4,906
- 3,470
Frankie Blueberries
Allergic to draft picks
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,160
- 10,637
Oof no.
2024 1st, Brzustewicz, Mikheyev (cap), 2024 2nd.
Petes2424
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2005
- 8,040
- 2,314
I think everyone is all for it. Would it force Tocchet to finally let Honek try carrying that second pairing?
If they go into the playoffs with only Quinn carrying play from the backend, Tanev is about the best they can do, to build up the blue line with another solid role player. It’ll help them not be worn down as quick. Still doesn’t get rid of the concern, they’d be playing without a dman carrying play for 35 minutes a night, in a 7 Game Series.
History tells us you need 2 of them to win Cups. It’s what kills the Leafs every playoff, and the Canucks will likely be no exception.
If they go into the playoffs with only Quinn carrying play from the backend, Tanev is about the best they can do, to build up the blue line with another solid role player. It’ll help them not be worn down as quick. Still doesn’t get rid of the concern, they’d be playing without a dman carrying play for 35 minutes a night, in a 7 Game Series.
History tells us you need 2 of them to win Cups. It’s what kills the Leafs every playoff, and the Canucks will likely be no exception.
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,973
- 8,453
Agreed. With the position Tanev plays, it's time to go from foreplay to D zone.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,672
- 10,666
This is the real problem with all these proposed sort of trade targets for the Canucks at this point. It's really tight in both cap terms, and in lineup spots. Moving Myers is really the most obvious way to open up space in both regards, for an upgrade. But i think they like Myers and frankly, he's good depth/insurance to have. Being a big RH shot D who can skate alright and take on more minutes in spurts when needed, who seems to have settled into the system and calmed his play a bit as a result. That's valuable. Also risks upsetting the team chemistry if he's moved.
Soucy being injured again might open up some short-term room to make a move temporarily...but you've still gotta figure out how to make it all work when he's back. Both in terms of cap space and roster spots. Really, you don't want to sit any of Hughes/Hronek/Cole/Zadorov/Soucy/Myers if the defence is fully healthy. They all contribute something. So that's a bit awkward.
It really makes me wonder if there's actually any kind of big splash coming at all. Or if it's going to be more like...minor tinkering and depth moves instead.
- Oct 13, 2018
- 3,533
- 3,688
I think the team moves a forward instead of a D, though if they make a move and sit Soucy until the playoffs, that could also work.This is the real problem with all these proposed sort of trade targets for the Canucks at this point. It's really tight in both cap terms, and in lineup spots. Moving Myers is really the most obvious way to open up space in both regards, for an upgrade. But i think they like Myers and frankly, he's good depth/insurance to have. Being a big RH shot D who can skate alright and take on more minutes in spurts when needed, who seems to have settled into the system and calmed his play a bit as a result. That's valuable. Also risks upsetting the team chemistry if he's moved.
Soucy being injured again might open up some short-term room to make a move temporarily...but you've still gotta figure out how to make it all work when he's back. Both in terms of cap space and roster spots. Really, you don't want to sit any of Hughes/Hronek/Cole/Zadorov/Soucy/Myers if the defence is fully healthy. They all contribute something. So that's a bit awkward.
It really makes me wonder if there's actually any kind of big splash coming at all. Or if it's going to be more like...minor tinkering and depth moves instead.
Ironically, despite what fans say, I think Calgary would be interested in Kuzmenko as they refuse to rebuild. Maybe deal Kuzmenko and LTIR a D until the playoffs and then upgrade the forward corps in a separate deal.
I can see the Canucks and Flames coming together AGAIN to get something done. Probably something like:
To Vancouver: Tanev, 2024 3rd
To Calgary: Klimovich, Jurmo, Mikheyev, 2025 4th, 2026 6th
To Vancouver: Tanev, 2024 3rd
To Calgary: Klimovich, Jurmo, Mikheyev, 2025 4th, 2026 6th
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,672
- 10,666
I suppose that's possible. I don't think you can deal Kuzmenko without making that follow-up deal to bolster the Top-6 Forwards somewhere else though. Also his trade control is a factor, as is the relationship with his agent (preferred partner of the Vancouver Canucks) if he's sent away to somewhere he's not thrilled about, after choosing Vancouver over multiple other suitors. Plus, while the fit hasn't been there with Tocchet...that's a huge amount of potentially game-breaking goal-scoring ability to be trying to replace/upgrade.
Just LTIR stashing Soucy until the playoffs is certainly a possibility, but i'm not sure it's a great idea either. That's a lot of rust to shake off, with no real way to do so. Last i heard, his timeline for return this time was more like a month to month and a half. So that'd still be a long while to prospectively be sitting around healthy and trapped on LTIR. Which could also draw some potentially unwanted attention from the NHLPA. I don't think it's necessarily a real Tampa/Kucherov appropriate situation.
But if they do want to make a big splash, something's gotta give. Or you just go ahead with Soucy on LTIR and assume that other LTIR options will present themselves to juggle around with or something.
Why would the Canucks be getting rid of Mikheyev? He's been just fine, pretty much exactly as advertised and expected. Moving him really just opens up the need for two more Top-6 Forwards instead of just one. Doesn't make any sense to me.
Especially not for a Defenceman who would be making someone else redundant/shuffled to the press box when healthy.
Yeah you are probably right, I think I was calculating too much in Calgarys interest and not what the Canucks were giving up that doesnt really match their needs/interests
gach
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2018
- 421
- 230
Flames could stick it to the Oiliers by trading players to Vancouver and not asking much in return
How do I know this is a made up story?
NHL hasn't taken away a first round pick for tampering from the Canucks.
NHL hasn't taken away a first round pick for tampering from the Canucks.
blankall
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2007
- 14,967
- 5,296
You need to add something better than Brzustewicz.
Why would the Flames do that. The 3rd has more value than any of the pieces Vancouver is sending back.
Frankie Blueberries
Allergic to draft picks
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,160
- 10,637
I think he holds the value of roughly a late 1st. So that’s two late 1sts, a 2nd, and Mikheyev for Lindholm and Tanev.
gritdash60
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2018
- 6,983
- 15,817
1. Technically not tampering because they're talking about getting him now and not during free agency.
2. Would be the worst thing to have get out in the public because then the Flames will ask for more from Vancouver to make their captain happy.
3. They wouldn't take a 1st from Vancouver, it would be from Ottawa.
Seems fair. I respect your ability to always be unbiased in situations like this.
