IBatch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, DexM94 said: Two trades : To VAN : C.Tanev (x% retained) To CGY : I.Cole, D-Petey To VAN : Monahan (x% retained) To MTL : 1st Rd Pick (2024), L.Karlsson (They need C) + Futures considerations if Monahan re sign. Trade one - Not in a million years. D-Petey looks to have a good shot at the NHL. And im not sure Tanev is > Cole (given the team chemistry this year). To me any of our regular D's are lateral moves with the exception of Zadorov, but I'd rather we have his size, durability etc. We add Tanev for depth, unless someone is injured. He'd be a tiny upgrade on Myers. So trading Myers maybe, to free to cap for a forward deal, and then bring in Tanev. Myers was fun to watch last playoffs, made guys pay for every second in our zone. Tanev isn't going to do that. Edited January 27 by IBatch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, DexM94 said: Two trades : To VAN : C.Tanev (x% retained) To CGY : I.Cole, D-Petey To VAN : Monahan (x% retained) To MTL : 1st Rd Pick (2024), L.Karlsson (They need C) + Futures considerations if Monahan re sign. definitely can't lose cole, that's robbing peter to pay paul. cole is vital to this team, he's the membrane between the coaching staff and the players. now, that being said, I also see him as sort of like a transition player, here short term to be a teacher's aid for tocc, basically. I fully expect him to move on in the offseason, but could see him sticking around another year or 2 depending on the team's needs. I bet he goes back east though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 44 minutes ago, IBatch said: Ray Borque is the story that really got not only a team going, but practically the entire fanbase/league rooting for them. And they had some great teams in their way along the way. Roy beating Broduer in a 7 game series, and winning the Conn Smythe again, was just as much fun as doing it for Borque, and watching Borque play perfectly for the last time was emotional, was still an excellent top pairing D (2nd in Norris his final season). Not sure what sort of boost Tanev will have in the ice, but in the locker room agree there will be some, and Tochett is going to love him. Wouldn't be a bad idea, but think if we are going to win, EP needs a partner. Our team D and Defense is so much better then last years. Tanev makes sense if we go into the playoffs with an injury. Going in healthy though, who are we sitting? Myers? He was probably our best D last playoffs only guy who could handle Vegas's forwards anyways and that included Edler and Tanev. looks like the avs may be attempting the same thing with zach parise this year. long career, no cup. the guy is kind of a legend for some reason, at least in the states. for my money he's one of the most overrated and, more importantly, overpaid players in recent memory, and colorado sure as hell isn't bringing him in because he's a difference maker on the ice. experience, status, leadership, and purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 I think if the goal is to add Tanev, then we need to trade out Kuz or Mik for a guy like Vatrano with cap retained. It gives us the cap space to acquire Tanev without taking out one of our current D. It will also likely make Tanev much cheaper because we're taking the full cap hit back. Kinda like Zadorov. To ANA Kuzmenko 1st To VAN Vatrano @ 50% About 3.7m cap savings from the above deal. Sending Friedman back down, we have our $4.5m to take on Tanev with no cap retention. To CAL 2nd round pick To VAN Tanev Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Suter-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman Fantastic depth on D, but I'd still like more depth up front with a bottom 6 guy though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 6 minutes ago, HKSR said: I think if the goal is to add Tanev, then we need to trade out Kuz or Mik for a guy like Vatrano with cap retained. It gives us the cap space to acquire Tanev without taking out one of our current D. It will also likely make Tanev much cheaper because we're taking the full cap hit back. Kinda like Zadorov. To ANA Kuzmenko 1st To VAN Vatrano @ 50% About 3.7m cap savings from the above deal. Sending Friedman back down, we have our $4.5m to take on Tanev with no cap retention. To CAL 2nd round pick To VAN Tanev Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Suter-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman Fantastic depth on D, but I'd still like more depth up front with a bottom 6 guy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 9 minutes ago, HKSR said: I think if the goal is to add Tanev, then we need to trade out Kuz or Mik for a guy like Vatrano with cap retained. It gives us the cap space to acquire Tanev without taking out one of our current D. It will also likely make Tanev much cheaper because we're taking the full cap hit back. Kinda like Zadorov. To ANA Kuzmenko 1st To VAN Vatrano @ 50% About 3.7m cap savings from the above deal. Sending Friedman back down, we have our $4.5m to take on Tanev with no cap retention. To CAL 2nd round pick To VAN Tanev Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Suter-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman Fantastic depth on D, but I'd still like more depth up front with a bottom 6 guy though. Just carrying on with this thought. Monahan at 50% retained would be a nice addition to round out the forward group without costing a fortune. Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Monahan-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty Aman Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 4 hours ago, IBatch said: Trade one - Not in a million years. D-Petey looks to have a good shot at the NHL. And im not sure Tanev is > Cole (given the team chemistry this year). To me any of our regular D's are lateral moves with the exception of Zadorov, but I'd rather we have his size, durability etc. We add Tanev for depth, unless someone is injured. He'd be a tiny upgrade on Myers. So trading Myers maybe, to free to cap for a forward deal, and then bring in Tanev. Myers was fun to watch last playoffs, made guys pay for every second in our zone. Tanev isn't going to do that. That "playoffs" was also 4 years ago. He was good but his penalties were also very costly. I agree though not sure how much better overall Tanev is at this point. Way better defender though, and he is pretty tough even though he does get injured a lot. 3 hours ago, HKSR said: Just carrying on with this thought. Monahan at 50% retained would be a nice addition to round out the forward group without costing a fortune. Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Monahan-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty Aman Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman I think you keep Soucy Myers together as they've had obvious chemistry ... and Zadorov Tanev obviously have familiarity, however I have Cole ahead of Zadorov every day of the week Cole Tanev Soucy Myers Zadorov Edited January 27 by Gawdzukes 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said: That "playoffs" was also 4 years ago. He was good but his penalties were also very costly. I agree though not sure how much better overall Tanev is at this point. Way better defender though, and he is pretty tough even though he does get injured a lot. Not opposed to it, but it's too early. And only if the cost is like Zadarov, which it likely won't be. Someone else (Leafs?), probably offer more. Not sure if he's claused up either. Worse ideas out there, but think Myers intangibles, do matter as well. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 hours ago, HKSR said: I think if the goal is to add Tanev, then we need to trade out Kuz or Mik for a guy like Vatrano with cap retained. It gives us the cap space to acquire Tanev without taking out one of our current D. It will also likely make Tanev much cheaper because we're taking the full cap hit back. Kinda like Zadorov. To ANA Kuzmenko 1st To VAN Vatrano @ 50% About 3.7m cap savings from the above deal. Sending Friedman back down, we have our $4.5m to take on Tanev with no cap retention. To CAL 2nd round pick To VAN Tanev Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Suter-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman Fantastic depth on D, but I'd still like more depth up front with a bottom 6 guy though. as much as I like him, I'm starting to think Mik might be a payable chip. However, he is also a guy who can play on any line as he's a solid two way player, and those guys are important in the playoffs. This management group has a goof thing going here, they need to tread lightly so as to not upset the applecart with this group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Just now, IBatch said: Not opposed to it, but it's too early. And only if the cost is like Zadarov, which it likely won't be. Someone else (Leafs?), probably offer more. Not sure if he's claused up either. Worse ideas out there, but think Myers intangibles, do matter as well. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it too. Yup, I agree whole heartedly there. We look very solid when Soucy is healthy. Zads can't be traded back to the Flames and he just got here. Definitely see a need for some depth there no matter what though. Tanev to Toronto seems likely, although I hope they miss the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 9 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said: That "playoffs" was also 4 years ago. He was good but his penalties were also very costly. I agree though not sure how much better overall Tanev is at this point. Way better defender though, and he is pretty tough even though he does get injured a lot. I think you keep Soucy Myers together as they've had obvious chemistry ... and Zadorov Tanev obviously have familiarity, however I have Cole ahead of Zadorov every day of the week Cole Tanev Soucy Myers Zadorov I don't see Tanev as an upgrade on Myers, at all. At best, a lateral move To me, Cole is a 6/7 dman........he's got some great attributes, but he's defintely slowing down and he gives the puck away, alot 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 8 minutes ago, stawns said: I don't see Tanev as an upgrade on Myers, at all. At best, a lateral move To me, Cole is a 6/7 dman........he's got some great attributes, but he's defintely slowing down and he gives the puck away, alot Having an extra guy would give us the depth to rotate guys in and out and keep them fresh. The way I see it: Hughes Hronek Soucy Myers Cole/Zadorov Tanev Still think the top 6 is the focus but having that D and Demko in net would be very solid. Edited January 27 by DeNiro 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Having an extra guy would give us the depth to rotate guys in and out and keep them fresh. The way I see it: Hughes Hronek Soucy Myers Cole/Zadorov Tanev Still think the top 6 is the focus but having that D and Demko in net would be very solid. Having Tanev would be nice, I agree......one of my all time fave Canucks. If they can get him on the cheap, I'd be all for it, which is highly doubtful. Otherwise, pass for me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, stawns said: Having Tanev would be nice, I agree......one of my all time fave Canucks. If they can get him on the cheap, I'd be all for it, which is highly doubtful. Otherwise, pass for me. I believe we see a deal including Tanev & Lindholm. It will be pricey, but worth it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Just now, stawns said: Having Tanev would be nice, I agree......one of my all time fave Canucks. If they can get him on the cheap, I'd be all for it, which is highly doubtful. Otherwise, pass for me. Well from the sounds of it we have interest in both Tanev and Lindholm. I would guess it would be part of a bigger deal with Kuzmenko, picks and prospects going the other way and retention on Tanev. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 6 minutes ago, stawns said: I don't see Tanev as an upgrade on Myers, at all. At best, a lateral move To me, Cole is a 6/7 dman........he's got some great attributes, but he's defintely slowing down and he gives the puck away, alot Yah it depends on what you're looking for. Myers is definitely built for playoffs with his size. Definitely a positive attribute. I've definitely noticed Cole slowing down too ... and he makes the odd bad read/play because of it. I find him as a glue guy between Hughes/Hronek and the rest of the D though. He is still sharp enough to make the right play most of the time while the rest suffer from a combination of lack of IQ/mobility/skill. I don't have confidence in Zadorov or Myers without someone there to watch their backs. Soucy is better but he is a slower all around player too. Tanev is rock solid defensively and I like that for a playoff run. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Well from the sounds of it we have interest in both Tanev and Lindholm. I would guess it would be part of a bigger deal with Kuzmenko, picks and prospects going the other way and retention on Tanev. As I said in a previous post ........a kuz deal here is tricky. Not only are you selling ridiculously low on him, as a 39 goal scorer, but he is obviously a very very popular person in the room. They've got a great thing going here, I'm not sure I'd mess with chemistry that much at this point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 8 minutes ago, Dom said: I believe we see a deal including Tanev & Lindholm. It will be pricey, but worth it. I don't think so. We know how tanevs story in van goes and they can't risk having two dmen out in the playoffs, with tanev and soucy. If they can get tanev cheap, sure. Ultimately, I think it's moo because the Canucks can and, likely, will be outbid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijjibo Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 hours ago, HKSR said: Just carrying on with this thought. Monahan at 50% retained would be a nice addition to round out the forward group without costing a fortune. Miller-Petey-Boeser Mik-Monahan-Vatrano Garland-Blueger-Joshua Hoglander-Suter-Lafferty Aman Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Tanev Zadorov-Myers Cole Juulsen Friedman Monahan at 50% is going to cost. Likely a 1st+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, stawns said: As I said in a previous post ........a kuz deal here is tricky. Not only are you selling ridiculously low on him, as a 39 goal scorer, but he is obviously a very very popular person in the room. They've got a great thing going here, I'm not sure I'd mess with chemistry that much at this point Tanev was also a very popular guy in the room though so maybe it balances out. I just don’t see how else the cap would work unless you’re trading Garland or Mikheyev and I don’t see that happening. Calgary would also be selling low on Lindholm as he’s not having a very good season (something like 1 goal in the last 23) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 8 minutes ago, stawns said: I don't think so. We know how tanevs story in van goes and they can't risk having two dmen out in the playoffs, with tanev and soucy. If they can get tanev cheap, sure. Ultimately, I think it's moo because the Canucks can and, likely, will be outbid Tanev was injured here because we had poor depth and our system made it so he was constantly having to block shots. In Tocchets system we spend much less time in our own zone. Tanev has been much healthier in Calgary for a reason. Also if costs are comparable maybe Conroy does right by Tanev and send him where he actually wants to go. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 30 minutes ago, stawns said: I don't see Tanev as an upgrade on Myers, at all. At best, a lateral move To me, Cole is a 6/7 dman........he's got some great attributes, but he's defintely slowing down and he gives the puck away, alot A 6/7 who leads the team by a county mile in PK time and has averages 19:10 time on ice a game? Does soucy get top unit PP time with Abby in your alternate reality? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 6 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Tanev was injured here because we had poor depth and our system made it so he was constantly having to block shots. In Tocchets system we spend much less time in our own zone. Tanev has been much healthier in Calgary for a reason. Also if costs are comparable maybe Conroy does right by Tanev and send him where he actually wants to go. He was injured here for a wide variety of reasons and that's the playbook they have to work with imo. Thats one of the reasons they get him for cheap or pass.....if it were me. I like their dcorp, so I don't think they need to do much there, I'd rather they look to shore up elsewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, Coryberg said: A 6/7 who leads the team by a county mile in PK time and has averages 19:10 time on ice a game? Does soucy get top unit PP time with Abby in your alternate reality? Try again without being a dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, stawns said: He was injured here for a wide variety of reasons and that's the playbook they have to work with imo. Thats one of the reasons they get him for cheap or pass.....if it were me. I like their dcorp, so I don't think they need to do much there, I'd rather they look to shore up elsewhere Most of the reasons were that he was constantly having to go back into his own zone increasing the amount of times he got hit and then the team not being able to move the puck out so he’d have to block shots. I agree that other areas need to be addressed first and the cost would have to be right. But for something like a 2nd and a B prospect with 50% retention it would be worth it. As part of a bigger deal involving Lindholm Id also be in favour of. As long as Lekkermaki and Willander aren’t involved im happy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.