Grind your axe somewhere else. The poster said Kapanen "in a deal", clear implication of willingness to include him in a larger deal, not that he thinks 1 for 1 is at all fair. Projecting that is 100% on you looking for something to attack.
Proposal: Tanev to Toronto
- Thread starter JackFr
- Start date
Grind your axe somewhere else. The poster said Kapanen "in a deal", clear implication of willingness to include him in a larger deal, not that he thinks 1 for 1 is at all fair. Projecting that is 100% on you looking for something to attack.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
Yeah I wouldn't do Kadri, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As for the package structure our pick is too much of a wildcard at this point. Might be able to do something closer to the end of the year once it's value is more known, or use Kappy as a 1st rounder replacement. I think Carrick would be the obvious choice for you guys as the second piece, 23 years old and playing (but not proven) as a top 4 rhd, good offensive potential. Add in a Bracco Dermott and that's a valuable package. It would have me wincing and would rather do a 7-12 1st+
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,401
- 24,553
That's not clearly what it means.....he may or may not of meant that true.....that is my point. If he wanted to be clear about it he would/could of stated Kap+ or Kap++ for Tanev.....thats clearly stating it.
No axe grinding here, just pointing out a B level prospect by himself doesn't land a team a top pairing D signed long term on a sweet heart deal.
true, but lottery win protect it. Or looking ahead it make the trade post lottery
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
You could protect the pick, but then Vancouver walks away. They won't be happy taking next years 1st as our team probably improves. Now, if the deal is made after the lottery...then OK, but i would prefer getting Tanev right now....and then it's back to both teams not accepting each other's offers.
Yeah totally not axe grinding. What else would you call making the most unlikely and "offensive" interpretation of a slightly ambiguous statement and ridiculing it after making who knows how many other carbon copy statements throughout the thread (while ignoring the legitimate discussion?
Sure, but I don't how having to delay a long term acquisition in the shorterm would make the long term gain any less attractive.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
I guess it's just the once bitten twice shy thing. The Kessel trade will forever make me rethink dealing 1st round picks. Yes i would like Tanev...but i'd prefer not to gamble on that pick.
Very different situations. I'd argue that moving the 1st for Tanev post lottery is closer to the Andersen deal than the Kessel.
Trading a 1st with known value for a proven commodity that fills an obvious hole long term
vs.
trading 2 1st that could end up anywhere for a "franchise" player to add to a team with no obvious roster structure.
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,401
- 24,553
You may want to read more of the literal meanings of posts and read less between lines creating an emotional response.
Read my posts literally, don't try to apply hidden meanings to them which weren't intended. The facts remain, B prospect doesn't land any team a top pairing D signed long term at a sweet heart deal. Kap++ might get closer, depending on Nucks needs and other teams offers. If Tanev was up for a trade, many teams would be interested leading to the price being high. Tanev wouldn't go cheap or to the first bid.
The facts remain, no one in this thread said they would. But thanks for coming in to point out that pretty obvious truth.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,401
- 24,553
I helped clarify one who might of and there is another offer of two lesser prospects for Tanev. So apparently it's not totally clear to everyone.
As stated if he was up for trade there would be many interested. B prospect+ or two C prospects, etc.....arent going to get it done. JVR for him as was suggested, again makes no sense to Nucks.
Any trade of a B prospect+ would have to be a pretty large plus (to beat all other offers) and assumes Nucks are going into rebuild mode.
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,401
- 24,553
Weak draft, lottery, this assumes Nucks go into rebuild mode, no need for immediate help in the line up, Leafs with Tanev might finish offer better then some think, etc.....doubt it.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
Wait, so this assumes the Nucks are heading for a rebuild....but a highish lottery pick isn't enough? I have asked this before, what the Hell is the ask from teams that aren't TO? Of the teams that have the need and the room...what are you expecting?
Detroit?
Flyers?
Rangers?
Avs?
Habs?
Give me some examples...Because if the demand from TO is Marner/Nylander...or our 1st+, i'd love to see what it takes from others.
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,401
- 24,553
Just to be clear I'm not a Nucks fan, just posting as a neutral fan.
I listed the reasons why they "might" not accept your 1st......I was pretty clear I thought. The point is if he became available Leafs 1st might not be the best offer.....likely wouldn't be. I never stated any about your big three rookies, just said 1st Rd pick likely wouldn't be the best offer if he was being shopped. If Leafs landed him for just their 1st Rd pick, there would be likely 5-8 GM's saying WTF Benning why didn't let us bid also. IMO no way you land him for the Leafs 1st Rd pick alone. Leafs will not be a bottom 5 team without Tanev, with him they likely aren't bottom 10 team. Thus you think a mid range 1st would land a top pairing D signed long term to a sweet heart deal????
You really should try reading AT LEAST the OP when you make these statements. He says right off the bat that he is not a leafs fan...
The first couple pages in here were either discussion of good prospects/picks, or Leafs fans agreeing that this is beaten to death.
People then came in (apparently only reading the title) and yelled about not wanting JVR
And ONE leaf fan in particular made a bunch of inflammatory posts about Tanev and what he's worth. Canucks fans are at least as much to blame for this going into flame-war territory for assuming it was another JVR-Tanev thread.
PS - can we stop the Tanev to leafs threads please? They don't go anywhere
IMO, I think van would look at prospects from those teams.
Detroit- Svechnikov, Hicketts, Cholowiski, Draft picks
flyers-sanheim, Rubtsov, Draft picks
Rangers-skeji, gropp, Day, Draft picks
Avs-jost, Rantanen, meloche, Draft picks
Habs- Juulsen, sergachev, Mete, Draft picks.
thone are pices that would interest me from those teams, just finding the right combination to get a deal done.
Aswell I'm not a Canucks fan that is demanding Marner, Nylander or your first. So take it with a grain of salt.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
There are 3 maybe 4 guys on that list that wouldn't trigger a riot if they were the main piece back for Tanev. Two of those guys are defenders, which strips any reason as to the legitimacy of trading Tanev as being redundant with our recently emerging/acquired defenders.
As much as it strains me to admit, Bojinder Horvatji mirrors my sentiments in regards to this trade circus: We need an elite offensive player or prospect back. He want's a Horvat like player, I say we need someone young that can be our go to for years to come. Shedding Tanev for the sake of it is just simply not the direction we need to be taking. A lesser prospect, a pick and a player isn't the kind of return that does anything for us. We've done that trade for Kesler, for Garrison, for Luongo, we tried that for Hamhuis (who walked) and honestly, we need to be smarter about our asset management. Insert Benning joke here.
As for LiferLeafer's question, I don't know what we want from Toronto. Marner or Nylander fits what I want to a T, but I understand not wanting to surrender a player like that. A first doesn't do much for us, and I agree with the sentiment that with Tanev the Leafs pick won't be worth as much as it has been in recent years though, and other non-first line players on the roster don't do for us what Tanev does. JVR or Kadri aren't enough, and one of the rookies I mentioned is too much, so I don't think there is a fit.
Bottom line is that if Leafs want Tanev, we would want either Nylander or Marner coming back the other way. Not a trade a rebuilding team like Toronto does.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
Bottom line is, no team will trade a Marner/Nylander level player for Tanev, that's been my contention. If that is your demand...and you have every right to demand that,then you have seriously limited the teams that would be interested. I mean you are asking for a teams TOP ELC forward....i don't even know what a Marner equivalent would be on teams interested in Tanev.
Take a look in the Brodie thread...the OP n that one was looking for Nylander, and was willing to add for Marner. So if we had to deal Nylander, Brodie would be chosen over Tanev.
The most I'd do for Tanev is JVR, Carrick, & Kapanen. Theirs no way a team gives up a young center peice player for one who maxes out as a #2 defenceman because he's limited offensively. That being said, Tanev is exactly what the Leafs need and I'd be happy if the Leafs got him without sacrificing any of the big-4.
Blueangel1891
Registered User
Agreed, but we're not trading our best player for something that won't fundamentally change this franchise.
Without an overpayment, there's no way in hell the Nucks trade Tanev
