Burrows and Edler package. Best bang for your buck. I love both these guys but this would shake it up and bring you quality return. Bring on the hate.

Just going by what Alex called it.

I just don't think that the Canucks can acquire the calibre of player (AlexF proposed a 1C) that makes the Sedin line the second most dangerous offensive line on that team.

The Sedin line will be the highest producing line on the Canucks, whatever you want to call it, until they retire.

EDIT: I'd like to see the 4th line also become the "shut down" line. A third line of Hansen Schroeder Higgins may not be what I'd call a "shut down" line, but it's a line that is still very good defensively, and can also score.

It would be nice to have a 4th line of decent sized players who can bang bodies but also contain the other team's offensive threats.
- Fosco

I think You can obtain a very good scoring top 6 line . It would cost you Kesler and Edler and maybe even a third piece but it can be done. I am not sauying it will be done ,but it can be. We still have pieces worth value to trade but they are depreciating.

Burrows and Edler package. Best bang for your buck. I love both these guys but this would shake it up and bring you quality return. Bring on the hate.
- thundachunk

I wouldn't want to move out any of the team's current top6 forwards (except Booth, who I no longer consider a legit top 6).

I've maintained for a while, and still do, that Burrows value on the ice will always be higher than his trade value.

You'd get more return for Edler plus one of the team's top prospects.

I think You can obtain a very good scoring top 6 line . It would cost you Kesler and Edler and maybe even a third piece but it can be done. I am not sauying it will be done ,but it can be. We still have pieces worth value to trade but they are depreciating.
- VANTEL

That would set the team back more than anything.

Maybe my idea of a "top line player" is different.

IMO, the Canucks only have two "top line players." Burrows becomes one by association, but isn't without the Sedins.

The Canucks need one or two more top6 players. They have 4 right now.

I agree, D is definitely a sellers market; however, the only position that is more of a sellers market is top line C.
- Fosco

So keep Kesler and the Sedins. 30 teams would instantly be better. #1 centers are hard to come by.

I wouldn't want to move out any of the team's current top6 forwards.

I've maintained for a while, and still do, that Burrows value on the ice will always be higher than his trade value.

You'd get more return for Edler plus one of the team's top prospects.
- Fosco

This is true but as Scooby said a while back Burrows is an excellent player at 2 Mil not as good at 4.5 .If you are going to move him it has to be done before July 1 st before NTC

So keep Kesler and the Sedins. 30 teams would instantly be better. #1 centers are hard to come by.
- thundachunk

I hope they do.

They need to add a top6 forward without subtracting one.

That would set the team back more than anything.
- Fosco

You would have to see the return before we could come to that conclusion.

This is true but as Scooby said a while back Burrows is an excellent player at 2 Mil not as good at 4.5 .If you are going to move him it has to be done before July 1 st before NTC
- VANTEL

I disagree. He's still great at $4.5m.

Might not be in three years, though, I agree.

You would have to see the return before we could come to that conclusion.
- VANTEL

They're not getting 3 top6 F for Edler and Kesler.

Not counting the Sedins I have 2 players that I would not part with Kesler and Hamhuis you lose these 2 players and this team is instantly in bad bad position. We have seen time and time again when it counts these are our top 2 players.

They're not getting 3 top6 F for Edler and Kesler.
- Fosco

There could be a few deals . Like we were talking about the other day ,do you believe Malkin will come back as a second line center to Pitts? I don't .Kesler + could be a good starting offer

Not counting the Sedins I have 2 players that I would not part with Kesler and Hamhuis you lose these 2 players and this team is instantly in bad bad position. We have seen time and time again when it counts these are our top 2 players.
- thundachunk

I would trade Kes if the return was equal

Not counting the Sedins I have 2 players that I would not part with Kesler and Hamhuis you lose these 2 players and this team is instantly in bad bad position. We have seen time and time again when it counts these are our top 2 players.
- thundachunk

What's with the Hamhuis hard on? I mean I like him too, but guy looked very average without Bieksa. He needs KB as much as KB needs him

I would trade Kes if the return was equal
- VANTEL

I would be open to trade any player if it gets us unquestionably better

I would be open to trade any player if it gets us unquestionably better
- Bieksa#3

Thank you so would I. I think the real future of the team is in our young guys . Tanev Corrado Gaunce Kassian . I want to see them develop .

There could be a few deals . Like we were talking about the other day ,do you believe Malkin will come back as a second line center to Pitts? I don't .Kesler + could be a good starting offer
- VANTEL

I really think the pieces are there for both teams for a blockbuster with Philly

Taj‏@taj19441m
YESSSSSSSSSS RT: @FifthQtr: Talk over, Arceneaux signs two-year Lions deal http://wp.me/p1JrHa-uJ5


For the BC Lion fans

Taj‏@taj19441m
YESSSSSSSSSS RT: @FifthQtr: Talk over, Arceneaux signs two-year Lions deal http://wp.me/p1JrHa-uJ5


For the BC Lion fans
- VANTEL

Awesome. And rightfully so.

I really think the pieces are there for both teams for a blockbuster with Philly
- Bieksa#3

I agree also . I mentioned it earlier we also have the pieces to trade with TB or Fla for Mackinnon

What's with the Hamhuis hard on? I mean I like him too, but guy looked very average without Bieksa. He needs KB as much as KB needs him
- Bieksa#3

Agreed. But I don't think it was the Bieksa factor.

I agree also . I mentioned it earlier we also have the pieces to trade with TB or Fla for Mackinnon
- VANTEL

Yes I seen that. However, short term I believe that deal weakens us. You make that deal, might as well ship the twins, Kesler etc out.

Agreed. But I don't think it was the Bieksa factor.
- Fosco

And honestly I think this is the perfect scenerio you look at and see coaching as a huge part of the problem. Why Bowness/AV split them up is beyond me

Yes I seen that. However, short term I believe that deal weakens us. You make that deal, might as well ship the twins, Kesler etc out.
- Bieksa#3

I would view it as equal to Seguin . He didn't really hurt the Bruins

What's with the Hamhuis hard on? I mean I like him too, but guy looked very average without Bieksa. He needs KB as much as KB needs him
- Bieksa#3

No real hard on but these two have been our best. As for Hamhuis I think he has continued to progress year after year. You can't ask more of a player. I have to agree with Vantel though if the trade is equal they should be available.