Who are you desperate to get at 3 that won't be available at 5? Also what do we have to pay for it?
- NorthNuck

Magna, Chaput, Pedan, the rights to Tramkin, exclusive negotiating right with Rodin and Columbus 2nd

I disagree. I think tanev and taking back one of their goalies will do the trick.
- neem55

Tanev and taking on a bad contract doesn't get you 3rd overall.

Tanev and taking on a bad contract doesn't get you 3rd overall.
- CanuckDon

Why not?

Why not?
- neem55

Not sure how to respond....common sense?

Tanev and taking on a bad contract doesn't get you 3rd overall.
- CanuckDon

Tanev for DAL goalie and 3rd overall wouldn't be a stretch. Both teams win. I doubt DAL does it, but it would be a huge win for VAN

Wow, the Fins beat the US. Canada should have a good shot at a 3rd straight gold

That's what a rebuild is. Trading roster players for futures which may or may not work out. All you can do is get more picks/propects and have a better chance(because you have more of them) that they work out. two top 5's would be pretty nice, I'd even inquire about the anahiem one(not for the same package obviously).
- neem55

I don't understand why everyone is so focused on draft picks. I think if Benning has shown anything, it's a tendency to trade for prospects who have already been drafted as opposed to acquiring picks (dahlen, goldy, baer, etc...)

So IF Tanev is traded, why the fukk should we expect a pick in return?

I think Washington is going to lose at least 2 from their backend this offseason, Shattenkirk and Alzner. Tanev is basically a younger, cheaper, RHD version of Alzner (who has himself admitted to losing a step after hernia surgery last season - google it). It's also possible they lose Nate Schmidt in expansion.

That is the premise to discuss the merits of a Tanev for Madison Bowey trade. Discuss.

Tanev for DAL goalie and 3rd overall wouldn't be a stretch. Both teams win.
- Codes1087

First of all, I can't imagine Gilardi allowing this transaction. He hates Aquilini. I would put Tanev's value between the 12th-15th pick. What would Dallas pay to take on a goalie contract? a late 2nd or 3rd pick? 13th overall plus 60th overall doesn't equate to a top 3 pick in my opinion. I think Vancouver fans are being Vancouver fans again and overrating our assets. Tanev has value but he is also injury prone and can't provide offense.

I don't understand why everyone is so focused on draft picks. I think if Benning has shown anything, it's a tendency to trade for prospects who have already been drafted as opposed to acquiring picks (dahlen, goldy, baer, etc...)

So IF Tanev is traded, why the fukk should we expect a pick in return?

I think Washington is going to lose at least 2 from their backend this offseason, Shattenkirk and Alzner. Tanev is basically a younger, cheaper, RHD version of Alzner (who has himself admitted to losing a step after hernia surgery last season - google it). It's also possible they lose Nate Schmidt in expansion.

That is the premise to discuss the merits of a Tanev for Madison Bowey trade. Discuss.
- Max.Betts

Good point, it's unlikely they would target a pick.

First of all, I can't imagine Gilardi allowing this transaction. He hates Aquilini. I would put Tanev's value between the 12th-15th pick. What would Dallas pay to take on a goalie contract? a late 2nd or 3rd pick? 13th overall plus 60th overall doesn't equate to a top 3 pick in my opinion. I think Vancouver fans are being Vancouver fans again and overrating our assets. Tanev has value but he is also injury prone and can't provide offense.
- CanuckDon

You have a GM in Nill who has publically commented on a win-now philosophy where the 3rd overall is in play for a established NHL player. You have the Canucks who are committed to getting younger/faster and are rebuilding. I understand why and where you value Tanev at 12-15 range, but I valued Burrows and Hansen as late round picks or B prospects and was blown away by the returns so I wouldn't be surprised by anything. You have to remember, DAL has like 18 million committed to 3 goalies next year, they have to get rid of one of those awful goalie contracts.

You have a GM in Nill who has publically commented on a win-now philosophy where the 3rd overall is in play for a established NHL player. You have the Canucks who are committed to getting younger/faster and are rebuilding. I understand why and where you value Tanev at 12-15 range, but I valued Burrows and Hansen as late round picks or B prospects and was blown away by the returns so I wouldn't be surprised by anything. You have to remember, DAL has like 18 million committed to 3 goalies next year, they have to get rid of one of those awful goalie contracts.
- Codes1087

A) very true, it's possible the trade could happen from a value stand point. I still don't think Galardi would ok the deal.
B) They certainly need to shed a goalie but there are numerous potential suitors. The Canucks have never taken on a bad contract for an asset and I doubt they would consider it in this instance. Could be wrong but I think it's highly unlikely.

Not sure how to respond....common sense?
- CanuckDon

This is what you say every time, do you just make poop up as you go and then when people ask why you think, you're reasoning is "common sense"

do you have any actual tangible facts? Or did you hear this from another one of your super-secret sources?

I don't understand why everyone is so focused on draft picks. I think if Benning has shown anything, it's a tendency to trade for prospects who have already been drafted as opposed to acquiring picks (dahlen, goldy, baer, etc...)

So IF Tanev is traded, why the fukk should we expect a pick in return?

I think Washington is going to lose at least 2 from their backend this offseason, Shattenkirk and Alzner. Tanev is basically a younger, cheaper, RHD version of Alzner (who has himself admitted to losing a step after hernia surgery last season - google it). It's also possible they lose Nate Schmidt in expansion.

That is the premise to discuss the merits of a Tanev for Madison Bowey trade. Discuss.
- Max.Betts

solid premise. I'd be into it, but would expect more than Bowie if I'm being honest.

This is what you say every time, do you just make poop up as you go and then when people ask why you think, you're reasoning is "common sense"

do you have any actual tangible facts? Or did you hear this from another one of your super-secret sources?
- neem55

I only respond this way to you because I don't think you are smart. Nothing personal

You have a GM in Nill who has publically commented on a win-now philosophy where the 3rd overall is in play for a established NHL player. You have the Canucks who are committed to getting younger/faster and are rebuilding. I understand why and where you value Tanev at 12-15 range, but I valued Burrows and Hansen as late round picks or B prospects and was blown away by the returns so I wouldn't be surprised by anything. You have to remember, DAL has like 18 million committed to 3 goalies next year, they have to get rid of one of those awful goalie contracts.
- Codes1087

See, this is what I call: a fairly reasonable explanation given the facts. The owners not liking eachother is interesting, but I still think a deal could very well happen because Dallas has ham-stringed themselves until they get one or both of those goalies off of the books.

I only respond this way to you because I don't think you are smart. Nothing personal
- CanuckDon

How could that not be personal? coming from a guys who's facts are "I just know, it's common sense" and "I know a guy" I've got to tell you: It's not much of an insult.

http://www.tsn.ca/stars-open-to-moving-no-3-pick-1.755450

JB, get your ass on the phone.
- neem55

Yup he should. You recall that Tanev + scenario for 3OA & Lehtenan. Now we see Nill is real keen on getting an NHL player. That's the retool they need. That pick is the rebuild the Canucks need.

A) very true, it's possible the trade could happen from a value stand point. I still don't think Galardi would ok the deal.
B) They certainly need to shed a goalie but there are numerous potential suitors. The Canucks have never taken on a bad contract for an asset and I doubt they would consider it in this instance. Could be wrong but I think it's highly unlikely.
- CanuckDon

At least this is something. It's Gaglardi there fact-king. The Canucks have only now committed to a rebuild, this suggests something like taking on a bad contract for a year is fully within our wheelhouse as a rebuilding franchise. There aren't that many teams that can take Niemi or Lethonen off of their hands IMO, who do you have in mind? Maybe Arizona, Colorado or Toronto.

How could that not be personal? coming from a guys who's facts are "I just know, it's common sense" and "I know a guy" I've got to tell you: It's not much of an insult.
- neem55

Just expressing my opinion Neem. Glad you aren't offended. I also posted my rationale to Codes.

I don't understand why everyone is so focused on draft picks. I think if Benning has shown anything, it's a tendency to trade for prospects who have already been drafted as opposed to acquiring picks (dahlen, goldy, baer, etc...)

So IF Tanev is traded, why the fukk should we expect a pick in return?

I think Washington is going to lose at least 2 from their backend this offseason, Shattenkirk and Alzner. Tanev is basically a younger, cheaper, RHD version of Alzner (who has himself admitted to losing a step after hernia surgery last season - google it). It's also possible they lose Nate Schmidt in expansion.

That is the premise to discuss the merits of a Tanev for Madison Bowey trade. Discuss.
- Max.Betts

Caps may be a team Edler could be convinced to waive for and he'd be more comparable for replacing Alzner then Tanev from a Caps perspective. If JB can pull off take that prospect and run.

You have a GM in Nill who has publically commented on a win-now philosophy where the 3rd overall is in play for a established NHL player. You have the Canucks who are committed to getting younger/faster and are rebuilding. I understand why and where you value Tanev at 12-15 range, but I valued Burrows and Hansen as late round picks or B prospects and was blown away by the returns so I wouldn't be surprised by anything. You have to remember, DAL has like 18 million committed to 3 goalies next year, they have to get rid of one of those awful goalie contracts.
- Codes1087

When I made that proposal last week Lefty and Manvanfan thought it was a good trade and plausible. They don't tend to overvalue Canuck players so there is some consensus there on doable.

Caps may be a team Edler could be convinced to waive for and he'd be more comparable for replacing Alzner then Tanev from a Caps perspective. If JB can pull off take a prospect and run.
- Nuck4U

Cap hit differential is pretty big, even if WSH wanted Edler, I doubt they could take on an extra 2.2 mil for someone to fill the same roster spot

Why not?
- neem55

because you don't give up a top 3 pick for scraps?

Literally no difference between 5 and 3, I'd rather Trade Tanev for assets outside of this draft, cause it sucks.

When I made that proposal last week Lefty and Manvanfan thought it was a good trade and plausible. They don't tend to overvalue Canuck players so there is some consensus there on doable.
- Nuck4U

not worth the #3 to take on either Niemi/Lehtonen (reminder this is a team getting the 3oa with Seguin/Benn, so clearly both goalies are terrible), and we lose Tanev? Im very not interested in this trade just to get ... Middlestat? is that who you are gunning for?

How could that not be personal? coming from a guys who's facts are "I just know, it's common sense" and "I know a guy" I've got to tell you: It's not much of an insult.
- neem55

said the guy trading away arguably our most valuable trade asset in Tanev for a #3 pick in a subpar draft....

you seem salty...