HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Vancouver-Detroit (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1300273)

Red Haired Shanks 12-01-2012 06:00 PM

Vancouver-Detroit
 
Van: D Alex Edler, LW Bill Sweatt
Det: C Daren Helm, D Kyle Quincey, LW Tomas Tatar

Det needs a good replacement for Lidstrom(not saying Edler is as good as him), Edler is a big upgrade on Quincey, Sweatt is a speedy forward prospect with decent defensive skills. Det has the cap space to sign Edler when he becomes a FA so I dont see that as a big drop in his value, plus why wouldn't Edler want to sign in D-Town?.
Van gets a good 3rd line center, a replacement for Edler and a good talented forward prospect to add to vans poor prospect pool

StringerBell 12-01-2012 06:22 PM

Big no from Van. I really like Helm, but he's not worth the huge downgrade from Edler to Quincey. The prospect swap doesn't change that.

Vankiller Whale 12-01-2012 06:39 PM

No thank you.

Guru Meditation 12-01-2012 08:31 PM

Having watched a fair amount of Grand Rapids games this season, I really don't want to give up on Tatar. I think he could be a pretty good 2nd line type guy.

Siludin 12-02-2012 03:29 AM

I might be interested in that if it's Ericsson instead.

pdd 12-02-2012 03:50 AM

Not interested in giving up Helm and Tatar to change a signed Quincey into a UFA Edler.

Now if it were Hamhuis...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siludin (Post 56178933)
I might be interested in that if it's Ericsson instead.

Hmm...

To Det: D Hamhuis

To Van: F Abdelkader, F Pulkkinen, D Ericsson

kthsn 12-02-2012 03:53 AM

The only way VAN trades Edler/Hamhuis is for an immediate upgrade (Edler/Hamhuis+ for Dats/Z).

kthsn 12-02-2012 04:00 AM

I don't even understand why DET is proposing deals for Edler/Hamhuis.

Hamhuis has an NTC and signed with his hometown team. Edler is about as likely to re-sign as Howard is, he's also the #1 d-man on a team that's looking to contend.

Wouldn't DET be better off targeting the dmen of NYR/PIT/WIN? Orpik or Martin are good enough fill ins.

Reverend Mayhem 12-02-2012 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kthsn (Post 56179049)
The only way VAN trades Edler/Hamhuis is for an immediate upgrade (VAN+ for Dats/Z).

Not really sure what's with some Canuck fans lately that want to trade away a really useful player for packages that aren't going to match the impact that the player we had made for awhile. Maybe it's just some rare West-Coast Christmas cheer.

pdd 12-02-2012 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kthsn (Post 56179049)
The only way VAN trades Edler/Hamhuis is for an immediate upgrade (VAN+ for Dats/Z).

LOL.

Did you just ACTUALLY suggest Edler/Hamhuis for Datsyuk/Zetterberg?

Here's my rebuttal.

Kyle Quincey for Daniel Sedin.

kthsn 12-02-2012 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 56179083)
LOL.

Did you just ACTUALLY suggest Edler/Hamhuis for Datsyuk/Zetterberg?

Sorry should have made that clearer.

VAN+ meant to be Edler/Hamuis+ for Dats/Z. Obviously the add in would be substantial.

Reverend Mayhem 12-02-2012 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 56179083)
LOL.

Did you just ACTUALLY suggest Edler/Hamhuis for Datsyuk/Zetterberg?

Here's my rebuttal.

Kyle Quincey for Daniel Sedin.

As laughable as the first trade is, your rebuttal is downright ridiculous. You'd have done better if you said Kronwall, though I do think Kronwall is better than Hamhuis and Edler so on the other hand, maybe not.

pdd 12-02-2012 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kthsn (Post 56179077)
Wouldn't DET be better off targeting the dmen of NYR/PIT/WIN? Orpik or Martin are good enough fill ins.

I'd take a good deal for Enstrom/Bogosian or one of the Rangers trio.

Orpik and Martin being fill-ins is the problem; we have six guys in the 2-5 range. What we want is another #1. Preferably defensively sound, preferably under 30.

Hence the love for Hamhuis.

pdd 12-02-2012 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kthsn (Post 56179087)
Sorry should have made that clearer.

VAN+ meant to be Edler/Hamuis+ for Dats/Z. Obviously the add in would be substantial.

The add in would have to be Kesler and a 1st, at minimum.

kthsn 12-02-2012 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 56179113)
The add in would have to be Kesler and a 1st, at minimum.

That's a perfectly fair asking price.

The Canucks would just end up keeping all their players it doesn't look like Gillis is trying to sell off our top players for packages.

Lord Flacko* 12-02-2012 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 56179041)
Not interested in giving up Helm and Tatar to change a signed Quincey into a UFA Edler.

Now if it were Hamhuis...



Hmm...


To Det: D Hamhuis

To Van: F Abdelkader, F Pulkkinen, D Ericsson



If you want Hamhuis:
Smith+Helm+Jurco
For
Hamhuis

The Zetterberg Era 12-02-2012 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JATT187 (Post 56179499)
[/B]

If you want Hamhuis:
Smith+Helm+Jurco
For
Hamhuis

Glad Hamhuis has a NTC and probably won't waive for anyone if that is the price. Really Detroit and Vancouver don't make for great trade partners. Now if we go into a big rebuild maybe Franzen, but I don't think Detroit is heading that way yet.

JuniorNelson 12-02-2012 07:00 AM

I suspect the OP is right and Edler moves along. I envision a deal including Luongo and expect a fairly big return, though.

Lord Flacko* 12-02-2012 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWings19405 (Post 56179533)
Glad Hamhuis has a NTC and probably won't waive for anyone if that is the price. Really Detroit and Vancouver don't make for great trade partners. Now if we go into a big rebuild maybe Franzen, but I don't think Detroit is heading that way yet.

Hamhuis is our most important D-man. Without him our D is average at best. That's why it would take a lot to acquire him. BTW I am also glad he has a no trade clause ;)

Askel 12-02-2012 09:02 AM

Canucks is not trading Hamhuis, especally not for futures.

jroc86 12-02-2012 09:30 AM

Van definitely says no to this one ... change Helm to Filpula and that might be more realistic.

That said - I say ride out whatever this joke of a 40 game season might be and go for Edler @ free agency. Right before the lockout the difference between Gillis and Edlers management was 2+ million. If Gillis thinks hes going to strong-arm Edler into a Kesler contract when Suter just struck the jackpot hes dreaming.

Even if Edler gets resigned a stop-gap such as timmonen wouldnt be bad either. A few years from now our top 4 will be Kronwall, Smith, Sproul, Ouellete. What we need to trade for is a big bodied stayhome defenseman that plays physical. We have extra forwards to throw at guys like Regehr or D. Murray.

ronnyweed 12-02-2012 12:41 PM

wont be a season, edler will be a UFA no point in this

Bourne Endeavor 12-02-2012 01:22 PM

There is nothing reasonable Detroit could come up with that I would accept for Hamhuis. Even a slight overpayment and I'd likely decline. This is not a knock toward Detroit by any means but Hamhuis is just too valuable. Not to mention he took a huge discount to play for the Nucks. If I were Gillis, even asking him wouldn't be an option.

As for the OP. Not enough quality. Helm is great but certainly not at the cost of Edler.

Tomas W 12-02-2012 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eerie Hurdler (Post 56172115)
Having watched a fair amount of Grand Rapids games this season, I really don't want to give up on Tatar. I think he could be a pretty good 2nd line type guy.

Eh, you do realize that a established top defenseman like Edler is highly needed for DRW. No matter how well Tatar is playing, he IS playing in the AHL, he is just a prospect. Of course Edler is going to be a FA but still...

SoupNazi 12-02-2012 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JATT187 (Post 56179499)
[/B]

If you want Hamhuis:
Smith+Helm+Jurco
For
Hamhuis

Big no from Detroit.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.