HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: San Jose-Vancouver (Couture/Edler) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=807352)

JPavs8Clutchy* 08-07-2010 03:58 PM

San Jose-Vancouver (Couture/Edler)
 
:sharks
D Alexander Edler

:nucks
C Logan Couture
1st Round Pick


Thoughts?

crazy Kassian 08-07-2010 04:01 PM

:shakehead


Counter Offer

To Van: Boyle

To SJ: Raymond + 1st

Ludicrous Speed 08-07-2010 04:01 PM

Vancouver passes.

JPavs8Clutchy* 08-07-2010 04:03 PM

Changed it up the littlest bit...

JPavs8Clutchy* 08-07-2010 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hodgson (Post 27281453)
:shakehead


Counter Offer

To Van: Boyle

To SJ: Raymond + 1st

I don't think SJ does that.

cbjerrisgaard 08-07-2010 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281480)
I don't think SJ does that.

That's his point.

It would take an amazing package to get Edler

Ace of Canucks 08-07-2010 04:06 PM

Edler isn't going to be traded anytime soon.

We'll take that package for Bieksa on the other hand. :D

crazy Kassian 08-07-2010 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281480)
I don't think SJ does that.

Exactly, if you put more thought into this proposal you would know that it doesn't make the slightest sense

So we give up one of our best defenseman to obtain Couture (we already have an excellent top 6, Hodgson and Schroeder).

Now let's look at the sharks D... Okay.

GotKush* 08-07-2010 04:07 PM

No, I don't think San Jose has anything they would be willing to give up that Gillis would trade for Edler. Nothing at all.

JPavs8Clutchy* 08-07-2010 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GotKush (Post 27281535)
No, I don't think San Jose has anything they would be willing to give up that Gillis would trade for Edler. Nothing at all.

Thornton+1st+2nd+Couture+Setoguchi+Vlasic+Pavelski +Boyle wouldn't do the trick? :sarcasm:

Thorntonfan97 08-07-2010 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hodgson (Post 27281453)
:shakehead


Counter Offer

To Van: Boyle

To SJ: Raymond + 1st


Would you Vancouver fans do this

Vancouver
Clowe
1st round pick
Joslin
Petrecki
Mitchell


San Jose
Edler
Raymond
Bieksa/O'Brien

You owe us future considerations from the Ehrhoff trade so O'Brien or Bieksa could be those future considerations

crazy Kassian 08-07-2010 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281546)
Thornton+1st+2nd+Couture+Setoguchi+Vlasic+Pavelski +Boyle wouldn't do the trick? :sarcasm:

Nothing that would make sense. We can't afford to trade potentially our best Defenseman to another contender with a very weak blue line.

You used Boyle as an example but there's not a chance you could afford to trade him or DW will get fired on the spot

Sanderson 08-07-2010 04:12 PM

Couture serves absolutely no purpose for Vancouver, they have enough centers. Not to mention that they try to win now, which should make it pretty obvious that trading an established but still improving defenseman for a prospect makes no sense.

The Sharks, on the other hand, have absolutely no reason to go after someone like Edler. He'd cost way too many assets. San Jose doesn't gain anything if they improve their defense by trade while weakening the offense even further. Trying to sign someone like Mitchell makes far more sense.

@Thorntonfan97

That makes even less sense. Clowe has less value to Vancouver than Raymond, as Raymond is far cheaper. That makes it Edler plus Bieksa/O'Brien for almost nothing of value. Mitchell hasn't done much lately, the 1st is likely a low pick, Joslin isn't setting the world on fire and Petrecki is far away from the NHL, if he gets back on track at all.

andora 08-07-2010 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorntonfan97 (Post 27281568)
Would you Vancouver fans do this

Vancouver
Clowe
1st round pick
Joslin
Petrecki
Mitchell


San Jose
Edler
Raymond
Bieksa/O'Brien

You owe us future considerations from the Ehrhoff trade so O'Brien or Bieksa could be those future considerations

i didn't think vancouver was rebuilding

JPavs8Clutchy* 08-07-2010 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorntonfan97 (Post 27281568)
Would you Vancouver fans do this

Vancouver
Clowe
1st round pick
Joslin
Petrecki
Mitchell


San Jose
Edler
Raymond
Bieksa/O'Brien

You owe us future considerations from the Ehrhoff trade so O'Brien or Bieksa could be those future considerations


LOL, TF97, try to keep the stuff realistic.

As for the OP, I thought it would be a good proposal considering that the Sharks definitely need a two-way defenseman, and the Nucks could use a little cap space, and Couture would help out their bottom 6.

luongofreak1 08-07-2010 04:13 PM

no, Edler is untouchable, unless its for a substantial upgrade on him, which wont happen. If he gets some consistency he could very well contend for the norris one day, not someone we want to trade.

JPavs8Clutchy* 08-07-2010 04:14 PM

I didn't think the value was too off but whatever if y'all don't like it, that's cool.

Peter Griffin 08-07-2010 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281437)
:sharks
D Alexander Edler

:nucks
C Logan Couture
1st Round Pick


Thoughts?

Did you even consider Vancouver's needs/goals in this proposal?

pitseleh 08-07-2010 04:16 PM

I don't think the value is terrible (though I really like Couture as a prospect) but the Canucks need Edler a lot more than they need another scoring line prospect.

Dr Quincy 08-07-2010 04:18 PM

Saw the proposal and knew it was a Sharks fan proposing it. That tells me the value isn't fair.

Just can't see Vancouver having any interest in moving Edler.

DuckEatinShark 08-07-2010 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanderson (Post 27281578)
Couture serves absolutely no purpose for Vancouver, they have enough centers. Not to mention that they try to win now, which should make it pretty obvious that trading an established but still improving defenseman for a prospect makes no sense.

The Sharks, on the other hand, have absolutely no reason to go after someone like Edler. He'd cost way too many assets. San Jose doesn't gain anything if they improve their defense by trade while weakening the offense even further. Trying to sign someone like Mitchell makes far more sense.

+1, however we would definitely be interested in Edler though. If Vlasic regresses again next year, I'd entice Vancouver with Vlasic++.

Peter Griffin 08-07-2010 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark (Post 27281639)
+1, however we would definitely be interested in Edler though. If Vlasic regresses again next year, I'd entice Vancouver with Vlasic++.

If Vlasic regresses why would Vancouver want to move Edler for a package centered around a lesser player?

Sanderson 08-07-2010 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281592)
LOL, TF97, try to keep the stuff realistic.

As for the OP, I thought it would be a good proposal considering that the Sharks definitely need a two-way defenseman, and the Nucks could use a little cap space, and Couture would help out their bottom 6.

You don't try to get yourself a little cap space by trading a young core-player. Do you think the Sharks would try and gain a little bit of capspace by trading Vlasic?

Such a deal doesn't help a contender. You don't trade away a player who is supposed to play an important role to help out with your bottom 6 either.

matt trick 08-07-2010 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281601)
I didn't think the value was too off but whatever if y'all don't like it, that's cool.

Is the value off on Hodgson+Ballard+1st for Thornton? No, but that doesn't mean we would do it (Nor would Vancouver). You need to take team needs into consideration. Vancouver has Sedin-Kesler-Malhotra-Hodgson down the middle, they don't need Couture. They just moved their 1st+Grabner for a d-man who is about as good as, and older than Edler, in Ballard. this puts them in pretty much the same spot as they were before that trade. Why do it? As a side note, everyone here can look at Boyle-Vlasic-Murray-Huskins-Wallin-Demers and see a gaping hole, why would the Nucks- who have an elite d-squad, equivalent forward core, and excellent goalie- trade the key missing piece to their #1 or #2 contender for the western conference title, and trip to stanley cup? They wouldn't. If I were them, I wouldn't trade Bieksa to us either, just because while inconsistent, and not at the level of Ehrhoff, Ballard, Edler or Hambius, they know he has the potential to outplay them in a playoff series.

Stop daydreaming about players like Enstrom, Edler, and Suter, and try to think of realistic options like Oduya, Beauchmein, or Bieska. It is fun to dream, but keep em in your head not on the trade board where you will be subjected to humiliation.

denkiteki 08-07-2010 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPavs8Cluthcy (Post 27281546)
Thornton+1st+2nd+Couture+Setoguchi+Vlasic+Pavelski +Boyle wouldn't do the trick? :sarcasm:

Nope because of the salary cap. To take that deal, it means we will need to move Luongo + Kesler or the Twins. No way we do it... even if its :sarcasm: We would need to find a rebuilding team like the NYI to make it a 3 way trade and grab their 1st for the next 10 years.:laugh:

The trade itself, no way the 'nucks will move Edler as he has the most upside out of all our dmans and could very well end up being a #1 dman for us. As much upside as Couture has, he doesn't really fit our need since our forwards are pretty much set for now (all signed to 2+ year deals in the top 6) and the future (with all our top prospect being forwards too). The value isn't even close either since Elder already has 42 pt season and 79 pt in the last 2 years while playing very solid defense and is only 24. Not to mention 3 more years @ 3.25mil? That's a bargain for a 24 year old 40+ pt dman with a lot of upside vs. a top prospect for the Sharks but really not proven and a 1st (which is likely in the late 20s).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 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.