How very strange this is for me to find that I am agreeing with the Dude.....The Brown Knight wrote:Almost fully agree with the above, but I'm not sure I make Shinkaruk available for Kane.RoyalDude wrote:It amazes me how many still dream up trades involving the bottom 6 rotation. IF THIS TEAM PLANS ON BEING A IN THE STANLEY CUP MIX THIS TEAM NEEDS TOP 6 TALENT. It's pretty fucking pointless otherwise - the constant Gillis tickerings of the bottom 6. He still, in his 6 years has yet to add a significant player to the top 6, still riding on previous mgmt's top 6 talent, and so because of that, our scoring prowess dwindles each and every year, but hey, keep making those pointless bottom 6 Matthias type trades.
To get top 6 young talent like Evander Kane, you got to give up something. Every prospect on my list, except Horvat is available (Gaunce, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Jensen, Schroeder), the 2014 1st pick is available, as well as bottom 3rd pairing d-man - Tanev and bottom 6 players Hansen and Kassian. I think a package involving any of that could and should land us young top 6 talent like Kane. But we all know, Bold Moves Gillis will not boldly go where Mike has never gone before.
For me, Horvat and Shinkaruk are untouchables.........unless a guy like Claude Giroux actually is available (and again, there are conflicting reports here).
But yes - other than that, I pretty much agree you. For Evander Kane, I'd give up pretty much any prospect and/or first rounder outside of Horvat and Shinkaruk.
But nonetheless, the need on this team is definitely in the top 6, and I don't know that I would be willing to sell the farm, in fact I think I'd be careful there. However, I would be willing to part with one of our top 4 defensemen and maybe a prospect like Schroeder and a pick. Top 6 forwards don't come cheap.
Here's the downside to my above paragraph, Gillis made an asshat out of himself again when he handed out yet another NTC to Edler.....who I would part with right now if it brought back a legitimate top 6 forward with a nose for scoring. It would hurt the defensive corps depth, but we see a lot of teams with a solid top 3, a solid 5-6 in the 4 spot, and then a young talent and a stay home plug who can play physical defense. So when I consider the way that the Canucks have dominated their opponents the last few games, and we've seen much of the play down in the offensive zone, I would be happy to upgrade that offense at the expense of the blueline.....
Or balance the youth with some experience except when shortening the bench and go with....
That's not a terrible looking blueline, and it's better than what we had when Luongo was at his best with a defense that was a paper thin slice of swiss cheese back in 2006-07, might as well gamble that he can do that again.