Would you do a Gagne for Naslund trade straight up?

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Gagne for Naslund trade straight up

Yes
12
29%
No Philly needs to give more
22
54%
No Vancouver needs to give more
1
2%
Dont trade Naslund at all EVER
6
15%
 
Total votes : 41

Would you do a Gagne for Naslund trade straight up?

Postby mattola » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:55 pm

if that rumour was true? would you do this straight up? would it cost Philly more or the canucks more?
User avatar
mattola
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:44 am

Postby JamesOwnzSam11 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:04 pm

hmmmm Nah, how many of those 47 goals were because of Forsberg?

Naslund is the greatest Canuck and will become the highest scoring this year.
User avatar
JamesOwnzSam11
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:02 am

Postby Kid A » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:15 pm

So much depends on how much Gagne ends up making. If we could save some money with Gagne, and consequently add another impact player then I'd be all for the trade. If Gagne is going to make 6 mil then I'd keep Naslund.
Kid A
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:55 am

Postby Meerschaum » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:48 pm

If you can sign Gagne to a multi-year deal at $5 million, then yes. In a fricken heartbeat.

Why?

- We could afford to keep Carter or upgrade the d. Depth is everything these days.
- Gagne's younger than Nazzy.
- Gagne's infinitely better defensively than Nazzy.
- A Gagne/Mo/Bulis or Gagne/Mo/Cooke line would just flat-out fly - yet not be the defensive liability that the WCE was.
- We completely turn the page on the locker room cancer from last year.


If Gagne costs $6 million, then I'm not as wildly eager to do the deal. But, I'd still be pretty positive on it . . .
Modo vincis, modo vinceris.
User avatar
Meerschaum
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Postby the_bad_fish » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:30 pm

would Gagne work with the Sedin's. Because if Big Peter is the reason for his success, then couldn't the Sedin's do the same thing for Gagne. If that line could click and be long term, talk about a solid future

I think staright up trade in a heartbeat
the_bad_fish
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby MarkMM » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:40 pm

the_bad_fish wrote:would Gagne work with the Sedin's. Because if Big Peter is the reason for his success, then couldn't the Sedin's do the same thing for Gagne. If that line could click and be long term, talk about a solid future

I think staright up trade in a heartbeat


Problem with that scenario is that we'll revert to being a one-line team, I'm trying to remember, how did that work out before?
Mark
MarkMM
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Delta, BC

Postby kingofrockstars » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:48 pm

JamesOwnzSam11 wrote:hmmmm Nah, how many of those 47 goals were because of Forsberg?


How many of Naslund's goals were because he was playing with Bertuzzi?
User avatar
kingofrockstars
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:48 pm

Postby Island Nucklehead » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:51 pm

kingofrockstars wrote:
JamesOwnzSam11 wrote:hmmmm Nah, how many of those 47 goals were because of Forsberg?


How many of Naslund's goals were because he was playing with Bertuzzi?


Forsberg is a much better set up man than Bert, who just thinks he's a set up man.

Gagne is talented, but I haven't seen anyone score goals like Naslund. The guy dosn't need much help to put them in, just a little space to let the wrister fly.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Postby Bartman » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:29 pm

I would only take this trade IF Gagne is going to sign long term for 4-5 a season. However from what I've heard it is more likely that he is looking for 6-7 and the trade then makes no sense to me.
R.I.P. Luc.
Bartman
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Maple Ridge, BC

Postby kingofrockstars » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:51 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
kingofrockstars wrote:
JamesOwnzSam11 wrote:hmmmm Nah, how many of those 47 goals were because of Forsberg?


How many of Naslund's goals were because he was playing with Bertuzzi?


Forsberg is a much better set up man than Bert, who just thinks he's a set up man.

Gagne is talented, but I haven't seen anyone score goals like Naslund. The guy dosn't need much help to put them in, just a little space to let the wrister fly.


Bertuzzi's presence alone created more room for Naslund. The ice is going to be a hell of a lot smaller for Naslund now that other teams don't have to worry about 44. In the past teams would put thier best defenders against Bertuzzi, opening space for Naslund. Now they just have to shut Naslund out, without the threat of another game breaker on the same line. (No offence to Morrison)

Since Bertuzzi left (along with almost everyone else), Naslund has already become the bulls-eye on the target board of this city. It will only get harder for him as it will be difficult for him to duplicate his previous numbers and there will be plenty of criticism given to him. It's not a secret that he doesn't take the scrutiny very well.

Those who say that Naslund is a bad captain didn't watch the man stand in front of 20,000 fans and live television and admit that his team choked. Has anyone ever seen a pro athlete do that before? I have great respect for Markus Naslund and I believe he is the greatest Canuck to date. However there is no reason to stop the house cleaning now and if this deal presents itself, Nonis should do it because it makes us younger, faster, and frees up cap room. In the end it's up to Naslund anyways, having the benifit fo a no-trade clause.
User avatar
kingofrockstars
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:48 pm

Postby ververgaert » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:02 pm

The only reason I would want to see Naslund traded is to get him away from the head hunting Vancouver media and loser fans that come to places like this and talk radio shows bash and the crap out of the teams star players and try to make hero's of guys that havent even played a game for the team. Some of you need help.

You people know he has a no trade clause don't you? Why is this even being discussed? It's almost as stupid as the thread about giving the captian's C to someone else. That would be brilliant ! Why not just pull a gun out ans shoot the team in the foot before the season even starts. We saw how well that worked the last time it was stupidly done. Man I would hate to play in this city with all the idiots around.
Don Cherry for Prime Minister
ververgaert
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:18 pm
Location: North Delta

Postby ververgaert » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:03 pm

The only reason I would want to see Naslund traded is to get him away from the head hunting Vancouver media and loser fans that come to places like this and talk radio shows bash and the crap out of the teams star players and try to make hero's of guys that havent even played a game for the team. Some of you need help.

You people know he has a no trade clause don't you? Why is this even being discussed? It's almost as stupid as the thread about giving the captian's C to someone else. That would be brilliant ! Why not just pull a gun out ans shoot the team in the foot before the season even starts. We saw how well that worked the last time it was stupidly done. Man I would hate to play in this city with all the idiots around.
Don Cherry for Prime Minister
ververgaert
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:18 pm
Location: North Delta

Postby levelheaded » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:43 pm

I would never ever trade Naslund straight up for Gange. I've voiced my opinion on Naslund's situation a few times. He is a great player, easily our best since Bure. He is a proven goalscorer, and when he is on, he is genuinely fun to watch.

Now, with that said, If Nonis got offered a package of Gange, Carter and/or Richards and another player/ pick or two, he would be stupid not to accept it. But that is unlikely to happen.

Do I think Naslund will be traded? Yes. Do I think he should be traded? No.
User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Postby Bartman » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:56 pm

ververgaert wrote:You people know he has a no trade clause don't you? Why is this even being discussed? It's almost as stupid as the thread about giving the captian's C to someone else. That would be brilliant ! Why not just pull a gun out ans shoot the team in the foot before the season even starts. We saw how well that worked the last time it was stupidly done. Man I would hate to play in this city with all the idiots around.


A NTC is only in place if the player wishes it to be. IF Naslund approved a trade then it would be feasible to move him. Why is this being discussed? Why not? What else, hockey related is there at this time of year aside from the occasional signing and speculation of trades?

Agree 100% with your comments on the "C". Leave the "C" with the Captain and see if he can rise to the occasion. Marcus seems like a quality guy I think he'll put last season behind him and contribute in a big way next season.
R.I.P. Luc.
Bartman
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Maple Ridge, BC

Postby gobi » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:29 pm

I agree with Meers. If we can get Gagne for about 5 mil with a multi-year deal then go for it. But realistically, I think Naz will stay and retire as a Canuck.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Kesler with Naz. Hope that's not far-fetched.
Why do you keep banging your head on the wall?
Because it feels good when I stop.
gobi
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:13 am

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Hockey Widow, Lancer and 5 guests