kloubek Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I know most on here have absolute bro love for Tanev, but the posts in this particular thread have been a little more realistic so far. Tanev is a safe, reliable defender. I believe his upside is a bit better than some are suggesting, but he will never be a first pairing blueliner. One year at 2.75 is too much in my opinion. I think this is fair: 1yr @ 2.25 2yrs @ 2.5 3yrs @ 2.75 4yrs @ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSwede Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I know most on here have absolute bro love for Tanev, but the posts in this particular thread have been a little more realistic so far. Tanev is a safe, reliable defender. I believe his upside is a bit better than some are suggesting, but he will never be a first pairing blueliner. One year at 2.75 is too much in my opinion. I think this is fair: 1yr @ 2.25 2yrs @ 2.5 3yrs @ 2.75 4yrs @ 3 Usually the shorter the term the higher the actual dollars will be.. 1 year 3 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Zebra Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 With Benning's comment about getting rid of olayers who didn't want to be here (Kes). Combined with Tanev threatening to go to the KHL Connect the dots, his time in vancouver isn't over yet but will be soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undrafted Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I don't think Tanev is going to get $3M. The fact that the deal is getting done before arbitration indicates that management is the position of power when it comes to bargaining. Not likely that Tanev would get that $3M if it came to arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I'm guessing he gets 2M on the dot edit: maybe 2.25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 But at the same time, if you want a balanced defense, there's also a side to take that why rush to move Tanev? Who else can play the right side on the 2nd dpair effectively? Currently no one so would need to assure someone else is in plan to replace him. If not, keep him for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 An Edler-Tanev dpairing has always made the most sense since forever but for some odd reason, neither Torts or AV used it consistently. Hope Willie gives it some thought and gives it a few games. Only makes the most sense.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 That one year deal though is highly suspicious. Yeah, for a solid young defenceman it doesn't make sense from the team's point of view at all. You'd want to lock those guys up. I think one of the factors in Tanev's value to the Canucks also lies in the fact that they haven't and still don't have a better d-man to fill his spot right now, either on the roster or in the system. Proof of that lies in the Canucks record last year when Tanev was out with injuries. A one-year deal suits both parties: it gives Tanev another year to add value, either to the Canucks or to another NHL team; it gives Benning another year to find an upgrade if that's what he's looking for. That's the problem alright -- no depth. We're still two years away from our D prospects being ready to come in. Hopefully some idiot hands Tanev an offer sheer for $3.5mil. Then we can ship that compensation off for Buffalo's crazy demands for Myers. Indeed -- there's your 1st-rounder, Murray! Would think they'd be smart enough to keep it to $3.3 and a 2nd, though, if they could. With Benning's comment about getting rid of olayers who didn't want to be here (Kes). Combined with Tanev threatening to go to the KHL Connect the dots, his time in vancouver isn't over yet but will be soon Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyLow_ Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 JB is a Shrewd negotiator, I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I betcha it's a sign and trade. I want Myers so bad it's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrChill Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Usually the shorter the term the higher the actual dollars will be.. 1 year 3 million.in this kind of deal longer is more money for RFA.With Benning's comment about getting rid of olayers who didn't want to be here (Kes). Combined with Tanev threatening to go to the KHL Connect the dots, his time in vancouver isn't over yet but will be soon I betcha it's a sign and trade. I want Myers so bad it's ridiculous. Ya I think they think a Edler Myers pair would be the future. I would be happy with that. Tanev+Hansen+Gaunce is as much as I would go and pieces buff could use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Tanev doesn't turn 26 until December of this year. So, if he signs a one-year deal now, his contract will expire before he turns 27 (making him still an RFA because he also does not have seven years of service in the NHL). A one year deal would be great for the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undrafted Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Tanev doesn't turn 26 until December of this year. So, if he signs a one-year deal now, his contract will expire before he turns 27 (making him still an RFA because he also does not have seven years of service in the NHL). A one year deal would be great for the Canucks. Actually, Tanev's current 24yo, turns 25 in Dec. Still two years to go before he can be UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Hmmm, wouldn't a trading partner prefer him to be locked up for a few years, so he doesn't walk at the end of the season, RFA/offer sheet or otherwise? Or, would they seek to immediately extend him? Surely #4 (2nd pairing) is much preferable to #5 (3rd pairing)? Don't know what Tanev's value is out there, but at his age and what he's accomplished so far would think it's decent enough to bring a respectable return, but would likely have to be part of a package. Would need a D though, as we're pretty thin on NHL-ready talent, having to reach to Corrado and Weber if none come back. Tanev isn't the type of player someone is going to offer sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Actually, Tanev's current 24yo, turns 25 in Dec. Still two years to go before he can be UFA. Yes my bad. Read '88 not '89. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppleJack Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Only 1 year Come on Benning give him the same contract as kassian, maybe sweeten the deal by promising he won't have to play with edler! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 i can't believe how shortsighted most people seem to be when it comes to tanev. not physical at all - there have been plenty of good defensive defencemen that aren't physical too small - 6'2" 185 lbs at training camp last year. i'd be surprised if he wasn't at least 195 lbs at training camp this year. doesn't bring any offense - 6 goals, second on the team amongst defencemen, with essentially zero power play time. moves the puck well, can skate, great first pass and makes smart plays in the offensive zone. i'd be shocked if he doesn't break 30 points next year. i wasn't expecting a bridge deal. my expectation is that this will be less than a long term would have been, which means the team is trying to save cap space for this season. i can only expect that that means there's another move they want to make that adds salary. i also expect it will cost them more long term, as tanev will have a good year, proving everybody's mindless criticisms wrong, and cash in next summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyAL Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 They did the same thing with Hansen until he signed his last contract they wouldn't give him the term for a couple of contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 What's with these 1 year bridge contracts. If it's more than 3 mill, I'm done. Like I'm d o n e. d o n e . Deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Hmmm, wouldn't a trading partner prefer him to be locked up for a few years, so he doesn't walk at the end of the season, RFA/offer sheet or otherwise? Or, would they seek to immediately extend him? I would certainly think so. It doesn't make much sense from a Canucks point of view to trade a pending FA at the deadline, or even before. I don't see how you get full value for the player, unless you find a trading partner who is trying to shed salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.