Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Christopher Tanev | #8 | D


-SN-

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Fakename70 said:

He's always injured, though. I get WHY he's that, but, surely nothing good can come from having the guy still on the roster the closer he gets to 30 if he's missing a substantial amount of games because he's physically unable to play. We've seen what he can do but ultimately his game leaves me wanting to see someone else who can chip in on offence as well. Isn't that what the best teams in the league have? Isn't that what the Canucks had when they were among the leagues' elite at the beginning of the decade? Chris Tanev has reached his ceiling. Do CDC'rs really have the stomach to spend the next half decade waiting for him - at age 31 - to FINALLY maximise his potential and put it all together? Haven't you had enough of that with Edler? 

Depends what he commands in return? No sense getting rid of him for nothing...

 

Coming off 11 or 12 points and a 41 game season he's probably already ''damaged'' goods. Just as well to let him get healthy, teach the young un's to close out advancing forwards, close out pucks & clear the zone. If he has a solid run? We'll get a great deal more for him at the deadline than we might now while he's rehabilitating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Depends what he commands in return? No sense getting rid of him for nothing...

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

 

Assuming we could get a say mid 1st and a prospect for Tanev, plus another asset (and/or retaining or taking back salary), and sign a short term UFA to fill in as a veteran presence in the roster... I'd lean to moving him personally.

 

And he'd likely also play better (and stay healthier) in a 2nd pair role on a contender than a 1st pair D on a rebuilding team.

 

He's a very valuable player (when he's able to play) but a mid 1st, a prospect and a UFA is likely better for the team long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

 

Assuming we could get a say mid 1st and a prospect for Tanev, plus another asset (and/or retaining or taking back salary), and sign a short term UFA to fill in as a veteran presence in the roster... I'd lean to moving him personally.

 

And he'd likely also play better (and stay healthier) in a 2nd pair role on a contender than a 1st pair D on a rebuilding team.

 

He's a very valuable player (when he's able to play) but a mid 1st, a prospect and a UFA is likely better for the team long term.

We have several young D coming up soon, like Juiolevi, Brisbois, etc. Maybe it's best to keep Tanev as a mentor for these guys to see the right way to play?  I know Tanev gets hurt a lot, but that's mostly because he plays the game the right way (takes hits, blocks shots, etc.) and he's a lighter framed guy.  I used to be on the "trade Tanev" band wagon, but I'm rethinking this now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aGENT said:

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

 

Assuming we could get a say mid 1st and a prospect for Tanev, plus another asset (and/or retaining or taking back salary), and sign a short term UFA to fill in as a veteran presence in the roster... I'd lean to moving him personally.

 

And he'd likely also play better (and stay healthier) in a 2nd pair role on a contender than a 1st pair D on a rebuilding team.

 

He's a very valuable player (when he's able to play) but a mid 1st, a prospect and a UFA is likely better for the team long term.

Well, that's exactly my point!

 

If you could get a mid first and another young asset for Tanev; go for it?  If part of the equation is ''weaponzining'' our cap space. Taking on another veteran with negative value, but has a crappy contract? Who still has potential to be a role mode for our kids... Fine!

 

That's just a lot of stars to align. And we know you would move Tanev.  You have been the lead avocate on CDC, a polite one, consistently for what, 18 months?

 

The fact is Tanev played 41 games & scored 11 points.  Big returns are probably less likely than CDC would like to believe.   

 

6 hours ago, Alflives said:

We have several young D coming up soon, like Juiolevi, Brisbois, etc. Maybe it's best to keep Tanev as a mentor for these guys to see the right way to play?  I know Tanev gets hurt a lot, but that's mostly because he plays the game the right way (takes hits, blocks shots, etc.) and he's a lighter framed guy.  I used to be on the "trade Tanev" band wagon, but I'm rethinking this now.

I have never been on the trade Tanev train!  I am realistic, as above that if the right proposal came, I would be open? We could force the issue, challenge ourselves to deal with the issue if an attractive deal came about.

 

But we do not have a logical replacement. The prospect depth on the right side of our D is near zero. McEneny & Chatfield are our candidates. A now 22 year old undrafted UFA signing with a rookie AHL season that suggest one day he might be a 7th or 8th man? And a prospect drafted in the 7th round of his second year of eligibility? Allthough he broke out in essentially his overage year turning 20 playing against 16 to 18 years olds. Odd's are these will be career 2knd pair AHL players. Good to have, have their place in our system, but certainly not guys you trade Tanev for to make room on the big club.

 

Its better on our main roster. Right now Tanev / Stecher / Gudbranson / Biega is not an exciting, but highly viable right side. Tanev is a top pairing D, but even in aGent's admission, perhaps would be better in a 2knd pair role? Gudbranson & Stecher have also shown to be pretty adequate top 4 D, can substitute in top pair roles? I don't think we can say they have proven they are top pair D guys though. Defined as guys who can drive the franchise success forward if deployed in a top pair role. Unfortunately not? They are not difference makers, which is what you want on the top pair.That depth could improve a lot over 18 months if we drafted Boqvist, Wilde or Dobson? Even then it would still be lacking a second viable RHD prospect. I advocate drafting several D this year. We could also change that by signing either another place holder / Vanek style implant except on D? Or impact player like Mike Green or (wishful thinking) John Carlson. But I am a succession planner.

 

Let's put it this way. As we don't even have a sniff of an adequate replacement for Tanev? Not on our big club, not in prospect depth. I'm not in favour of trading him.  Lets get that in place first!

 

So I say be patient. Let Tanev groom & protect some of our kids. Let him try and get healthy. When he has some health & momentum behind him his trade value might also be where it becomes worth it to revisit a trade! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/04/2018 at 11:43 AM, panelguy said:

Couldn't agree more,I brought this up during the season and got dog piled by Tanev lovers. told I need to learn about hockey and all sorts.

 

I believe CDC'rs have a tendency to think with the heart first rather than the brain. Which would explain the constant overvaluing of certain players who are really really really well-liked, but really aren't anywhere near as good or essential as the faithful think they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Depends what he commands in return? No sense getting rid of him for nothing...

 

Coming off 11 or 12 points and a 41 game season he's probably already ''damaged'' goods. Just as well to let him get healthy, teach the young un's to close out advancing forwards, close out pucks & clear the zone. If he has a solid run? We'll get a great deal more for him at the deadline than we might now while he's rehabilitating.  

As unimpressed as I am and as overrated I believe he is, I would never advocate dumping him for the proverbial bag-o-pucks. That's just not smart. But, as usual, CDC'rs largely seem to think he'd fetch just as much in the real world as he apparently would in the fake one. I think GMJB missed the train on getting a REALLY good and favourable deal for Tanev by hanging onto him after the Worlds, when his trade value was as high as it's ever going to be. He made the same mistake with Kassian, remember? Held onto him too long, and it was downhill from there. I feel we'll see the same regarding Tanev. 

And, as for those CDC'rs who Long to see him retained as a mentor for the younger cats behind him on the depth chart, to me that just sounds like another way of saying that the team won't be any good nor competitive any time soon. Teams that stink usually have far more time for "mentoring" than those that are competing for a playoff spot. And teams that have young players who can contribute to a successful NHL club don't need them to be "mentored" at the NHL level. If they did, they likely wouldn't have gotten called up from the minors. Unfortunately, in the Canucks case, they have young players at the NHL level who might be better served by still playing in the AHL or whichever league they were in before they got here. Even some CDC favourites, in my opinion. 

 

But, back to Tanev. I'm still of the mind that it's incredibly disappointing (as is the overvaluing by CDC'rs of certain fan favourites on this team) that Benning apparently wanted no part of any trade talks with Montreal regarding Subban in 2016 if Tanev was involved. If true, it was crazy then, and it's still crazy now. If Tanev was ever going to be moved for anything substantial in return, THAT was GMJB's one shot. Again, I'm not of the mind that Benning should just "get rid of" Tanev, but, each year forward of holding onto him is another year further from when his value was at its peak. 

Id love to see him flip the switch and prove me wrong over the next 4 years, but I don't see that happening. And, a lot of CDC'rs are so in love with the guy that they've set the bar low enough so that when he meets it it gives them the opportunity to crow about him being one of the best defencemen in the game or whatever it is they say about him, and that Benning should hold onto him so he can mentor the kids if he doesn't receive any offers approaching the level of real world "fair value" Tanev repeatedly gets in fantasy. Not gonna happen. 

Edited by Fakename70
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

But, back to Tanev. I'm still of the mind that it's incredibly disappointing (as is the overvaluing by CDC'rs of certain fan favourites on this team) that Benning apparently wanted no part of any trade talks with Montreal regarding Subban in 2016 if Tanev was involved.

I understood the key ask, not like I am in the know (?), was our lottery pick.  I presume the time line would have been the Juolevi pick, but I am currently on a couple of afternoon beers and cant remember. Oh yeah, Montreal was apparently really big on Pierre Luc Dubois if we could snag him for them.  But logically Tanev would have been an inclusion?                                              (Montreal would have been truly better off with Dubois & Tanev in liu of Weber IMO???)

 

And yeah, the top time frame value wise would have been after the WC's.  But really without a replacement RHD, Subban would have obviously qualified, I doubt JB has ever seriously considered moving Tanev. I echo the opinion some made back then; as good as Subban might have been, would we not have really just been wasting his prime?

 

May as well have gone down the road we dumb lucked ourselves into...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

But, as usual, CDC'rs largely seem to think he'd fetch just as much in the real world as he apparently would in the fake one.

While I agree that CDC'rs usually overrate our players, there is little denying that Tanev is one of the premier shutdown guys in the league.  The issue with this is that not all GMs value such metrics as much as they do guys who can produce more points.  Add to that the fact he is often injured (largely due to his playing style) and the issue isn't so much of whether he is worth a high price, rather than trying to find a GM who is willing to pay the price we want to get for him.

 

Personally, I think there is a possibility he's had an abnormally long string of bad luck and his injury woes may not be quite as bad moving forward.  Yes, he puts himself in difficult positions due to his tenacity on the puck and not particularly big size, but perhaps he is just working against the percentages lately.  He will never be an ironman - of that I am certain - but looking back to prior seasons, I think expecting him to play 65-70 games a season is quite reasonable.  And let's face it - many players (most?) get injured at some point in the season anyway.

 

If one can forget the last two years of injuries, he remains a very, very strong defender with a high value to the right GM.  If he can stay in the 65-70 game range he can also put up around 18-20 points which isn't quite as brutally horrible as the impression most of us have of him.

 

In my opinion, if we don't get a real good return including defensive prospect(s) I don't want to move him.  If we do manage to get a scoring defenseman any time soon, Tanev gives that guy the ability to pinch in and play his fullest offensive game.  That's worth something too.

Edited by kloubek
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

And we know you would move Tanev.  You have been the lead avocate on CDC, a polite one, consistently for what, 18 months?

Yes, well I hate it when I'm right (:P) but as we appear to be heading towards a likely ever shrinking trade return due to his injuries...

 

Two years ago we quite likely wouldn't have needed a 'plus' (or at least a much smaller one) to get a solid D prospect and mid 1st in return. Now though, I'm pretty certain we would need something fairly substantial.

 

Still like my and Rob's Tanev to PHI concept though.

 

15 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

I believe CDC'rs have a tendency to think with the heart first rather than the brain. Which would explain the constant overvaluing of certain players who are really really really well-liked, but really aren't anywhere near as good or essential as the faithful think they are. 

In my experience, CDC has just as much tendency to undervalue players *cough* Sutter *cough* Edler *cough*.

 

What I believe we can glean from this, is that CDC's player valuations are by in large, rubbish :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 10:08 AM, aGENT said:

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

 

Assuming we could get a say mid 1st and a prospect for Tanev, plus another asset (and/or retaining or taking back salary), and sign a short term UFA to fill in as a veteran presence in the roster... I'd lean to moving him personally.

 

And he'd likely also play better (and stay healthier) in a 2nd pair role on a contender than a 1st pair D on a rebuilding team.

 

He's a very valuable player (when he's able to play) but a mid 1st, a prospect and a UFA is likely better for the team long term.

100%

 

There is also not going to be as much injury concern as people think there is in terms of his market.   Sure he has had some injuries but some of them, like pucks to face, are not due to a style of play and he has had some freak injuries and luck tends to average out over a career.   While he is not going to win any ironman awards for consecutive games, it is interesting to note that a random selection of some top D in nhl who are similar vintage and played full-time inclusive of 2012-13 season (Tanev's real first year) have the following games played totals:

 

- Ellis 364

- Tanev 346

- Hedman 412

- Letang 332

- Shattenkirk 383

 

Do people view the other names beyond Tanev "damaged" and not worth pursuing in a trade?

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

100%

 

There is also not going to be as much injury concern as people think there is in terms of his market.   Sure he has had some injuries but some of them, like pucks to face, are not due to a style of play and he has had some freak injuries and luck tends to average out over a career.   While he is not going to win any ironman awards for consecutive games, it is interesting to note that a random selection of some top D in nhl who are similar vintage and played full-time inclusive of 2012-13 season (Tanev's real first year) have the following games played totals:

 

- Ellis 364

- Tanev 346

- Hedman 412

- Letang 332

- Shattenkirk 383

 

Do people view the other names beyond Tanev "damaged" and not worth pursuing in a trade?

Awesome post!  Players, who play the right way, will get injured.  It's a friggin' rough game!

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

we appear to be heading towards a likely ever shrinking trade return due to his injuries...

Heading? :P

 

Here's the thing. Without ''intending'' to tank rebuild 2 years ago. We still have managed to implode. How bad would it have been had we sold Tanev for futures?  

 

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

Still like my and Rob's Tanev to PHI concept though.

Recall if you will please > I piped into Rob's concept & suggested we offer Tanev? He just wanted Sanheim! It was other parts, Baertschi inclusive if my memory is on the ball, that Rob suggested, not Chris?  I did not think, with Giroux & Konecny playing top 6 LW, Lindnlom in tow that they would have much interest for Baer.  But they have only one RHD in their line-up, Gudas, and one in their pipeline, Myers. Chris Tanev would have filled an important need for Philly. 

 

Not that Sanheim is quite as on the pulse to our needs as a RHD? But he appeared to be having trouble fitting on Philly's bloated LHD depth? And is a pretty high end talent, BPA if you will...

 

I believe another great target for us is Dallas.  They're swimming in small PMD's. They have Klingburg with Heskainen in tow. And Honka was not a favorite of Hitch. Honka would be a good target for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

- Ellis 364                173 career points 

- Tanev 346             86 career points

- Hedman 412         364 career points

- Letang 332            437 career points

- Shattenkirk 383     321 career points

 

Do people view the other names beyond Tanev "damaged" and not worth pursuing in a trade?

I have added a relevant statistic to the RHS of your column. One of these things is not like the others...

 

Those other D, possibly Hedman as a partial exception, do not make their living deployed night in and night out to shut down the biggest and best forwards any team has to offer. Hedman, Letang & Shattenkirk all also carry quite a bit more weight. 

 

Play style & deployment also makes a difference. Yes Chris's broken jaw was a freak injury. Not the rest which are a laundry list of absorbed punishment. By memory Tanev has twice broken a leg blocking shots and another three times its been either a broken foot, or swelling and pain from shots being absorbed. He's had shoulder and upper body imjuries from absorbing hits, high ankle sprains. Most of his injuries are from a play style where he absorbs punishment.  

 

And for the record, I suggested his 11 points this year are as much a factor? 

 

On the humorous side. I also recommend caution replying to Alf. He must have 500 posts projecting a Taylor Hall return to his credit.  He'll get a 3 mile woody seeing you compare him to Hedman, Shatty & Letang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I have added a relevant statistic to the RHS of your column. One of these things is not like the others...

 

Those other D, possibly Hedman as a partial exception, do not make their living deployed night in and night out to shut down the biggest and best forwards any team has to offer. Hedman, Letang & Shattenkirk all also carry quite a bit more weight. 

 

Play style & deployment also makes a difference. Yes Chris's broken jaw was a freak injury. Not the rest which are a laundry list of absorbed punishment. By memory Tanev has twice broken a leg blocking shots and another three times its been either a broken foot, or swelling and pain from shots being absorbed. He's had shoulder and upper body imjuries from absorbing hits, high ankle sprains. Most of his injuries are from a play style where he absorbs punishment.  

 

And for the record, I suggested his 11 points this year are as much a factor? 

 

On the humorous side. I also recommend caution replying to Alf. He must have 500 posts projecting a Taylor Hall return to his credit.  He'll get a 3 mile woody seeing you compare him to Hedman, Shatty & Letang.

No question he is not an offensive Dman but he is also a plus player on a hugely negative team and pure D has value.   The players that get points need someone like Tanev to take care of their mistakes.   

 

While I was not trying to imply his value was the same as those other names, I do think his value is quite high among the NHL GMs who know the value of pure D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Heading? :P

 

Here's the thing. Without ''intending'' to tank rebuild 2 years ago. We still have managed to implode. How bad would it have been had we sold Tanev for futures?  

 

Recall if you will please > I piped into Rob's concept & suggested we offer Tanev? He just wanted Sanheim! It was other parts, Baertschi inclusive if my memory is on the ball, that Rob suggested, not Chris?  I did not think, with Giroux & Konecny playing top 6 LW, Lindnlom in tow that they would have much interest for Baer.  But they have only one RHD in their line-up, Gudas, and one in their pipeline, Myers. Chris Tanev would have filled an important need for Philly. 

 

Not that Sanheim is quite as on the pulse to our needs as a RHD? But he appeared to be having trouble fitting on Philly's bloated LHD depth? And is a pretty high end talent, BPA if you will...

 

I believe another great target for us is Dallas.  They're swimming in small PMD's. They have Klingburg with Heskainen in tow. And Honka was not a favorite of Hitch. Honka would be a good target for us. 

There's only so much farther you can go when your at 'almost bottom' :lol: Besides, I'd have to assume we would have signed a stop gap to play right side. Probably not of Tanev's ability but perhaps they would would have been able to play more games... plus maybe whomever we theoretically traded him for started playing games. Likely wouldn't have made a large difference one way or the other to the team's performance, but we'd have more assets.

 

Lot's of ways to go with Tanev to PHI. Any combination of taking back MacDonald, retaining salary on Tanev, taking back a goalie ( I think they go hard after a legit starter this summer), then there's adding pieces (wingers etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

No question he is not an offensive Dman but he is also a plus player on a hugely negative team and pure D has value.   The players that get points need someone like Tanev to take care of their mistakes.   

 

While I was not trying to imply his value was the same as those other names, I do think his value is quite high among the NHL GMs who know the value of pure D.

Thanks as always, I appreciate your view.

 

Not too many defensive D, not named Larsson, have commanded huge trade returns though?  Larsson even then also had 20 pounds, was a Cpl years younger, a big shot and semblance of upside to his game at trade time.  Compared to Tanev...  Others who have commanded big returns were big punishing D, who played big minutes. I guess Chris logs a fair amount, and is possibly even sharper than Larsson defensively?

 

Can we come up with a comparable defensive D who has been traded? For context...

 

I cant think of one? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Thanks as always, I appreciate your view.

 

Not too many defensive D, not named Larsson, have commanded huge trade returns though?  Larsson even then also had 20 pounds, was a Cpl years younger, a big shot and semblance of upside to his game at trade time.  Compared to Tanev...  Others who have commanded big returns were big punishing D, who played big minutes. I guess Chris logs a fair amount, and is possibly even sharper than Larsson defensively?

 

Can we come up with a comparable defensive D who has been traded? For context...

 

I cant think of one? 

Hmmm, not really.   Good question actually.   Perhaps DionP?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Thanks as always, I appreciate your view.

 

Not too many defensive D, not named Larsson, have commanded huge trade returns though?  Larsson even then also had 20 pounds, was a Cpl years younger, a big shot and semblance of upside to his game at trade time.  Compared to Tanev...  Others who have commanded big returns were big punishing D, who played big minutes. I guess Chris logs a fair amount, and is possibly even sharper than Larsson defensively?

 

Can we come up with a comparable defensive D who has been traded? For context...

 

I cant think of one? 

Oduya maybe? His Thrashers and Hawks trades were probably most analogous to Tanev's current age etc. I'd argue Tanev has slightly more value but not tonnes.

 

Edit:

 

Hamonic is probably another but he's arguably worth a touch more. So something in the middle ::D

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...