StealthNuck

Christopher Tanev | #8 | D

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Depends on the plans for this summer. I'd be perfectly happy moving Tanev for futures and signing either Karlsson or Myers.

 

Dream scenario, we move Edler as well and then re-sign him July 1.

 

Edler, Karlsson/Myers

Hughes, Stecher/Guddy

Juolevi/Huttton, Guddy/Stecher

 

...plus a nice return on Tanev. Yes please.

 

I wouldn't. 

Either way i'd keep Tanev around and Karlsson/Myers would put one of Guddy or Stecher on the block. Tanev is a mid-low end 1D or a top-end 2D. Having Karlsson maximizes not only Tanev, it gives us the perfect partner to bring in two new LHDs from the system, both of whom thrive/should thrive with a steady, no-nonsense, defensively-near-perfect defenseman like Tanev. 

Both Ollie and Hughes have an easier time making the NHL with Tanev as their partner, than anyone else you've named. 

Guddy is not a good partner for a new defenseman, pretty much because Guddy is not an error-free kinda guy like Tanev is. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

 

I wouldn't. 

Either way i'd keep Tanev around and Karlsson/Myers would put one of Guddy or Stecher on the block. Tanev is a mid-low end 1D or a top-end 2D. Having Karlsson maximizes not only Tanev, it gives us the perfect partner to bring in two new LHDs from the system, both of whom thrive/should thrive with a steady, no-nonsense, defensively-near-perfect defenseman like Tanev. 

Both Ollie and Hughes have an easier time making the NHL with Tanev as their partner, than anyone else you've named. 

Guddy is not a good partner for a new defenseman, pretty much because Guddy is not an error-free kinda guy like Tanev is. 

Certainly a possibility to move either Stech/Guddy instead but I personally doubt we move Guddy given his intangibles don't exist elsewhere in the lineup (and he's finally showing this year the guy we actually traded for). And personally I'd hang on to Stech vs a guy who I've heard rumors has zero intention of re-signing here when his deal's up next year.

 

I'd also only rate Tanev a 2B/3A D. He's EXCELLENT defensively and at transitioning the puck but is too 1 dimensional to be a true #1-2D IMO. Be an excellent add for a 2nd pair on a contender though.

 

I think we'd be just fine having Karlsson/Myers, Guddy and Stech for RD partners for Hughes/Juolevi :lol:

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Certainly a possibility to move either Stech/Guddy instead but I personally doubt we move Guddy given his intangibles don't exist elsewhere in the lineup (and he's finally showing this year the guy we actually traded for). And personally I'd hang on to Stech vs a guy who I've heard rumors has zero intention of re-signing here when his deal's up next year.

 

I'd also only rate Tanev a 2B/3A D. He's EXCELLENT defensively and at transitioning the puck but is too 1 dimensional to be a true #1-2D IMO. Be an excellent add for a 2nd pair on a contender though.

 

I think we'd be just fine having Karlsson/Myers, Guddy and Stech for RD partners for Hughes/Juolevi :lol:

 

 

 

Never heard any such rumours myself. I'd say we should re-sign Tanev for 5.5-6M 5 year deal next year. If he still has no intentions of signing here, then fine, trade is the best option. 

i disagree with your rating of Tanev. An excellent defensive defenseman who is also good at transitioning, by definition, is a low 1D in the league and should be. 

 

I dont think Karlsson is a great partner for fellow offensive defensemen or defensemen who thrive in a systematic play. He is the guy who needs a solid no-nonsense defenseman to hold together the defense when he goes working his magic in the O-zone. Thats not, by definition, OJ or QH's role or forte. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Never heard any such rumours myself. I'd say we should re-sign Tanev for 5.5-6M 5 year deal next year. If he still has no intentions of signing here, then fine, trade is the best option. 

i disagree with your rating of Tanev. An excellent defensive defenseman who is also good at transitioning, by definition, is a low 1D in the league and should be. 

 

I dont think Karlsson is a great partner for fellow offensive defensemen or defensemen who thrive in a systematic play. He is the guy who needs a solid no-nonsense defenseman to hold together the defense when he goes working his magic in the O-zone. Thats not, by definition, OJ or QH's role or forte. 

Well I have. Doesn't want to re-sign, wants to head out East where he's from/travel's easier/play is more open.

 

Agree to disagree. A one dimensional player (no matter how good at that one dimension) is not a #1D.

 

That's why you'd theoretically pair Karlsson with Edler the first couple years while OJ/Hughes are learning the ropes (other than the PP). Also think that's a bit of an antiquated way of looking at D. Modern defense is just as much (arguably more) about transition, possession and helping forwards maintain offensive pressure as a means of 'defending'. AKA things Karlsson (and Hughes and to a lesser extent Juolevi) all thrive at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Well I have. Doesn't want to re-sign, wants to head out East where he's from/travel's easier/play is more open.

Well if true, then it should be a no-brainer. 

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Agree to disagree. A one dimensional player (no matter how good at that one dimension) is not a #1D.

Disagree. A defenseman who is extremely elite at all aspects defensively is a true #1D. If said D is also elite at the offensive end of the ice, then we have a Ray Borque-esque elite, generational D. 
Pretty much the only thing that Tanev is not elite at, in defensive aspects, is crease-clearing muscling out the opponents. 

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

That's why you'd theoretically pair Karlsson with Edler the first couple years while OJ/Hughes are learning the ropes (other than the PP). Also think that's a bit of an antiquated way of looking at D. Modern defense is just as much (arguably more) about transition, possession and helping forwards maintain offensive pressure as a means of 'defending'. AKA things Karlsson (and Hughes and to a lesser extent Juolevi) all thrive at.

it is antiquated for the regular season, but still very much the reality of playoff hockey. A team looking to win multiple stanley cups will always build defense like Nashville as the ideal scenario - unless ofcourse, they are Pittsburg and luck out with a generational & near-generational 1-2 punch at the center and can afford to cover up their defensive weaknesses via them.

In playoff hockey, players like Willie Mitchell come very close to the value of players like Karlsson since 2-1, 3-2 games of extreme high intensity, particularly in the systematic western conference, bring out much more the defensive D-man's need than the offensive D-man's needs. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Well if true, then it should be a no-brainer. 

Disagree. A defenseman who is extremely elite at all aspects defensively is a true #1D. If said D is also elite at the offensive end of the ice, then we have a Ray Borque-esque elite, generational D. 
Pretty much the only thing that Tanev is not elite at, in defensive aspects, is crease-clearing muscling out the opponents. 

it is antiquated for the regular season, but still very much the reality of playoff hockey. A team looking to win multiple stanley cups will always build defense like Nashville as the ideal scenario - unless ofcourse, they are Pittsburg and luck out with a generational & near-generational 1-2 punch at the center and can afford to cover up their defensive weaknesses via them.

In playoff hockey, players like Willie Mitchell come very close to the value of players like Karlsson since 2-1, 3-2 games of extreme high intensity, particularly in the systematic western conference, bring out much more the defensive D-man's need than the offensive D-man's needs. 

But he's not elite at all aspects defensively. As you yourself just pointed out. And no, a #1d is elite over 200' of ice, not 100'. Sorry but what you're describing is a solid 2B/3A, defensive D. But clearly we're not going to agree on this...

 

Nashville is pretty much the model of exactly what I'm talking about. Their entire D core is built around transition, possession and pushing/supporting offense to the point they moved out Shea freaking Weber. Not that Tanev is poor at part of that equation.

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, aGENT said:

But he's not elite at all aspects defensively. As you yourself just pointed out. And no, a #1d is elite over 200' of ice, not 100'. Sorry but what you're describing is a solid 2B/3A, defensive D. But clearly we're not going to agree on this...

There are 30 1Ds in the league. What you are considering elite, is i am afraid, a generational/hall of famer 1D. Willie mitchell is a 1D. Ray Borque is a generational 1D. thats the difference i think. 

52 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nashville is pretty much the model of exactly what I'm talking about. Their entire D core is built around transition, possession and pushing/supporting offense to the point they moved out Shea freaking Weber. Not that Tanev is poor at part of that equation.

Yea but Nashville's D-core has 2-3 defensemen who are Tanev-esque in the defensive end. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

There are 30 1Ds in the league. What you are considering elite, is i am afraid, a generational/hall of famer 1D. Willie mitchell is a 1D. Ray Borque is a generational 1D. thats the difference i think. 

Yea but Nashville's D-core has 2-3 defensemen who are Tanev-esque in the defensive end. 

 

No, there are not 30 #1D's and no, they do not need to be generational. Most will almost certainly make the HOF though.

 

Willie Mitchel isn't (wasn't) #1D.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

No, there are not 30 #1D's and no, they do not need to be generational. Most will almost certainly make the HOF though.

 

Willie Mitchel isn't (wasn't) #1D.

 

 

by definition, there are 30 #1Ds in the league....you are a #1D, if you regularly score the #1D job for a NHL team. Simple. Rest is all arbitary individual standards. 
Only the best 1Ds will make the HoF. Just like only the best 1C will make the HoFs as well. Does not mean there are only 5-6 1Cs in the league today. There are 30 of them.

Edited by canuckistani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

by definition, there are 30 #1Ds in the league....you are a #1D, if you regularly score the #1D job for a NHL team. Simple. Rest is all arbitary individual standards. 
Only the best 1Ds will make the HoF. Just like only the best 1C will make the HoFs as well. Does not mean there are only 5-6 1Cs in the league today. There are 30 of them.

I'm afraid that's not how GM's evaluate players. What you're referring to is a depth chart and not an actual valuation of the individual player(s).

 

If you have a #3D masquerading as an air quote '#1D' on your poor team with a crappy D core, I'm not trading you my legit 1C for him. That's not how this works. You can't dress a 6 up as a 9 just because your teams sucks. If you can't accept that, there's little to discuss here.

 

Some teams have no #1D (Canucks), some teams have the luxury of one or more (Nashville, San Jose etc). There's no #1D socialism in the NHL I'm afraid.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm afraid that's not how GM's evaluate players. What you're referring to is a depth chart and not an actual valuation of the individual player(s).

Pretty sure most GM's dont think there are only 5-6 1C or 1D in the league. Yes, there are some 1Ds who'd be 2Ds in other teams and vice versa, but most GMs consider a regular 1D for a team to be a 1D guy. 

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

If you have a #3D masquerading as an air quote '#1D' on your poor team with a crappy D core, I'm not trading you my legit 1C for him. That's not how this works. You can't dress a 6 up as a 9 just because your teams sucks. If you can't accept that, there's little to discuss here.

Not every single team has a 1D playing as a 1D. But there are also teams who have 2Ds who would be 1Ds in most other teams too. Normally, in practice, there are 25-30 1D,1C,1LW/RW in the league. 

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Some teams have no #1D (Canucks), some teams have the luxury of one or more (Nashville, San Jose etc). There's no #1D socialism in the NHL I'm afraid.

Disagree. We do have a #1D. His name is Tanev. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Pretty sure most GM's dont think there are only 5-6 1C or 1D in the league. Yes, there are some 1Ds who'd be 2Ds in other teams and vice versa, but most GMs consider a regular 1D for a team to be a 1D guy. 

Not every single team has a 1D playing as a 1D. But there are also teams who have 2Ds who would be 1Ds in most other teams too. Normally, in practice, there are 25-30 1D,1C,1LW/RW in the league. 

Disagree. We do have a #1D. His name is Tanev. 

No, they'd probably say something like 10-15 +/-.

 

I think we're done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

No, they'd probably say something like 10-15 +/-.

 

I think we're done here.

thats where your relative definition comes into play, sorry. 10-15 are not 1C or 1D, they are ELITE 1C/1D. The only objective way to measure 1C/1D/1G etc are those who play those positions on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, aGENT said:

Well I have. Doesn't want to re-sign, wants to head out East where he's from/travel's easier/play is more open.

 

Agree to disagree. A one dimensional player (no matter how good at that one dimension) is not a #1D.

 

That's why you'd theoretically pair Karlsson with Edler the first couple years while OJ/Hughes are learning the ropes (other than the PP). Also think that's a bit of an antiquated way of looking at D. Modern defense is just as much (arguably more) about transition, possession and helping forwards maintain offensive pressure as a means of 'defending'. AKA things Karlsson (and Hughes and to a lesser extent Juolevi) all thrive at.

Totally agree that Tanev is one dimensional. That is tough as playing in your own d-zone is physically much harder. Physically Tanev is challenged in that environment. As I like to point out there are 2 seasons, regular and playoffs. Each round of playoffs the compete gets tougher. Fans should be questioning how well Tanev will fair in playoffs. If you remember in the ill fated Calgary series the Flamers targeted Tanev at every opportunity. While his prime valuation probably peaked 2 years ago I would still move him. I suspect Edler can be re-signed on shorter terms which could be crafted to accommodate the prospects coming up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tanev's been very good this season at transporting the puck away from danger and avoiding hits, feels like he's really worked at improving that part of his game. But I also question how he will fare in the playoffs and I would definitely move him for an ok offer, but I doubt Benning sees it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J-P said:

I think Tanev's been very good this season at transporting the puck away from danger and avoiding hits, feels like he's really worked at improving that part of his game. But I also question how he will fare in the playoffs and I would definitely move him for an ok offer, but I doubt Benning sees it that way.

Whatever happens with Tanev or Edler probably has more to do with which side needs the most stability as prospects are brought up. Which prospect is more likely to break the lineup Hughes or Joulevi? Right now it looks like Joulevi which could have Benning wanting to keep Tanev on the right side to ease him in. Some one was questioning whether Tanev even wanted to re-sign which was a surprise. Maybe he does a Tavares. i suspect Edler wants to end his career in Van like the Twins did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.