The Case for Trading Chris Tanev

[Canuck Surfer]

Just now, J.R. said:

Modified.

 

 

 

And further get a second for Pedan???

[aGENT]

Just now, Canuck Surfer said:

And further get a second for Pedan???

And helping with them cap dumping Lehtonen...hell yes.

[Canuck Surfer]

Just now, J.R. said:

And helping with them cap dumping Lehtonen...hell yes.

Time will tell.

 

I dont believe you will get a 2knd for Pedan. People will just wait for the waiver wire. He was on the waiver wire last year. And did not follow it up finishing the year looking like it was a mistake.  At this point, if he makes our team next year, it's a big win. Add to it, they have Oleksiak & Johns. No demand or pressing need to fill a hole with the skills Andrey does have. 

 

I dont believe you will get Honka and a 7th overall pick ( 9th, worst case scenario) for Tanev. I dont believe you will get Honka on his own.

 

I do believe Dallas would buy Lehtonen out versus pay a 9th overall pick to flush him. In a heartbeat!

 

I think they might offer Steven Johns and a pick.

 

 

[aGENT]

Just now, Canuck Surfer said:

Time will tell.

 

I dont believe you will get a 2knd for Pedan. People will just wait for the waiver wire. He was on the waiver wire last year. And did not follow it up finishing the year looking like it was a mistake.  At this point, if he makes our team next year, it's a big win. Add to it, they have Oleksiak & Johns. No demand or pressing need to fill a hole with the skills Andrey does have. 

 

I dont believe you will get Honka and a 7th overall pick ( 9th, worst case scenario) for Tanev. I dont believe you will get Honka on his own.

 

I do believe Dallas would buy Lehtonen out versus pay a 9th overall pick to flush him. In a heartbeat!

 

I think they might offer Steven Johns and a pick.

 

 

Nobody is asking for a 2nd for Pedan. The 2nd is for taking on Lehtonen's cap dump AND pedan. The 1st would be for Tanev.

 

They need D depth. Especially if they lose one of those guys (including Oleksiak) in the ED.

 

Move past Honka. I have. 

 

They're tight on cap and only have so many more years with their better players in their primes. A 2nd for clearing Lehtonen and adding a depth D is not a big price and saves that cap space.

 

[Canuck Surfer]

3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Nobody is asking for a 2nd for Pedan. The 2nd is for taking on Lehtonen's cap dump AND pedan. The 1st would be for Tanev.

 

They need D depth. Especially if they lose one of those guys (including Oleksiak) in the ED.

 

Move past Honka. I have. 

 

They're tight on cap and only have so many more years with their better players in their primes. A 2nd for clearing Lehtonen and adding a depth D is not a big price and saves that cap space.

 

 

I thought the suggestion started as Honka & a first.  Did it get to a deal without Honka? I reckon a 1st and a 2knd added in to take on Lehtonen might be fair value for Tanev.  No reason to pile Pedan in though. Not that it helps, or hinders anything.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I thought the suggestion started as Honka & a first.  Did it get to a deal without Honka? I reckon a 1st and a 2knd added in to take on Lehtonen might be fair value for Tanev.  No reason to pile Pedan in though. Not that it helps, or hinders anything.

Started as and was modified after coffee (and discussion).

 

Yes it did:

Tanev + Pedan (they need D) for Lehtonen (they need to cap dump and also get a real starter), their 1st and 2nd.

 

Pedan is there to add value and they need D depth (particularly if one of their guys gets taken in the ED).

[oldnews]

Rights to Mike Zalewski to LV for their 2nd 17 = 34th overall.

We expose Edler.

[Canuck Surfer]

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Started as and was modified after coffee (and discussion).

 

Yes it did:

 

Pedan is there to add value and they need D depth (particularly if one of their guys gets taken in the ED).

 

Dallas has plenty of depth in big D. They also have Nemeth who played 40 games. To add to Johns & Oleksiak. Heathrington is probably a better prospect at this time, in that category as well? And will theu lose a D, or someone like your pal Nichushkin.

 

I'd further prefer not to give up any D depth we have in any case.  Assuming we have already lost Tryamkin & (presumably) Tanev.   

 

I'm already not in the camp of trading Tanev as it is. Nothing here changes that. Would I if someone overpays? Sure I guess.  But based on what values I believe would be there, I see no reason to destroy what is finally a decent, but not deep, RHD position.  Not a position of strength. And we'd still just go straight back to the market to find another RHD. And we only win if we do not overpay at our end.

 

 

 

 I do believe we can handle the loss of another LHD. Edler, Hutton, Sbisa in order of preference.  Not two, if we lose one to ED. So then you stand pat? It may not command a return that saves the world. Or make for good CDC debates?  But I am not in a panic to make any move.

 

 

 

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Rights to Mike Zalewski to LV for their 2nd 17 = 34th overall.

We expose Edler.

 

Effectively a high 2 knd for Edler. And protects our ED position?

 

I like it much better than a Tanev trade!

[cbdoubleu]

Tanev to Dallas would make sense on paper, but I can't see them parting with Honka for Tanev. Esa Lindell took big strides playing with Kling, and Honka is really their only other D man that can move the puck and create offense, which was a huge issue for them. The goaltending took a lot of blame, but the Stars did not create enough off the rush, they just did not have the pieces on the backend to get their forwards the puck in attacking positions.

 

I'd see Dallas being more inclined to move a Remi Elie or Faksa, maybe you could ask for Gurianov, and their first pick to add the right D man to give them a very strong top 4. With Tanev and Honka both being right shots, it seems even less likely he'll be the right fit there.

 

I'd love to add a guy like Honka, someone who will be an upgrade over Stecher as a top line D man, but I think Benning has alluded to moving a D man for a forward, and maybe that means a Schmaltz or Hartman and Hossa's cap from Chicago and a pick. New York Rangers could be another landing spot for him.

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Effectively a high 2 knd for Edler. And protects our ED position?

 

I like it much better than a Tanev trade!

We'd have two high 2nds - and potentially the CBJ 2nd in this draft (I think they're likely to elect this year's, as low a 2nd as it is after their season?)

 

So, the team would have the option to package one of them with the CBJ pick to move up into the first round if there's a guy they want, or potentially both those high 2nds to move up even higher...

 

A deal like this effectively translates into a high 2nd + Gaunce/Sbisa/Pedan (ED exposed) type deal for Edler - imo fair enough - that is, if Vegas is interested in adding a veteran top 4 like Edler - but of course who knows what Vegas wants.

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, cbdoubleu said:

Tanev to Dallas would make sense on paper, but I can't see them parting with Honka for Tanev.

 

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

Nobody is asking for a 2nd for Pedan. The 2nd is for taking on Lehtonen's cap dump AND pedan. The 1st would be for Tanev.

 

They need D depth. Especially if they lose one of those guys (including Oleksiak) in the ED.

 

Move past Honka. I have. 

 

They're tight on cap and only have so many more years with their better players in their primes. A 2nd for clearing Lehtonen and adding a depth D is not a big price and saves that cap space.

 

Tanev + Pedan (they need D) for Lehtonen (they need to cap dump and also get a real starter), their 1st and 2nd.

[MikeyD]

You're not gonna get a return that's worth a Tanev, and if you do, you lucked out. Unless you net a player like Taylor Hall then forget it. Not worth it. 

[cdubuya]

I keep hearing how much Chris Tanev is worth.......maybe he just isn't as valuable as everyone thinks he is

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, cdubuya said:

I keep hearing how much Chris Tanev is worth.......maybe he just isn't as valuable as everyone thinks he is

He's a REALLY good #2-#3D who excels defensively, at puck possession and moving the puck up to the forwards and is right in his prime.

 

That's got very good value (if not Weber/Subban level) and IMO is EXACTLY the type of piece you move for a team in the depths of a rebuild who is going to otherwise 'waste' his prime years on a bottom 10 team.

 

I appreciate the argument that we will by most accounts be a worse team with Tanev out of the lineup in the immediate future. But really, with his 60-70 'healthy' (which for Tanev more often means somewhat hobbled) games next season we're what, 8th-10th worst team instead of 6th? IMO that 'difference' is not enough reason to not translate that present value in to futures the team can actually use when it's contending again in a few years. Before his NTC kicks in and before injuries derail his trade value.

 

The ED certainly complicates matters in getting a fair return for him. But of the trio (Edler, Tanev, Sbisa) I'd wager he's most likely to return closer to full value regardless of the ED to the right team (like Dallas) who can protect him and is in dire need of a top 4, RH'd D on a team who has 3, maybe 4 years left of pushing for a cup before they need to start looking at rebuilding themselves.

 

That said, getting fair value for him ahead of the ED is no sure thing/easy task.

[Boudrias]

12 minutes ago, J.R. said:

He's a REALLY good #2-#3D who excels defensively, at puck possession and moving the puck up to the forwards and is right in his prime.

 

That's got very good value (if not Weber/Subban level) and IMO is EXACTLY the type of piece you move for a team in the depths of a rebuild who is going to otherwise 'waste' his prime years on a bottom 10 team.

 

I appreciate the argument that we will by most accounts be a worse team with Tanev out of the lineup in the immediate future. But really, with his 60-70 'healthy' (which for Tanev more often means somewhat hobbled) games next season we're what, 8th-10th worst team instead of 6th? IMO that 'difference' is not enough reason to not translate that present value in to futures the team can actually use when it's contending again in a few years. Before his NTC kicks in and before injuries derail his trade value.

 

The ED certainly complicates matters in getting a fair return for him. But of the trio (Edler, Tanev, Sbisa) I'd wager he's most likely to return closer to full value regardless of the ED to the right team (like Dallas) who can protect him and is in dire need of a top 4, RH'd D on a team who has 3, maybe 4 years left of pushing for a cup before they need to start looking at rebuilding themselves.

 

That said, getting fair value for him ahead of the ED is no sure thing/easy task.

Obviously Tanev is the biggest 'chip' the Canucks have. If value is not coming back then there is no deal. I think in a early post, JR, you made the point that dealing Tanev might return more value after the Vegas draft. That makes a lot of sense. Another consideration is how Tanev would integrate into the acquiring team. The acquiring team might see great value in Tanev on who he is paired with.

 

All this head scratching has the hammer over the Canuck head of having 4 Vegas draft eligible d-men. Edler-Tanev-Guddy-Sbisa. One has to be moved or lost to Vegas. Who can be moved for the most value or least damage to the Canucks in relation to their development time line. Still hoping for a Benning deal on a trade or a Vegas draft deal to leave his d-core alone.   

[mll]

17 minutes ago, J.R. said:

He's a REALLY good #2-#3D who excels defensively, at puck possession and moving the puck up to the forwards and is right in his prime.

 

That's got very good value (if not Weber/Subban level) and IMO is EXACTLY the type of piece you move for a team in the depths of a rebuild who is going to otherwise 'waste' his prime years on a bottom 10 team.

 

I appreciate the argument that we will by most accounts be a worse team with Tanev out of the lineup in the immediate future. But really, with his 60-70 'healthy' (which for Tanev more often means somewhat hobbled) games next season we're what, 8th-10th worst team instead of 6th? IMO that 'difference' is not enough reason to not translate that present value in to futures the team can actually use when it's contending again in a few years. Before his NTC kicks in and before injuries derail his trade value.

 

The ED certainly complicates matters in getting a fair return for him. But of the trio (Edler, Tanev, Sbisa) I'd wager he's most likely to return closer to full value regardless of the ED to the right team (like Dallas) who can protect him and is in dire need of a top 4, RH'd D on a team who has 3, maybe 4 years left of pushing for a cup before they need to start looking at rebuilding themselves.

 

That said, getting fair value for him ahead of the ED is no sure thing/easy task.

Aren't you forgetting the development part?  

Weaken the D and the team spends more time defending.  One of the issue is that they can't get out of their own end - take out Tanev and it becomes even more complicated to generate offence.  So the young guys end up spending more time in their own end instead of developing their offensive skills.   

Last year they had the Fs go back and help out the D in their own end because they felt they needed numbers defending.  If the D was better - they might have been able to be more on the attack. 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Obviously Tanev is the biggest 'chip' the Canucks have. If value is not coming back then there is no deal. I think in a early post, JR, you made the point that dealing Tanev might return more value after the Vegas draft. That makes a lot of sense. Another consideration is how Tanev would integrate into the acquiring team. The acquiring team might see great value in Tanev on who he is paired with.

 

All this head scratching has the hammer over the Canuck head of having 4 Vegas draft eligible d-men. Edler-Tanev-Guddy-Sbisa. One has to be moved or lost to Vegas. Who can be moved for the most value or least damage to the Canucks in relation to their development time line. Still hoping for a Benning deal on a trade or a Vegas draft deal to leave his d-core alone.   

They'd all have more value after the ED. Problem is that if we lose Sbisa in the ED it makes it that much harder to move Tanev after as we now have two holes on D to fill via prospect/UFA instead of just one (or we have to spend assets to get LVK to not take Sbisa). That may very well be the route we take and we'd certainly have more options for moving Edler/Sbisa instead of Tanev after the ED but it has it's own challenges. There's no one clear 'better' route.

 

IMO Tanev is most likely to return close to full value ahead/regardless of the ED.  A lot will hinge on whether or not a team is willing to do so.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, mll said:

Aren't you forgetting the development part?  

Weaken the D and the team spends more time defending.  One of the issue is that they can't get out of their own end - take out Tanev and it becomes even more complicated to generate offence.  So the young guys end up spending more time in their own end instead of developing their offensive skills.   

Last year they had the Fs go back and help out the D in their own end because they felt they needed numbers defending.  If the D was better - they might have been able to be more on the attack. 

Edler, Stecher

Hutton, Gudbranson

Sbisa, UFA/Juolevi

 

UFA/McEneny, Biega

 

IMO, that's a manageable D for a team in the depths of a rebuild.

 

Will we miss Tanev? Yes. Is he enough on his own, likely only playing 65+/- games (some of those far from 100%) to make a meaningful difference in 'development' to not move him for futures that will arguably be a far greater help to a contending team in 3+ years? Not IMO.

 

 

[mll]

16 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Edler, Stecher

Hutton, Gudbranson

Sbisa, UFA/Juolevi

 

UFA/McEneny, Biega

 

IMO, that's a manageable D for a team in the depths of a rebuild.

 

Will we miss Tanev? Yes. Is he enough on his own, likely only playing 65+/- games (some of those far from 100%) to make a meaningful difference in 'development' to not move him for futures that will arguably be a far greater help to a contending team in 3+ years? Not IMO.

 

 

It wasn't last year. 

Henrik and Daniel were at times rather critical of the D and how they weren't helping to generate offence.