[Speculation] Chris Tanev's future as a Canuck, and Adam Gaudette

[canuckleface77]

6 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

If it were Tampa's 1st (31 OA likely) or Toronto's (mid/late 20s) do you move Tanev straight up?  That's where I'm really not sure it's worth it.  If it's a mid 1st (10-20) I think long and hard.  For what it's worth, I'd pull the trigger pretty quick if Foote or Liljegren are on the table.  I just don't see prime teams giving up their blue-chip prospects who will give huge cap relief on their ELC's.

I think I do.  Benning isn't perfect, but he's proven he and his team evaluate well, get the picks to do what he does best.  I agree, don't see teams giving up Foote etc.  My desire to move Tanev is my concern for his health.  Combined with age and the 3 to 5 year outlook for a very competitive team, I just think we get the value out NOW that will never be higher.

[canuckleface77]

6 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

I'd need some examples before I change my tune on this one so I looked it up as that's just a bunch of cliches. 

 

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/the-top-30-unrestricted-free-agents-of-2018

 

John Carlson, Mike Green, Calvin De Haan, Guddy, Ian Cole, Jack Johnson, Jan Rutta, Nick Holden, Luca Sbisa, Dan Hamhuis, Johnny Oduya are potential UFA defensemen.  I've bolded the RH shots.  Carlson will most likely be re-upped by Washington, Mike Green made 6 million last year but still puts up points, we know what Guddy brings and Jan Rutta is in his first year in the NHL - not doing bad though.  That's not a super deep list.

 

Again, I'm not talking about "mentorship" I'm talking about guys who can legitimately play at a high level and aren't prohibitively expensive in both term and salary to sign.  So Juolevi has a decent partner to play with if he's getting prime minutes... or is sheltered by a Taney-anchored pairing if he's down the lineup.

 

Again, if the return is Foote and a 1st or 2nd from Tampa (unlikely) or Liljegren and a 1st or 2nd from Toronto I'd take it and run.. but selling Tanev for "picks" would have to result in a pretty darn good pick.  I also don't really think he garners that kind of return... so it's a moot point. 

 

Now, if we can sell Edler or Hutton and nab a De Haan in FA I'm all over it.

 

Agree with this, BUT...it seems Tanev is HIGHLY regarded around the league.  Probably over-valued compared to Canuck fans and that is rare.  GM's like guys like this who just don't make mistakes and can make the pass out of own end.  Playoff experience, great team guy, just puts head down and works.  I feel like he is the EXACT type of guy teams could overpay for at TD.

 

Or maybe I'm just wishing...lol, but thats my feeling.  Foote/Liljegren and a 2nd you ride off into the sunset with!   Heck, I'd take a 3rd with Foote.

[aGENT]

Re-sign Guddy, trade Tanev for a tidy sum and sign Mike Green for a short'ish term this summer. Done. 

[Gaudette Celly]

54 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Re-sign Guddy, trade Tanev for a tidy sum and sign Mike Green for a short'ish term this summer. Done. 

That'd work, depending upon who we draft if we get a D who's NHL-ready.  Having one of them + Juolevi on the back end might finally get some offense generated from there.

[ilduce39]

That Benning quote about a “special offer” is exactly where I’m at with it.  

 

I’m not sure if I find that re-assuring or not! 

[canuckleface77]

50 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

That Benning quote about a “special offer” is exactly where I’m at with it.  

 

I’m not sure if I find that re-assuring or not! 

I mean...when the Canucks are ready to make a run in 3 or 4 years time...what are the chances (% wise) that Tanev will be here and be healthy?  

[Wilbur]

58 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

That Benning quote about a “special offer” is exactly where I’m at with it.  

 

I’m not sure if I find that re-assuring or not! 

Heh, yeah, don't want to give him away but don't want Benning taking a page from Gillis' notebook either.

[ilduce39]

11 minutes ago, canuckleface77 said:

I mean...when the Canucks are ready to make a run in 3 or 4 years time...what are the chances (% wise) that Tanev will be here and be healthy?  

I'm repeating myself a bit, but JB's recent quotes have been right on par with what I've been saying.

 

From Willes' article today, JB on his rebuild plan:

 

“I always look at it as there are three different parts of getting to where we want to be,” he said. “One is drafting good players. The second is developing them. And the third is when they’re ready to play, play them with players who suit their game so they can be the best players they can be."

 

Keeping Tanev doesn't help us acquire new assets, but he helps keep the ones who aren't ready developing in the AHL or overseas.  He also helps them "be the best players they can be" at the NHL level once they make it.  Both forwards and D.  So that would help us 3-4 years down the line, even if Tanev himself is beat up and older. 

 

I know he's been taking injuries lately but I don't think his value is going to fall off a cliff in one year. If anything, seeing as he's injured at the moment maybe he has MORE value next year if he's lighting it up going into the TDL.  He's also signed for 2 more seasons so he'd still be a 2 run rental next year - lots of value.

 

So while keeping Tanev won't nab us anything new, he's going to help what we already have maximize their development.  At least that's the plan - and I can totally see where he's coming from.

 

If that "special" offer comes along I can see JB pulling the trigger - but it would have to outweigh the short term pain it will cause not only the team but the NHL-ready prospects who are relying on half-decent defense to help them mold their NHL games. PLUS the cost of acquiring or signing a replacement, which could hurt is cap or asset wise.

[Phat Fingers]

15 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

If it were Tampa's 1st (31 OA likely) or Toronto's (mid/late 20s) do you move Tanev straight up?  That's where I'm really not sure it's worth it.  If it's a mid 1st (10-20) I think long and hard.  For what it's worth, I'd pull the trigger pretty quick if Foote or Liljegren are on the table.  I just don't see prime teams giving up their blue-chip prospects who will give huge cap relief on their ELC's.

To me Tanev is a guy that teams need to load up for a playoff run. 

 

Most playoff teams already have the offence, but getting that solid defender that takes lots of minutes and doesn’t make mistakes that cost series is vital. 

 

If Tanev is available and Tampa won’t give up Foote, then no deal. They just traded for Serge, Hedman is still young so they can give up a guy like Foote. 

 

The thing about Foote, he can’t help them this year and they should be looking make a good run at the cup. 

 

If a guy like Tanev is under a good contract, will hold down a pairing and be a shot suppressing machine, well that could be the move that wins Tampa a cup.

 

Vancouver is not going to take a low 1st for Tanev.  They have no reason to trade him atm. So if he is dealt, real assets have to be coming back. 

[Rush17]

Tampa makes a lot of sense too me. they are stacked with prospects and nhl talent.  Plus we have a history of good Canucks defenders ending up on Tampa.  I can see them being the ideal fit.  Just need to see if Jim can pry the players he wants out of Tampa.  They have a long laundry list of players who might be a good fit. A Braydon Point trade for Chris Tanev would be steller.  Think we could get some quality guys on the lower end of the spectrum too that might pan out. I'd like go big though on Tanev and get 1 primary asset with a lot of value in any package back.  (ie one good player with some additional smaller value assets)

[TheHitman]

Not sure why people want Foote for Tanev? Foote is a good prospect but getting just him and a pick for Tanev seems like we get ripped off. 

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, TheHitman said:

Not sure why people want Foote for Tanev? Foote is a good prospect but getting just him and a pick for Tanev seems like we get ripped off. 

A 1st and Foote wouldn't appeal to you? That's basically two 1st rounders for Tanev. Let's say they throw in Sustr as well to balance out roster space and he is a pending UFA that is just sitting in the press box anyway. I'm not sure what else to expect for Tanev.

 

There are plenty of good reasons to hang on to Tanev, but I don't think there will be a better offer for him unless he suddenly finds some more offense to his game to add to his arsenal. At some point we have to consider if Tanev is going down the Sami Salo route and decide if he might be getting injured too often to be helping us out or is his play with us when he is in more valuable to us. Once the injuries take their toll, teams will read this and won't bother making offers anymore for the risk.

[peaches5]

There's a reason why everyone wants Tanev and people here are talking about trading him for a 1st rounder 10-20, or a prospect like Liljegren/Foote. Tanev is the best defensive dman in the league and even a 1st plus Liljegren or Foote isn't enough.

 

A special trade for me would be 1st + Foote + Namestnikov. You get a player who can play in the NHL now, you get a prospect, d prospect to replace Tanev, then you also get a 1st round pick. That is a trade that I think can be on the table too from Tampa.

 

I just hope that Benning wouldn't add any picks going back. You can even flip Namestnikov at the draft if you don't want to sign him long term because he is due for a big raise.

[McBackup]

4 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

There's a reason why everyone wants Tanev and people here are talking about trading him for a 1st rounder 10-20, or a prospect like Liljegren/Foote. Tanev is the best defensive dman in the league and even a 1st plus Liljegren or Foote isn't enough.

Tanev is a great player and certainly underrated, but let’s not get carried away here.

[peaches5]

7 minutes ago, Bitter Melon said:

Tanev is a great player and certainly underrated, but let’s not get carried away here.

I'm not getting carried away. He is statistically the best dman defensively in the league. You don't trade him for prospect or a mid-first round or even both, that is pathetic. You just keep him. The team is better with him than trading him for a player that may never play in the NHL. You get an NHL player, you get a pick and you get a top prospect or no deal. He's that good.

[McBackup]

17 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

I'm not getting carried away. He is statistically the best dman defensively in the league. You don't trade him for prospect or a mid-first round or even both, that is pathetic. You just keep him. The team is better with him than trading him for a player that may never play in the NHL. You get an NHL player, you get a pick and you get a top prospect or no deal. He's that good.

Based on what statistics? His 19:46 average ToI? His -0.6 relative corsi? His 18 hits? 

 

Tanev is an elite defensive Dman and seriously underrated by everyone outside BC, but acting like he's far and away the best shutdown defenseman in the world sounds like homerism.

[SingleThorn]

7 hours ago, peaches5 said:

I'm not getting carried away. He is statistically the best dman defensively in the league. You don't trade him for prospect or a mid-first round or even both, that is pathetic. You just keep him. The team is better with him than trading him for a player that may never play in the NHL. You get an NHL player, you get a pick and you get a top prospect or no deal. He's that good.

Agree. Tanev is a top complimentary d man. He brings both his own defensive talents and also turns one of your teams 'driver' d into a much better player. If a coach has a prime offensive d who makes the coach nervous in his own end, Tanev is the man.

 

In Vancouver, Tanev makes all our lhd much better. Edler, Hutton, Pouliot all need a Tanev. JB's biggest issue might be how much Juolevi needs the support that Tanev brings.

[peaches5]

7 hours ago, Bitter Melon said:

Based on what statistics? His 19:46 average ToI? His -0.6 relative corsi? His 18 hits? 

 

Tanev is an elite defensive Dman and seriously underrated by everyone outside BC, but acting like he's far and away the best shutdown defenseman in the world sounds like homerism.

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/chris-tanev-s-price-should-be-high-he-s-a-top-10-defensive-defenceman-1.20425190

 

Quote

There are a couple different ways to look at Tanev’s defensive impact. I could mention that over the past three seasons, he leads all NHL defencemen in relative fenwick against. I could point out that Tanev is number one on Tyler Dellow’s list of “defensive drivers.” I could further point out that he manages this while regularly matching up against some of the best forwards in the NHL.

This time around, however, I’d like to dip my toes into the Goals Above Replacement pool.

Goals Above Replacement (GAR) was created by Dawson Sprigings. You can find extensive information about how he put together GAR at Hockey-Graphs.com.

Essentially, GAR is an attempt to create a single statistic to measure all NHL players, similar to Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in baseball. GAR indicates what a player is worth in goal-differential above a replacement-level player, ie. a career AHLer that could be called up.

One of the upsides of GAR is that it is split into several segments, so you can see the individual contributions that make a player’s final rating. And, when it comes to defence, Tanev is right near the top, among names like Mattias Ekholm, Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Jacob Trouba, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, and the severely underrated Oscar Klefbom.

Chris Tanev was seventh among all NHL defencemen last season in even-strength defensive GAR, contributing a goal differential of 6.4 above a replacement-level defender. And that was in a season where he missed 29 games. In 2015-16, he was second behind only Niklas Hjalmarsson, who is also criminally underpaid at just $4.1 million.

Hjalmarsson turns out to be one of the closest comparables to Tanev. Like Tanev, Hjalmarsson contributes next to nothing offensively. Hjalmarsson’s offensive GAR was just 0.6, while Tanev’s was -0.6, indicating that he’s actually worse offensively than a replacement-level defender.

I mean, as long as that replacement-level defender isn’t Alex Biega, who is just so very, very bad, you guys.

So that’s what makes it so difficult to ascertain Tanev’s trade value. Taking into account ice time, his overall GAR was 14th among NHL defencemen, so even when you consider his complete lack of offence, he’s still one of the best defencemen in the league. And GAR doesn’t even take into account the penalty kill, as it didn’t prove to be predictive of future performance, but Tanev also happens to be one of the best penalty killers in the league.

Guys like Tanev simply don’t get traded because they are of immense value to their teams, but in a way that is not immediately obvious to outside observers. As a result, the value they bring back in a trade would not be commensurate with their true value on the ice.

 

 

[khay]

On 14/02/2018 at 1:50 AM, Zfetch said:

That's an awful trade

for us or Tampa?

[Phat Fingers]

13 hours ago, TheHitman said:

Not sure why people want Foote for Tanev? Foote is a good prospect but getting just him and a pick for Tanev seems like we get ripped off. 

Deals can be added too.  Foote and their first, maybe swap a prospect, add another Player like Vanek or Gagner. 

 

They can add other young prospects or another pick or two. 

 

They have a done of really

good prospects and can easily give up some of their best young guys and still have great prospects.