Jump to content
Canucks Community
Sign in to follow this  
janisahockeynut

The myth about Veteran leadership (Discussion)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So, I am pretty sure everyone has the pitchforks out! LOL

 

But my, point isn't about not needing veteran leadership, but who and how many do you need.

 

Case in point. Look back a few years ago......we had Hank and Danny, Dan Hamhuis, Hansen, Burrows, Edler, and Roberto ( I am sure I am missing a few, but to lazy to look up who I missed)

 

Now the point is, that after our Stanley Cup run, there were a few of us that, wanted to start a rebuild, and we got roasted most days......maybe we were a little early, but only by a year or 2.

 

We would write that we wanted to trade Burrows or this guy or that veteran, and a lot of CDC would ask (yell), who is going to teach these guys leadership and how to be a pro?

 

Fast forward to 2018, and Chris Tanev......many CDC's still ask the question of who will teach these young guys to be pro's if we trade him......the truth is that there are veteran players in the minors, that are just as capable, and on the big club there are guys that can provide that service.........leadership and teaching professionalism is not unique to stars, or elite players, and it is also a fact that new players to the team, can also provide those qualities.

 

My reason for posting this is purely, to voice my Opinion and have others, express theirs.................

 

Tanev, has many fantastic qualities, of which leadership and professionalism are just few that he possesses, but "IF" we were ever to trade Tanev, or anyone else for that matter, veteran leadership can be acquired, if Benning does not see enough.

 

It should not be part of any argument to not trade someone..............I can think of many reasons not to trade Tanev, and many reasons that we should, but team leadership isn't one that is not replaceable. As a matter of fact, sometimes, moving out existing leadership, can be beneficial.....aka Kesler, who had part of the locker room....who would want him teaching our young guns leadership? LOL

 

Personally. I feel that Biega, is one that teaches that in spades, day in day out.........a dedicated, journeyman...............honestly I applaud him regularly through the season! He is amazing, and we should try our hardest not to loose him.........(And this is not a don't trade Biega post.......it just came to mind as I was typing)

 

So,,....,my point is: don't use irreplaceable leadership as an argument not to trade someone..........it is replaceable!

Edited by janisahockeynut
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to moving Tanev because I think he's a great leader. He doesn't lead the team into battle,  and he doesn't stick up for his teammates, but he is one hell of a shutdown defender. One of the best in the league IMO.

 

I don't want Tanev traded because our D is a tragic. They're a damn toilet fire. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have Horvat leading the charge for years to come.  Not sure how much of a "talker" he is but he sure makes things happen out there and exhibits character.

(He should also serve as a solid counterexample to the "veteran" leadership model, guys like him, Crosby and Landeskog were leaders from the get-go).

Eddie as the Edler statesman on the back-end is a solid role model as a skilled guy who quietly goes about his business and is effective in doing so.

For all the flak that they get, Loui and Sutter are also consummate pros who bring it each day.  Even if they're not scoring they contribute on the other end of the ice and that's often an underrated component on leadership too, in that they demonstrate perseverance and resilience despite adversity.

Agreed with Tanev, he like Eddie also quietly goes about things and holds the ship together.

  

Point is, I think the team is good for leadership (even guys like Guddy and even Archibald/ Biega (for his grit and effort)) also quietly set solid examples for the dressing room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure your point? The Sedin's have just retired. The problem with trading Tanev has never been "Oh we lose veteran leadership.." it's that he hasn't had a 70 game season since 2014-15. So regardless of the skillset he brings as a shut down D man, he can't stay healthy. This severely impacts his trade value. 

So unless you are comfortable getting a 2nd or 3rd rounder for him. I don't think there's a team out there that is desperate to give up a 1st rounder. 

 

Edler last year probably had one of his best seasons in years. But he doesn't strike me as a leader type. Pretty much Horvat seems to be the favourite as the teams leader. 

Are you saying we shouldn't go after Tavares because veteran leadership is too expensive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A veteran in the minors does not equate to a successful NHL player. It's hard to take advice and direction from someone who cannot actually accomplish what he is saying...

 

Just saying

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I'm not sure your point? The Sedin's have just retired. The problem with trading Tanev has never been "Oh we lose veteran leadership.." it's that he hasn't had a 70 game season since 2014-15. So regardless of the skillset he brings as a shut down D man, he can't stay healthy. This severely impacts his trade value. 

So unless you are comfortable getting a 2nd or 3rd rounder for him. I don't think there's a team out there that is desperate to give up a 1st rounder. 

 

Edler last year probably had one of his best seasons in years. But he doesn't strike me as a leader type. Pretty much Horvat seems to be the favourite as the teams leader. 

Are you saying we shouldn't go after Tavares because veteran leadership is too expensive? 

Ha Ha ....Ghost you are a funny guy!

I know, you know, that I know, that you know what I am talking about! LOL

 

First Off.........If we can sign Tavares, I think his presence would be just fine......like I said Biega can fill that leadership void! Tavares is a 3rd liner at best, where will he fit in? LOL

 

Secondly......On trading Tanev.......I posted awhile back that Toronto's defensemen this year (top 7 players) had an average of approx. 68 games played......looking around the league and you won't find many teams that different. (Defensemen get injured!)

 

I totally agree, that Tanev has had injury problems, but many on here argue that he is not a true 1 or 2 on a contending deep team.......I believe this to be partially true, and would think that on those teams, he could be effectively sheltered from excess minutes. A reduction of a couple of minutes a night can sometimes make huge changes to a players injury troubles. Take a look at the Sedin's last year......I thought the reduction in minutes really improved their injury outcomes.

 

Tanev's value, may not be as high as it once was, but he still is held in high regard around the league.....Tanev's abilities would be a much coveted need for teams that have great puck possession, but have terrible defense. aka Toronto. My opinion on Toronto trading for him for instance, would be that he would be playing with Rielly and therefore playing  with 4 very offensive puck possession players at most times....therefore not having to play as tough of minutes. (Gretzky was a great defensive player, as he always had the puck) Toronto's first 2 lines are much the same way......defense by offense.......

 

So I would suspect that those teams that will look at Tanev, will argue his injuries, because it suits their purpose, but in the end, but they know that Tanev's injury bug can be managed, and reduced. *Note that in Toronto's case, they don't need Tanev to play against the others top line, but to watch over Reilly's offensive risky game. Having Tanev do this makes Reilly a better player, which has been documented in International play

 

When finding comparatives.......

 

Harmonic, albeit younger, was a fairly comparable skill set with Tanev having a slight edge.....this year, Harmonic has looked as bad as Calgary, Tanev never has this issue, so I would say that Tanev has a stronger skill set, as he does not have these types of dips in his play, regardless of his team mates play.

 

Harmonic;s value was a fairly well known......mid-18 to 22 pick 1st round pick, and similar 2nd rounders..........the suggested Tanev trade with Toronto, for example would be for a 23 - 25 OA pick...that is a reduction right there, same for the second rounder. And one less second rounder as well. All for a player (Tanev) that has a better, although comparative skill set than Harmonic...............

 

To summarize Harmonics trade compared to the suggested Tanev trade..............Tanev is a stronger player, for less return........you can also put in a performance clause in, where the trading team get another pick if Tanev does not meet the games played clause........but that also goes the other way, where the trading team would have to pay more if Tanev meets the games played clause....................whereby both teams are covered whether Tanev does or doesn't make the game clause......fair is fair

 

Toronto's  trade clause...............2018 1st + 2018 2nd for Tanev and a conditional 2020 - 2nd if Tanev does meet the games played average

Vancouver's trade clause...........2018 1st + 2018 2nd + 2020 2nd if Tanev makes his games played average

 

So a 1st and 2nd if he doesn't make it

A 1st and 2 - 2nds if he does

 

I don't see that as a hard sell, to get a player with a good cap hit, with Tanev's ability

 

Tanev's replacement would be a UFA or cash dump, as we have the cap to play with. (or go back and get Tryamkin back) It is not Impossible to replace Tanev with money and cap space.

 

Ok, you don't want to trade Tanev....OK! But that is a different argument!

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, luckylager said:

I'm not opposed to moving Tanev because I think he's a great leader. He doesn't lead the team into battle,  and he doesn't stick up for his teammates, but he is one hell of a shutdown defender. One of the best in the league IMO.

 

I don't want Tanev traded because our D is a tragic. They're a damn toilet fire. 

I see your argument, and agree that it is sound. I just see it a little different......I like your Description!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Secondly......On trading Tanev.......I posted awhile back that Toronto's defensemen this year (top 7 players) had an average of approx. 68 games played......looking around the league and you won't find many teams that different. (Defensemen get injured!)

You do realize that if you went with 7 defensemen for the entire 82 game schedule (dressing 6 for each game) without a single game missed due to injury that your top seven would average 70 games played each, right? Saying Toronto averaged 68 games for their top 7 does nothing to make your point that (Defensemen get injured!).

Toronto's top 4 (Rielly, Gardiner, Hainsey and Zaitsev) averaged 74.5 games each and Tanev has never come close to reaching that number in his entire career. The fact is that he is very injury prone and that will impact the return you get for him.

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

I totally agree, that Tanev has had injury problems, but many on here argue that he is not a true 1 or 2 on a contending deep team.......I believe this to be partially true, and would think that on those teams, he could be effectively sheltered from excess minutes. A reduction of a couple of minutes a night can sometimes make huge changes to a players injury troubles. Take a look at the Sedin's last year......I thought the reduction in minutes really improved their injury outcomes.

You simply do not give up a 1st and 2 X 2nds as you have suggested, for a d-man that is going to be sheltered from excess minutes. Tanev was 101st in TOI for defensemen last season and, if you take off a couple of minutes per game as you suggest, that would have put him at 17:47 per game or 177th among all d-men in the league. There are 31 teams that dress 6 d-men per night which would be a total of 186 d-men and you want Tanex to get 177th type minutes but still get a return of a 1st and 2 X 2nds?

Henrik and Daniel both played 82 games in 2016/17 and Henrik played 82 games and Daniel 81 games in 2017/18. How can you claim their reduced minutes improved their injury outcomes?

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

*Note that in Toronto's case, they don't need Tanev to play against the others top line, but to watch over Reilly's offensive risky game. Having Tanev do this makes Reilly a better player, which has been documented in International play

You suggest Toronto would want Tanev to play with Rielly? Rielly averaged almost 2 minutes per game more than Tanev last season so how would Tanev get the reduced minutes you are looking for?

 

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

My opinion on Toronto trading for him for instance, would be that he would be playing with Rielly and therefore playing  with 4 very offensive puck possession players at most times....therefore not having to play as tough of minutes. (Gretzky was a great defensive player, as he always had the puck) Toronto's first 2 lines are much the same way......defense by offense.......

Toronto was the 4th worst team for shots against per game at 33.9 shots per game while averaging 32.2 shots per game but you think this would result in Tanev "not having to play as tough of minutes"? As a comparison, Vancouver was 14th in shots against per game. I don't believe he would get the easier minutes you are looking for.

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

Toronto's  trade clause...............2018 1st + 2018 2nd for Tanev and a conditional 2020 - 2nd if Tanev does meet the games played average

Vancouver's trade clause...........2018 1st + 2018 2nd + 2020 2nd if Tanev makes his games played average

 

So a 1st and 2nd if he doesn't make it

A 1st and 2 - 2nds if he does

I just can't imagine a team giving up this type of return for Tanev. My guess is that no one has come forward with an offer remotely close to this or Tanev would not still be here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

You do realize that if you went with 7 defensemen for the entire 82 game schedule (dressing 6 for each game) without a single game missed due to injury that your top seven would average 70 games played each, right? Saying Toronto averaged 68 games for their top 7 does nothing to make your point that (Defensemen get injured!).

Rick they used 11 Dmen in total.......8 of which had 37 or more games...........I don't dispute your point...............but you pointed out Dmen get hurt.......Note High lited words.

 

6 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

Toronto's top 4 (Rielly, Gardiner, Hainsey and Zaitsev) averaged 74.5 games each and Tanev has never come close to reaching that number in his entire career. The fact is that he is very injury prone and that will impact the return you get for him.

I don't disagree....I think I addressed that..........just make the second conditional...........swing it both ways..............Vancouver 2nd would be much better than Toronto's, as would their first, would not be that far ahead of Vancouver's second...............He gets some value close to Harmonic.............depends on if he stays healthy.........Note if Tanev plays health for 3 years...........his value will be all of what Harmonic got, and maybe more closer to Larsson's  real value (not Hall)

 

6 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

You simply do not give up a 1st and 2 X 2nds as you have suggested, for a d-man that is going to be sheltered from excess minutes. Tanev was 101st in TOI for defensemen last season and, if you take off a couple of minutes per game as you suggest, that would have put him at 17:47 per game or 177th among all d-men in the league. There are 31 teams that dress 6 d-men per night which would be a total of 186 d-men and you want Tanex to get 177th type minutes but still get a return of a 1st and 2 X 2nds?

Henrik and Daniel both played 82 games in 2016/17 and Henrik played 82 games and Daniel 81 games in 2017/18. How can you claim their reduced minutes improved their injury outcomes?

You suggest Toronto would want Tanev to play with Rielly? Rielly averaged almost 2 minutes per game more than Tanev last season so how would Tanev get the reduced minutes you are looking for?

Reilly does not regularly play against, the opponents best line......he is a offensive weapon that gets to exploit the oppositions weaknesses......Reilly plays on the power play, maybe Tanev does too ? but either way Tanev could not play the power play and play all regular shift with Reilly and get about the minutes I am talking about.........I am not sheltering him in the way you are explaining.............just reducing his minute a couple of minutes a game..........maybe he plays every other PK  or  plays 2nd shift PK ordoesn't play them at all..................his value in contract is acceptable for these types of minutes

 

6 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

 

Toronto was the 4th worst team for shots against per game at 33.9 shots per game while averaging 32.2 shots per game but you think this would result in Tanev "not having to play as tough of minutes"? As a comparison, Vancouver was 14th in shots against per game. I don't believe he would get the easier minutes you are looking for.

I just can't imagine a team giving up this type of return for Tanev. My guess is that no one has come forward with an offer remotely close to this or Tanev would not still be here.

Tanev does not get his injuries from shots on goal......he get them from blocking shots......with his face and foot!. Do you have the shots per 60 minutes that are done when Reilly's on the ice, and maybe if Tanev played on his line, there would be less shots, against Reilly and Tanev? You give an incomplete picture, that is molded for your argument.

 

Question? If Karlsson was injured as much as Tanev.......how would it impact his value........well one could argue, that it was in the past, and if he could reduce his injuries, his value would remain high............Talent = Value, regardless of games played.......how well does he do in the games played............most GM's would take the trade and put in a safety value, as Ottawa would not just give him away...............same for Tanev

 

There are teams that would like Tanev, just for his very cost controlled contract, in comparison to say Green or Carlson this July......at least that is the argument I get when,  I say we should sign one of them.............

 

What is the value of a  1st and 2nd to a top 10 team, compared to a rebuilding team? One is in the moment and the other is not, adding a Tanev to Toronto's meager Defense would help immensely...........especially when any one you draft is 4 years away, if at all! It is a risk a rebuilding team should take, and a team in the now can wait on.

 

Vancouver has the luxury of time........Toronto has big cap signing in a few years............can they wait?

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×