[Report] Tanev and Canucks not talking - Major interest from KHL

[Honeydews]

Just sign him omg

[DeNiro]

Lets just sign him already about 2-2.3 for 2-3-4 years is good by me & lets move on.

Lets just give him a NTC while we're at it.

Sorry but anything 2 mil or over is a huge overpayment IMO.

With our top 4 pretty much locked up, Tanev is likely going to remain a bottom pairing D-man. As a bottom pairing D-man I think we can get alot more value out of other players at that position. Even Alberts.

If that's how much he wants, Frankie C come on down, you're the next contestant on the Price is Right!

[wallstreetamigo]

Also, this has Tanev and his agent written all over it in terms of this taking so long. What possible reason would Gillis and the Canucks have to not sign Tanev to a deal long before now if it was a reasonable one? None that I can think of.

This KHL angle definitely tells me Tanev and his agent are driving the bus. The kid is starting to look too greedy here and that is a very risky perception for him to be fostering.

[wallstreetamigo]

Lets just give him a NTC while we're at it.

Sorry but anything 2 mil or over is a huge overpayment IMO.

With our top 4 pretty much locked up, Tanev is likely going to remain a bottom pairing D-man. As a bottom pairing D-man I think we can get alot more value out of other players at that position. Even Alberts.

If that's how much he wants, Frankie C come on down, you're the next contestant on the Price is Right!

Agreed. If AV was our coach I would be leery of this. But with Tortorella and Sullivan on board? I would be perfectly comfortable with this. The top guys would probably get more of the tougher defensive work (as they likely will anyway with Torts) but I could actually see this as a viabl option.

[somehockeydude]

Tanev scored 7 points in 38 games last year with no powerplay time while spending most of his time babysitting partners who were playing like crap thats not horrible production, hell its not even bad production its 2nd pairing production.

When he was paired with Hamhuis (the only defensemen on the team that was better defensively last year) they were the best shutdown pairing the team has had in this era and quite frankly probably ever.

This antagonism that Gillis seems to be setting up with the Tanev camp after ???? him over in 2011/2012 by leaving him in the minors when everyone knew he should have been full time in the NHL (even Gillis admited this) is going to hurt this team with free agent signings in the future.

I would bet a great deal of money that right now Tanev wishes he had signed with the Sens instead of us. Its unfortunate how blind to just how good Tanev is right now most people are (hes a top 4 defensemen on 9/10 teams in this league) and high his potential is (first pairing defensemen). Defensemen in his position aren't getting much around the league right now but 2 per season is not unreasonable at all, and if he gets let go or alienated for asking for that then that may turn out to be the second biggest blunder Gillis has made (next to the ballard trade) and I a generally a pretty big supporter of Gillis.

[Danthecanucksfan]

KHL? Oh hell no! We will not be a victim!

[aGENT]

Tanev scored 7 points in 38 games last year with no powerplay time while spending most of his time babysitting partners who were playing like crap thats not horrible production, hell its not even bad production its 2nd pairing production.

When he was paired with Hamhuis (the only defensemen on the team that was better defensively last year) they were the best shutdown pairing the team has had in this era and quite frankly probably ever.

This antagonism that Gillis seems to be setting up with the Tanev camp after ???? him over in 2011/2012 by leaving him in the minors when everyone knew he should have been full time in the NHL (even Gillis admited this) is going to hurt this team with free agent signings in the future.

I would bet a great deal of money that right now Tanev wishes he had signed with the Sens instead of us. Its unfortunate how blind to just how good Tanev is right now most people are (hes a top 4 defensemen on 9/10 teams in this league) and high his potential is (first pairing defensemen). Defensemen in his position aren't getting much around the league right now but 2 per season is not unreasonable at all, and if he gets let go or alienated for asking for that then that may turn out to be the second biggest blunder Gillis has made (next to the ballard trade) and I a generally a pretty big supporter of Gillis.

Did you type that with a straight face?

He's a good, steady, relatively mistake free young 3rd pairing dman that can fill in temporarily in the top 4 if injuries arise. He's also small, not remotely physical and has thus far shown very limited offense skill.

He'd at best, be the regular 4th guy on a crappy team.

[wallstreetamigo]

Tanev scored 7 points in 38 games last year with no powerplay time while spending most of his time babysitting partners who were playing like crap thats not horrible production, hell its not even bad production its 2nd pairing production.

When he was paired with Hamhuis (the only defensemen on the team that was better defensively last year) they were the best shutdown pairing the team has had in this era and quite frankly probably ever.

This antagonism that Gillis seems to be setting up with the Tanev camp after ???? him over in 2011/2012 by leaving him in the minors when everyone knew he should have been full time in the NHL (even Gillis admited this) is going to hurt this team with free agent signings in the future.

I would bet a great deal of money that right now Tanev wishes he had signed with the Sens instead of us. Its unfortunate how blind to just how good Tanev is right now most people are (hes a top 4 defensemen on 9/10 teams in this league) and high his potential is (first pairing defensemen). Defensemen in his position aren't getting much around the league right now but 2 per season is not unreasonable at all, and if he gets let go or alienated for asking for that then that may turn out to be the second biggest blunder Gillis has made (next to the ballard trade) and I a generally a pretty big supporter of Gillis.

What a load of crap this is.

1. He did not babysit anyone. He has benefited from having above average to good 3rd pairing partners his entire time in the NHL. Last season especially, Ballard and Alberts both played pretty well overall. You are severely overstating Tanev suggesting he carries any pairing he is on.

2. Hamhuis and Garrison followed closely by Hamhuis and Bieksa are the best shutdown pairings this team has had the last several years. Hmahuis and Tanev are far too small a sample size to even suggest are better than them. Plus, notice the common factor in all those pairings? Hamhuis. So does Tanev make that pairing or does Hamhuis? We all know the answer.

3. So with Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa, Ballard, Salo, Alberts, and Rome on the roster on one way contracts, Tanev automatically deserved a spot in 2010/11? Based on what exactly?

4. He is not a top 4 dman on the Canucks though and that is all that matters. He will not supplant any of our top 4.

5. The Ballard trade was not a blunder. It was a reasonably well calculated move based on a variety of factors. The state of the D at the time, Mitchell's concussion uncertainty, Hamhuis not a lock to sign with us, Grabner having to clear waivers to be sent to the minors out of camp, Raymond coming off a career year, etc. The result of the trade did not turn out how we hoped but the logic of it at the time was sound.

[DeNiro]

When he was paired with Hamhuis (the only defensemen on the team that was better defensively last year) they were the best shutdown pairing the team has had in this era and quite frankly probably ever.

This antagonism that Gillis seems to be setting up with the Tanev camp after ???? him over in 2011/2012 by leaving him in the minors when everyone knew he should have been full time in the NHL (even Gillis admited this) is going to hurt this team with free agent signings in the future.

I would bet a great deal of money that right now Tanev wishes he had signed with the Sens instead of us. Its unfortunate how blind to just how good Tanev is right now most people are (hes a top 4 defensemen on 9/10 teams in this league) and high his potential is (first pairing defensemen). Defensemen in his position aren't getting much around the league right now but 2 per season is not unreasonable at all, and if he gets let go or alienated for asking for that then that may turn out to be the second biggest blunder Gillis has made (next to the ballard trade) and I a generally a pretty big supporter of Gillis.

Seriously?

Best shutdown pairing this era or probably ever? I hope you're joking on that one. Hamhuis can make anyone look good, that's how good he is. Hamhuis and Bieksa were the best shutdown pair this team had, and Mitchell and Bieksa were second best.

They put Tanev in the minors because at that point he really hadn't proven anything. They wanted to make sure they weren't rushing him too quickly and that he was actually ready. It was the right move for his development.

And top 4 D-man on any team? Again, just no.

Tanev has been given a great opportunity here after being undrafted and coming from an lesser known college that rarely develops NHL talent. The Canucks put so much faith in him, they put him in the Stanley Cup finals. Oh but poor him getting screwed like that. I'm sure he hated that opportunity that few player actually get. If it weren't for the finals, not many people around the league would even know who he is.

Look if Tanev was showing signs of developing an offensive game, I would be the first one to say sign him up at 2 mil or more. But the fact is he just hasn't proven that he's anything more than a 1 dimensional defenseman at this point. 10 points and just over 1 full season isn't enough to convince me that he's worth anything more than 1.5 mil at this point. Being calm in your own zone and being able to make a first pass isn't enough to command that. There's lots of players in the league that can do that for alot cheaper.

[Plum]

Would probably give him 2 years and 1.6 million per year maximum.

[Legend Killer]

If he wants too much money, then let him go to russia.

[somehockeydude]

What a load of crap this is.

1. He did not babysit anyone. He has benefited from having above average to good 3rd pairing partners his entire time in the NHL. Last season especially, Ballard and Alberts both played pretty well overall. You are severely overstating Tanev suggesting he carries any pairing he is on.

bull, he constantly babysat people, How many times did people talk about how good everyone who plays with Tanev looked? He drove play with a +7.7% zone adjustment(best among the defensemen). His on ice save % was among the best on team while spending most of his time partnered with Ballard. While he was partnered with Hamhuis they had the lowest GA/60 of any pairing in the league.

2. Hamhuis and Garrison followed closely by Hamhuis and Bieksa are the best shutdown pairings this team has had the last several years. Hmahuis and Tanev are far too small a sample size to even suggest are better than them. Plus, notice the common factor in all those pairings? Hamhuis. So does Tanev make that pairing or does Hamhuis? We all know the answer.

bull. Hamhuis and Garrison was a great pairing (Hamhuis and anyone is a great pairing) but as a shutdown pairing they simply were not as effective as Hamhuis/Tanev. The stats simply don't lie on this. Garrison was the second best defensemen on the team last year, His defensive play was a generally small amount below Hamhuis and Tanev, but it was there - although hes the best of the three offensively.

3. So with Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa, Ballard, Salo, Alberts, and Rome on the roster on one way contracts, Tanev automatically deserved a spot in 2010/11? Based on what exactly?

Based on the fact that he was better then all but Hamhuis/Edler/Bieksa and arguably Salo although Salo slowed down noticeably later in the season. He was AT LEAST the 5th best defensmen on that team. Even Gillis himself admitted that Tanev deserved to be on that team for the full season - in what I suspect was an attempt to make amends to what I suspect was a pissed off Tanev camp.

4. He is not a top 4 dman on the Canucks though and that is all that matters. He will not supplant any of our top 4.

Arguable but irrelevant. You don't pay a guy for where he will play on your team if your number 5 defensemen is a "top 4" defensemen which Tanev CLEARLY is then you pay him like it. 2 million per is a very fair deal for the Canucks for what Tanev has brought already. You certainly don’t send a signal to every potential future college free agent signing that this is the way you treat those guys who decide to choose your team as a free agent.

5. The Ballard trade was not a blunder. It was a reasonably well calculated move based on a variety of factors. The state of the D at the time, Mitchell's concussion uncertainty, Hamhuis not a lock to sign with us, Grabner having to clear waivers to be sent to the minors out of camp, Raymond coming off a career year, etc. The result of the trade did not turn out how we hoped but the logic of it at the time was sound.

The Ballard trade was terrible, even at the time. Ballard was an idiot in Florida and before that an idiot in Pheonix, he worked in those systems because they simply let him do what he wanted to. He had never shown any ability to adjust to a system and he was showing wear and tear. Grabner had shown great chemistry with Raymond and Kesler, the fact that his production had been underwhelming in his short run here should have been seen for the what it was - growing pains. The trade turned out just like anyone with a brain knew it would - a disaster.

Mitchels health issues are also irrelevant, Balard in no way was ever going to fill Mitchels shoes regardless. They were completely different types of defensemen. Clearly Gillis thought that the league was moving back towards the type of game that Ballard would have excelled at, in retrospect it was a bad guess.

And this is coming from someone who in general remains a big proponent of Gillis who I believe remains one of the very best GMs and Presidents in the league.

[NotMyBurroughs]

Say it ain't so :'(

[wallstreetamigo]

bull, he constantly babysat people, How many times did people talk about how good everyone who plays with Tanev looked? He drove play with a +7.7% zone adjustment(best among the defensemen). His on ice save % was among the best on team while spending most of his time partnered with Ballard. While he was partnered with Hamhuis they had the lowest GA/60 of any pairing in the league.

bull. Hamhuis and Garrison was a great pairing (Hamhuis and anyone is a great pairing) but as a shutdown pairing they simply were not as effective as Hamhuis/Tanev. The stats simply don't lie on this. Garrison was the second best defensemen on the team last year, His defensive play was a generally small amount below Hamhuis and Tanev, but it was there - although hes the best of the three offensively.

Based on the fact that he was better then all but Hamhuis/Edler/Bieksa and arguably Salo although Salo slowed down noticeably later in the season. He was AT LEAST the 5th best defensmen on that team. Even Gillis himself admitted that Tanev deserved to be on that team for the full season - in what I suspect was an attempt to make amends to what I suspect was a pissed off Tanev camp.

Arguable but irrelevant. You don't pay a guy for where he will play on your team if your number 5 defensemen is a "top 4" defensemen which Tanev CLEARLY is then you pay him like it. 2 million per is a very fair deal for the Canucks for what Tanev has brought already. You certainly don’t send a signal to every potential future college free agent signing that this is the way you treat those guys who decide to choose your team as a free agent.

The Ballard trade was terrible, even at the time. Ballard was an idiot in Florida and before that an idiot in Pheonix, he worked in those systems because they simply let him do what he wanted to. He had never shown any ability to adjust to a system and he was showing wear and tear. Grabner had shown great chemistry with Raymond and Kesler, the fact that his production had been underwhelming in his short run here should have been seen for the what it was - growing pains. The trade turned out just like anyone with a brain knew it would - a disaster.

Mitchels health issues are also irrelevant, Balard in no way was ever going to fill Mitchels shoes regardless. They were completely different types of defensemen. Clearly Gillis thought that the league was moving back towards the type of game that Ballard would have excelled at, in retrospect it was a bad guess.

And this is coming from someone who in general remains a big proponent of Gillis who I believe remains one of the very best GMs and Presidents in the league.

Man, you know little about hockey and even less about the the business and contracts side of the game that impacts decisions that are made.

Looking at your response I know that attempting to even explain how utterly wrong you are will be useless. i suspect you are either Tanev, Tanev's mom, or Tanev's agent.

[somehockeydude]

Seriously?

Best shutdown pairing this era or probably ever? I hope you're joking on that one. Hamhuis can make anyone look good, that's how good he is. Hamhuis and Bieksa were the best shutdown pair this team had, and Mitchell and Bieksa were second best.

Statistically yes without a doubt. Although I tend to agree that was probably not representative of the actual truth of it. Regardless Tanev may very well turn out to be the best decision making defensemen we have ever had. Right now on this team he is second only to Hamhuis in that and even that isn't by a tremendous amount. And neither Hamhuis/Bieksa or Mitchell/Bieksa were anywhere close to this teams best shutdown pair, in fact historically I doubt either would rank in the top 5.

They put Tanev in the minors because at that point he really hadn't proven anything. They wanted to make sure they weren't rushing him too quickly and that he was actually ready. It was the right move for his development.

bull, he was one of the best defensemen in the AHL, he had more than proven he was ready for the NHL in that he was clearly better then at least 2 of the guys that were on the team at the time. He was put in the minors ostensibly to help him develop a more rounded game - there was never even an argument among ANYONE at the time that he was simply a better player than players that were playing on the Canucks at the time.

And top 4 D-man on any team? Again, just no.

Tanev has been given a great opportunity here after being undrafted and coming from an lesser known college that rarely develops NHL talent. The Canucks put so much faith in him, they put him in the Stanley Cup finals. Oh but poor him getting screwed like that. I'm sure he hated that opportunity that few player actually get. If it weren't for the finals, not many people around the league would even know who he is.

bull, any team would have given him a better shot and more ice time by now then the Canucks have. If he had signed with the Senators (the other time that was pursuing him actively) he would have been playing in their top 4 for 2 years now and I seriously doubt he would be getting jerked around like this. Tons of people around the league know who Tanev is, its just not the simpleton fans that are constantly saying things like:

Hes got no Shot!

He doesn't Hit!

He doesn't score! (even though his production last year was at worst mediocre for his position)

The Canucks didn't do crap for him, they saw him and decided that he had potential so they pursued and persuaded him to sign with them. There was no favors here both sides obviously felt it was to their benefit, nobody knows what was said between the parties so this stupid bull about doing him a favor is ridiculous.

Look if Tanev was showing signs of developing an offensive game, I would be the first one to say sign him up at 2 mil or more. But the fact is he just hasn't proven that he's anything more than a 1 dimensional defenseman at this point. 10 points and just over 1 full season isn't enough to convince me that he's worth anything more than 1.5 mil at this point. Being calm in your own zone and being able to make a first pass isn't enough to command that. There's lots of players in the league that can do that for alot cheaper.

A) he scored 7 points in 38 games last year with no powerplay time. For those that don't realize it that is 2nd pairing production while not getting second pairing minutes. Tanev has plenty of offensive talent, the only things that keep Tanev from being a top tier young defensemen are his lack of physicality and his shot - he excels in every other attribute that defensemen has. He has good-great vision and a terrific outlet pass, he carries the puck well and makes so few mistakes that each one gets noted by observers as an oddity.

There is maybe 1 defensemen currently in the league making less than 1.5 million who is better than Tanev (Karl Alzner) whos contract goes up to 2.8 million per next year and ironically Alzner is WORSE than Tanev offensively and only marginally more effective defensively (although a more valuable player overall due to his size). There is certainly nobody who is going to be signed as a free agent who is going to replace Tanev at 1.5 million, that’s the simple delusion of not realizing what 1.5 million gets you in this league.

[Drouin]

I doubt Tanev would even consider going to the KHL. No worries.

[somehockeydude]

I doubt Tanev would even consider going to the KHL. No worries.

I doubt it as well. I think its probably a negotiating tactic. However if I was in his shoes I would seriously consider it. How many years in the KHL would it take for him to be a free agent?

He could play in a relative no-hit league where his skills would be better suited then the NHL and could probably make more money then just come back to the NHL more physicallly developed when he reaches UFA.

Actually seems like a good idea to me on some levels.

[Drouin]

I doubt it as well. I think its probably a negotiating tactic. However if I was in his shoes I would seriously consider it. How many years in the KHL would it take for him to be a free agent?

He could play in a relative no-hit league where his skills would be better suited then the NHL and could probably make more money then just come back to the NHL more physicallly developed when he reaches UFA.

Actually seems like a good idea to me on some levels.

Maybe, but to me he seems like a guy that would rather stay in North America close to his family.

[wallstreetamigo]

I doubt it as well. I think its probably a negotiating tactic. However if I was in his shoes I would seriously consider it. How many years in the KHL would it take for him to be a free agent?

He could play in a relative no-hit league where his skills would be better suited then the NHL and could probably make more money then just come back to the NHL more physicallly developed when he reaches UFA.

Actually seems like a good idea to me on some levels.

This would be the dumbest move he could make. A few years away from the NHL is not going to get him much (if any) more as a UFA at that time than he would get now as an RFA. All he would be doing is abandoning his best chance at a higher profile steady NHL job where he can show what he is worth for when he becomes a free agent or where he can develop into a top 4 NHL dman.

If he goes to the KHL then he is an idiot.

[Amish Rake Fighter]

Threatening to go play in the KHL has turned into one hell of a negotiating tactic.