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

[bloodycanuckleheads]

Gillis is an idiot.

No, that statement is idiotic!

Gillis took over a team that Nonis had run into the ground (bottom 10 in the league). The very next season, we won our division. Then, we won our division the next year. The year after that, we won our division again - and our conference - AND we won the President's trophy - and we went to the Stanley Cup Final. The year after that, we were the best team in the league - again - and won the President's Trophy for the second year in a row. And, this year, we won our division yet again.

Gillis took a bottom 10 team - and won our division EVERY - SINGLE - YEAR!

He's, by far, the best GM we've ever had. By a long-shot. So, to call him an idiot is ludicrous...

[kanucks25]

He'll get signed. The issue is likely a few hundred-thousand per year (which is a big deal to a guy like Tanev) and neither side is willing to budge yet.

Both teams and agents like to leak "information" into the media in an attempt to create leverage. This just seems like a tactic Tanev's agent is using to raise his value.

My guess is Tanev will be first to cave as Corrado can do his job, at least temporarily. I doubt anybody offer sheets him... he needs the Canucks more than they need him.

Hopefully this gets done before camp and he has time to prepare

[timberz21]

The Canucks have 5M in cap space to sign Tanev, Alberts and some random depth defenceman.

Alberts for 1M. Done.

Tanev for 2M. Done.

Fistric for 2M. Done.

Hamhuis - Bieksa

Edler - Garrison

Fistric - Tanev

Alberts

Corrado

Weber

Fantastic defensive depth, a solid top-4 too. We're going to get lots of injuries on the blueline next season with the way Tortorella will ask his guys to play. Lots of blocked shots means lots of minor injuries, so we need depth more than ever to seal up these holes.

Fantastic depth and lots of unhappy players. Pretty sure Alberts and Fistric are waiting for training camp to get underway and some players gets injured. They will probably get a call.

[Boudrias]

But if Gillis gives him the contract you want, he eff'd up......ironic, eh?

2.33 million per is not a bridge contract amount for a depth RFA dman with no arbitration rights. 1.1 to 1.5 is the going rate for better players than Tanev so far this offseason. The guy and his shiny agent have to just accept reality. If they get any more than that then Gillis is a clown.

On the one hand CDC fans are bad mouthing Lou's contract as it was obviously too generous (let's ignore the circumstances at the time) and yet want to over pay for a young kid who really hasn't proven his worth yet. He is a 3rd pairing dman who has potential. If Gillis overpays for that then what is the limit?

Tanev should sign as short a duration contract as he can and then renegociate based on a body of work that is longer than 90 games.

[Noseforthenet]

I have a feeling we all will be giving MG a Wiser's slow clap for this one by the time Tanev is signed. He is pretty good with contract signings (aside from all the NTCs), just bad with trades. Kind of hope he's gone before the next big trade that Vancouver makes.

[johngould21]

It's amazing how many players are still not signed.

I think we'll see a mini free agency day/week at the end of August.

What's even more amazing is, how many teams have to become cap compliant when the time comes. Last time I checked cap geek, 6 teams were over the magic number. That's a player or two more from each team to have to shuffle.

[Primal Optimist]

I like Tanev, but not for over 1.5m, in fact i would be really itchy about paying over 1 million for him, but on account of i like him i would overpay by half a mil.

[aGENT]

I have a feeling we all will be giving MG a Wiser's slow clap for this one by the time Tanev is signed. He is pretty good with contract signings (aside from all the NTCs), just bad with trades. Kind of hope he's gone before the next big trade that Vancouver makes.

You mean about the average amount of NTC's most top teams in the league have?

Another ridiculous CDC based "fact" perpetuated here

[Guest Dasein]

LOL Gillis needs to stay the course. Do not overpay for a depth defenseman that can be replaced easily.

[oldnews]

The potential for either side to make a huge mistake is still very much there. That of course does not mean it will end up that way but it still could. The comments made on both sides are standard PR washed and dried though. What do you really expect them to say publicly?

Dramatic Wallstreet. Surprise - Wallstreet is forecasting a potentially huge mistake to be made by Canucks management....But regarding your question, I don't expect them to say anything other than what's being said - which is why my tone is notably different than the heightened anxiety posted in response to a mundane rumour - I'm not the one over-reacting to it.

[Benchsplinters]

Definitely Tanev's agent......and wow, his own agent makes it sound like it is all about greed......lol

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/08/12/tanev-eyeing-offers-from-europe/

Let the kid go to the KHL or Euro and see where it gets him. He is getting bad advice from this agent if this is the game of chicken he wants to play. If Gillis caves in to this amateur hour BS and overpays Tanev he should be fired.

Sign a UFA like O'Byrne, Alberts or Fistric and/or give Corrado or Weber his spot, etc. and be done with it. We have had enough drama on this team with guys who think they are above the team. A 3rd pairing dman is not worth overpaying to keep because he might bolt to the KHL.

No time for a GM to be kissing the butt of a greedy young player.

However, I still believe this is a media driven spin and nothing to get your jockeys in a knot for. There are a few players out there that will play for less than what Tanev is holding out for and they have more NHL experience.

[Benchsplinters]

3 yrs 1.5 - 1.9 - 2.5 cap hit 1.96

I think this is something that would be reasonable.

It is only reasonable if Gillis and Tanev think it is reasonable.

Why not just let the pieces fall where they may. These summertime negotiations are all the same. Both GM and player have several months to jockey for position and it always happens. IMHO I believe this will hang over us until training camp time when Gillis will have a better idea how he wants to align the team. He wants to explore all his options before spending the money. The KHL threat is simply a fart in the wind attempt to get more money. He has to be released by the Canucks before he can even sign a contract with the KHL. So what is the KHL crap about anyway?

Gillis knows the game and when to budge at the right time. The media will continue to milk this matter to the best of their ability and put their own spin on it to entice interest to in impatient base of fans.

Tanev will end up signing a three year deal for about 1.3M/Year to see him through RFA or to that time where he is able to go to arbitration. Sorry Tanev but you are qualified and under contract. The next move is yours so be reasonable. You have until December 21st to sign or accept an offer sheet.

With the cap lowered this year, teams are finding money difficult and Tanev may not have the luxury of an offer sheet for the money he may be asking for. Time for him to be reasonable for the first time in his very very short NHL career.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

Lol at people trying to "rate" Tanev (or Ballard for that reason). That pairing was the most solid for stretches of last year, not because they were "so good" but because the top four (minus Garrison) were "so bad". Hamhuis had a terrible year, I had never seen him so shaky with the puck (hopefully just an off year, at least a new coach will help him keep the rust off). Bieksa and Edler were being a bit worse versions of Bieksa and Edler. Tanev and Ballard (or Tanev and whomever) were highly touted last season, not for offense or defence, but for actually being able to possess the puck without making stupid plays and were able to function on the ice. Tanev and partner made their colleagues look silly. So how do you value this ability? He won't score and he is average defensively, but he doesn't throw the puck away on a whim like the other dmen on this team do too often. Whatever the number, I don't see it being higher than 1.5 mill a year until Tanev starts putting up some offense.

As far as Tanev (and Ballard) being "the most solid" pairing on the Canucks "for stretches of last year," I think it's important to consider the impact of player usage on the apparent on-ice quality of play (and the same goes for the other Ds).

It was during those stretches in question (when Tanev looked his best) that Tanev was also playing his most sheltered minutes. Overall, it's important to remember that Tanev's 2012-13 season saw him play some of the softest minutes he's had since his rookie season.

Here's a breakdown of where he ranked last season, among Canucks defensemen, in two of the key statistical measures for competition level:

QUALITY OF COMPETITION (Corsi QoC):

1. Dan Hamhuis (-0.219)

2. Jason Garrison (-0.402)

3. Andrew Alberts (-0.477)

4. Alex Edler (-0.579)

5. Kevin Bieksa (-0.891)

6. Keith Ballard (-1.066)

7. Chris Tanev (-1.388)

8. Cam Barker (-2.326)

9. Frank Corrado (-3.080)

10. Derek Joslin (-9.201)

RELATIVE QUALITY OF COMPETITION (Corsi Rel QoC):

1. Dan Hamhuis (0.819)

2. Jason Garrison (0.652)

3. Kevin Bieksa (0.566)

4. Alex Edler (0.489)

5. Andrew Alberts (-0.033)

6. Keith Ballard (-0.197)

7. Cam Barker (-0.236)

8. Chris Tanev (-0.447)

9. Frank Corrado (-0.620)

10. Derek Joslin (-1.216)

Seventh and eighth place, respectively, and significantly lower numbers than what we see from the Canucks' top-four. Also, when you look at his game-by-game performance through last season, a pretty clear pattern emerges. Here's a rough breakdown of how things went during Tanev's 2012-13 season:

The first half of the season, which is when he looked the best (expecially in comparison to his teammates), Tanev was playing most frequently with Ballard, mostly against bottom level competition, and mostly at low TOI/G (something in the 14 to 18 minutes range). Then, around the beginning of March, Tanev gets called upon for higher minutes and a larger role. He's paired mainly with Edler (some people will wrongly identify this pairing as the key factor) and he starts playing 20+ minutes per game and against higher level competition. Tanev's stats plummet during that stretch and he has some of his worst individual performances and game stat lines (example: March 7th vs CBJ: 24:32 TOI, -2 in a 2-1 OTL--he's on the ice for both GA). Then, around mid-to-late March and for the rest of his season (up to his injury), he's put back into a lower minute (14 to 19 minutes per game) and bottom level competition role (IIRC he's paired most often with Alberts after Ballard's injury), and he magically returns back to playing solid defensive hockey and looking once again like that kid who "could have played with a cigarette in his mouth."

The overall pattern suggests that Tanev's played his best hockey when he played against weak competition and in a limited role. To me, this speaks more to the player usage strategies employed behind the Canucks bench than it does to anything else. This also holds when you consider one of the few exceptions to the above mentioned pattern in Tanev's season: his minutes playing with Hamhuis. Tanev thrived when he played alongside Hamhuis, even against higher level competition and in a larger role. However, most of these minutes came later in games when the coaches were able to recognize Tanev was playing an exceptionally strong game and therefore shifted him into a more important role (alongside Hamhuis). Once again, this is player usage (and good coaching) more than any other factor.

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.

I'd argue that the coaches "babysat" Tanev more than he's ever "babysat" any of his defensive partners. One of the reasons why people talk about how "good everyone who plays with Tanev" looks is because, other than a few exceptions, playing with Tanev almost always means playing against a weak level of competition. Tanev is very solid in that kind of limited role and deserves credit for providing safe, stable, low-event minutes in the 5/6 spot on the Canucks D. However, any of the Canucks current top-four would almost assuredly be just as successful if they had the luxury of playing those kinds of minutes. And, until he proves otherwise, I seriously question whether or not Tanev could be succeed (with any kind of game-in and game-out consistency) if required to replace, minute-by-minute, the icetime and role played by any member of the current top-four.

As far as the "+7.7% zone adjustment," I think it's important to recognize that this number speaks more to how Tanev was utilized by his coaches than to how he "drove play" on the ice. Basically, you have stats that demonstrate a player usage pattern for Tanev's icetime. Viewed by the coaching staff as a player who's solid in his own zone but who also offers little potential offensive, Tanev started more shifts in the defensive zone and was often called to the bench when play had moved to the offensive zone. That +7.7% doesn't necessarily reflect a clear directionality to the play on the ice (or Tanev's role in directing play). With a team like Vancouver, where "zone matching" was frequently a more prevalent approach to "line matching," it's easy to see how during Tanev's shifts on the ice, stoppages in the offensive zone would have nearly always seen him called to the bench. Overall, that differential (zone starts/finishes) speaks more to Tanev's usage pattern as a "defensive" defenseman than it does to anything else (like him significantly "driving" the play--which is actually something that his possession metrics, at least for 2012-13, tend to contradict).

As far as his on-ice save percentage, it was certainly the best among the defensemen on the team in 2012-13. However, I don't really buy into the "even while spending most of his time partnered with Ballard" argument. Unless, of course, you're taking into account the fact that the Ballard-Tanev pairing was playing soft minutes against weak competition. Then yes, by all means, you should add a qualifier to Tanev's on-ice save percentage.

As to Hamhuis-Tanev, you're right: their GA/60 was tied for the lowest in the league (since they didn't surrender a goal against). They also only played 54:36 together (at even strength).

That's actually a pairing that I've repeatedly suggested deserve more opportunities together. So far, their numbers have been obscenely good. However, over three seasons, they've only played 224:55 ESTOI as a pairing. I can't recall a game when they've actually started and finished together (and played the whole game together at even strength). Mostly, as I noted earlier, they seem to be a pairing that the coaches would put together as a mid-to-late game adjustment, when the circumstances favoured such a move. I'd love to see them paired more often (and for entire games) but, at least at this point, it's really premature to start making any strong claims regarding comparisons to other more established pairings like Hamhuis-Garrison (especially in terms of effectiveness in a shutdown role). Last season, Hamhuis-Garrison played nearly twice the total minutes that Hamhuis-Tanev have played together in three seasons. And Hamhuis-Garrison is a pairing that has played games together from start-to-finish and nearly always in tough minutes against the highest quality of competition. We just don't have a comparable sample for Hamhuis-Tanev (at least not yet--what we do have are some good indicators regarding a potential future full-time pairing).

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.

OK. Yeah, that's a pretty good points/60 for a defenseman (just barely outside the Canucks top-four and probably ranks at a top-four level in the NHL for 2012-13--I'm not going to bother checking and just concede that point).

However, there are some other factors worth considering in measuring Tanev's offensive production that season:

1) His shots/60 and individual Corsi/Fenwick/60 were ranked at the bottom of all Ds on the Canucks, even after adjusting for zone starts.

2) His 2 goals came on a team high (for defensemen) 10% shooting percentage. His previous numbers were 0.0% (0 goals) for both 2010-11 and 2011-12.

3) He had zero first assists in 2012-13 (and he's ranked low in that area career-wise).

4) All his points came during minutes played with either the Sedin line or with some version of a 2nd line containing Jannik Hansen (usually the Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen line when those guys were really clicking together).

I don't want to be overly harsh here. I was as happy as anyone when Tanev scored that OT winner (off a Sedin feed) against Edmonton. Same for his goal in Phoenix (playing with Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen and paired with Barker). Like most people, I was left wondering whether or not Tanev had more to offer offensively than we'd seen from him previously. While his 0.63 points/60 last season was a good start, I don't think it really tells us very much definitively.

It's probably going too far to say he had two flukey goals and added 5 second assists as a passenger on scoring plays by other teammates. Yeah, that's going too far. But really, is it going all that far in the wrong direction, in terms of actually analyzing his individual points production from last season?

His offensive potential remains uncertain.

[Benchsplinters]

Tanev. He's an RFA with not much power. He is asking for way too much.

How do we know what he is asking? Have they made that amount public? How are you privy to the negotiating amounts?

If the answer is no to all of the above, how can you jump up and say, "he is asking for way to much". Conjecture on your part at best.

[PlayingBurke]

Tanev will resign with the Canucks. I am sure the Canucks management is doing other things and letting their prior discussion with Tanev's agent sit for awhile. I wouldn't be surprised if the raw numbers are not even in question. Probably anywhere from 1.2-1.7 million dollars per year. Tanev's side is clearly indifferent to the length, so it will be dependent upon the Canucks (hopefully a two or three year deal). Where I do think a potential contention may exist is whether Tanev wants more ice time, and perhaps a no trade clause. I think the former is more likely, because it would be odd for him to request a no trade clause if he is indifferent on the length; unless he puts the contingence that if it's a longer term deal, it must come with a no trade clause. Maybe.

[Benchsplinters]

As far as Tanev (and Ballard) being "the most solid" pairing on the Canucks "for stretches of last year," I think it's important to consider the impact of player usage on the apparent on-ice quality of play (and the same goes for the other Ds).

It was during those stretches in question (when Tanev looked his best) that Tanev was also playing his most sheltered minutes. Overall, it's important to remember that Tanev's 2012-13 season saw him play some of the softest minutes he's had since his rookie season.

Here's a breakdown of where he ranked last season, among Canucks defensemen, in two of the key statistical measures for competition level:

QUALITY OF COMPETITION (Corsi QoC):

1. Dan Hamhuis (-0.219)

2. Jason Garrison (-0.402)

3. Andrew Alberts (-0.477)

4. Alex Edler (-0.579)

5. Kevin Bieksa (-0.891)

6. Keith Ballard (-1.066)

7. Chris Tanev (-1.388)

8. Cam Barker (-2.326)

9. Frank Corrado (-3.080)

10. Derek Joslin (-9.201)

RELATIVE QUALITY OF COMPETITION (Corsi Rel QoC):

1. Dan Hamhuis (0.819)

2. Jason Garrison (0.652)

3. Kevin Bieksa (0.566)

4. Alex Edler (0.489)

5. Andrew Alberts (-0.033)

6. Keith Ballard (-0.197)

7. Cam Barker (-0.236)

8. Chris Tanev (-0.447)

9. Frank Corrado (-0.620)

10. Derek Joslin (-1.216)

Seventh and eighth place, respectively, and significantly lower numbers than what we see from the Canucks' top-four. Also, when you look at his game-by-game performance through last season, a pretty clear pattern emerges. Here's a rough breakdown of how things went during Tanev's 2012-13 season:

The first half of the season, which is when he looked the best (expecially in comparison to his teammates), Tanev was playing most frequently with Ballard, mostly against bottom level competition, and mostly at low TOI/G (something in the 14 to 18 minutes range). Then, around the beginning of March, Tanev gets called upon for higher minutes and a larger role. He's paired mainly with Edler (some people will wrongly identify this pairing as the key factor) and he starts playing 20+ minutes per game and against higher level competition. Tanev's stats plummet during that stretch and he has some of his worst individual performances and game stat lines (example: March 7th vs CBJ: 24:32 TOI, -2 in a 2-1 OTL--he's on the ice for both GA). Then, around mid-to-late March and for the rest of his season (up to his injury), he's put back into a lower minute (14 to 19 minutes per game) and bottom level competition role (IIRC he's paired most often with Alberts after Ballard's injury), and he magically returns back to playing solid defensive hockey and looking once again like that kid who "could have played with a cigarette in his mouth."

The overall pattern suggests that Tanev's played his best hockey when he played against weak competition and in a limited role. To me, this speaks more to the player usage strategies employed behind the Canucks bench than it does to anything else. This also holds when you consider one of the few exceptions to the above mentioned pattern in Tanev's season: his minutes playing with Hamhuis. Tanev thrived when he played alongside Hamhuis, even against higher level competition and in a larger role. However, most of these minutes came later in games when the coaches were able to recognize Tanev was playing an exceptionally strong game and therefore shifted him into a more important role (alongside Hamhuis). Once again, this is player usage (and good coaching) more than any other factor.

I'd argue that the coaches "babysat" Tanev more than he's ever "babysat" any of his defensive partners. One of the reasons why people talk about how "good everyone who plays with Tanev" looks is because, other than a few exceptions, playing with Tanev almost always means playing against a weak level of competition. Tanev is very solid in that kind of limited role and deserves credit for providing safe, stable, low-event minutes in the 5/6 spot on the Canucks D. However, any of the Canucks current top-four would almost assuredly be just as successful if they had the luxury of playing those kinds of minutes. And, until he proves otherwise, I seriously question whether or not Tanev could be succeed (with any kind of game-in and game-out consistency) if required to replace, minute-by-minute, the icetime and role played by any member of the current top-four.

As far as the "+7.7% zone adjustment," I think it's important to recognize that this number speaks more to how Tanev was utilized by his coaches than to how he "drove play" on the ice. Basically, you have stats that demonstrate a player usage pattern for Tanev's icetime. Viewed by the coaching staff as a player who's solid in his own zone but who also offers little potential offensive, Tanev started more shifts in the defensive zone and was often called to the bench when play had moved to the offensive zone. That +7.7% doesn't necessarily reflect a clear directionality to the play on the ice (or Tanev's role in directing play). With a team like Vancouver, where "zone matching" was frequently a more prevalent approach to "line matching," it's easy to see how during Tanev's shifts on the ice, stoppages in the offensive zone would have nearly always seen him called to the bench. Overall, that differential (zone starts/finishes) speaks more to Tanev's usage pattern as a "defensive" defenseman than it does to anything else (like him significantly "driving" the play--which is actually something that his possession metrics, at least for 2012-13, tend to contradict).

As far as his on-ice save percentage, it was certainly the best among the defensemen on the team in 2012-13. However, I don't really buy into the "even while spending most of his time partnered with Ballard" argument. Unless, of course, you're taking into account the fact that the Ballard-Tanev pairing was playing soft minutes against weak competition. Then yes, by all means, you should add a qualifier to Tanev's on-ice save percentage.

As to Hamhuis-Tanev, you're right: their GA/60 was tied for the lowest in the league (since they didn't surrender a goal against). They also only played 54:36 together (at even strength).

That's actually a pairing that I've repeatedly suggested deserve more opportunities together. So far, their numbers have been obscenely good. However, over three seasons, they've only played 224:55 ESTOI as a pairing. I can't recall a game when they've actually started and finished together (and played the whole game together at even strength). Mostly, as I noted earlier, they seem to be a pairing that the coaches would put together as a mid-to-late game adjustment, when the circumstances favoured such a move. I'd love to see them paired more often (and for entire games) but, at least at this point, it's really premature to start making any strong claims regarding comparisons to other more established pairings like Hamhuis-Garrison (especially in terms of effectiveness in a shutdown role). Last season, Hamhuis-Garrison played nearly twice the total minutes that Hamhuis-Tanev have played together in three seasons. And Hamhuis-Garrison is a pairing that has played games together from start-to-finish and nearly always in tough minutes against the highest quality of competition. We just don't have a comparable sample for Hamhuis-Tanev (at least not yet--what we do have are some good indicators regarding a potential future full-time pairing).

OK. Yeah, that's a pretty good points/60 for a defenseman (just barely outside the Canucks top-four and probably ranks at a top-four level in the NHL for 2012-13--I'm not going to bother checking and just concede that point).

However, there are some other factors worth considering in measuring Tanev's offensive production that season:

1) His shots/60 and individual Corsi/Fenwick/60 were ranked at the bottom of all Ds on the Canucks, even after adjusting for zone starts.

2) His 2 goals came on a team high (for defensemen) 10% shooting percentage. His previous numbers were 0.0% (0 goals) for both 2010-11 and 2011-12.

3) He had zero first assists in 2012-13 (and he's ranked low in that area career-wise).

4) All his points came during minutes played with either the Sedin line or with some version of a 2nd line containing Jannik Hansen (usually the Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen line when those guys were really clicking together).

I don't want to be overly harsh here. I was as happy as anyone when Tanev scored that OT winner (off a Sedin feed) against Edmonton. Same for his goal in Phoenix (playing with Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen and paired with Barker). Like most people, I was left wondering whether or not Tanev had more to offer offensively than we'd seen from him previously. While his 0.63 points/60 last season was a good start, I don't think it really tells us very much definitively.

It's probably going too far to say he had two flukey goals and added 5 second assists as a passenger on scoring plays by other teammates. Yeah, that's going too far. But really, is it going all that far in the wrong direction, in terms of actually analyzing his individual points production from last season?

His offensive potential remains uncertain.

We all agree young Tanev has demonstrated some potential and ability. He has done very well in his short tenure in the NHL, however, he has many more things to prove of himself before he reportedly starts to make financial contract demands.

Right now he only has what his popularity as a player in Vancouver can provide him. It is far to early to start with the statistics argument in his favor. What is it -7 points he has tallied in his very short career? Wow not much there to get all excited about is there, so why even make it a point of debate in this thread.

Tanev has little to bargain with at this juncture

[wallstreetamigo]

Dramatic Wallstreet. Surprise - Wallstreet is forecasting a potentially huge mistake to be made by Canucks management....But regarding your question, I don't expect them to say anything other than what's being said - which is why my tone is notably different than the heightened anxiety posted in response to a mundane rumour - I'm not the one over-reacting to it.

Read what I actually wrote. You will see that I am not predicting anything at all. I am simply refuting your faulty assertion that there is no possibility that it could end badly on either side. Until it is actually done there is always the possibility. I made no claim as to the probability though.Nice try though bud.

[Benchsplinters]

I agree.

We all agree young Tanev has demonstrated some potential and ability. He has done very well in his short tenure in the NHL, however, he has many more things to prove of himself before he reportedly starts to make financial contract demands.

Right now he only has what his popularity as a player in Vancouver can provide him. It is far to early to start with the statistics argument in his favor. What is it -7 points he has tallied in his very short career? Wow not much there to get all excited about is there, so why do some even try to make it a point of debate.

Tanev has little to bargain with at this juncture. Fans like what they have seen of his play but that is all he has in his favor right now.

[SamJamIam]

Read what I actually wrote. You will see that I am not predicting anything at all. I am simply refuting your faulty assertion that there is no possibility that it could end badly on either side. Until it is actually done there is always the possibility. I made no claim as to the probability though.Nice try though bud.

Dat backpedal. He can't file for arbitration and must be released by the Canucks before he can sign elsewhere. This is a game of chicken where MG is in a train and Tanev is tied to the tracks.

[wallstreetamigo]

Dat backpedal. He can't file for arbitration and must be released by the Canucks before he can sign elsewhere. This is a game of chicken where MG is in a train and Tanev is tied to the tracks.

As I have been saying all along, Tanev has (or at least should have) little negotiating power in the situation. That does not mean Gillis will not overpay though. Until it is done no one knows for sure what will happen. So my stance has not changed at all. oldnews made the assertion that it is not possible that it will end badly and I simply said until it is done nothing can be said with certainty.