[Proposal] Tanev for Dillon

[-AJ-]

Chris Tanev has over 88 minutes of 4-on-5 icetime this season. Our goal differential in those 88 minutes is +1. We're scoring more goals than we're allowing when Tanev's on the ice on the PK. ON THE PK. Why trade Tanev, when he's arguably our best defenceman right now. You think we're undervaluing Dillon? I think you're undervaluing Tanev. Right now, that's a terrible deal for Vancouver. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have Dillon, but trading Tanev isn't the way to do it.

(Stat shamelessly stolen from @ThomasDrance on twitter)

Holy... is that true? That is flippin' insane if it is.

[RockNroLLa.]

trade burrows and edler plz GMMG and get something that will fill any holes!

[Plum]

This. Tanev is our most reliable defence and is thriving under Torts. Why trade whats not our issue and give up prospects for a guy who may be slightly better and then hope that he also thrives under Torts?

If Tanev and Dillon were both starting off the year horribly then it would be considered. But if both are playing great for their respective teams, why does either one trade?

I just think that Dillon will become a way better defensemen in the future. I'm a big fan of the guy, from BC and anchoring the Dallas defense.

Chris Tanev has over 88 minutes of 4-on-5 icetime this season. Our goal differential in those 88 minutes is +1. We're scoring more goals than we're allowing when Tanev's on the ice on the PK. ON THE PK. Why trade Tanev, when he's arguably our best defenceman right now. You think we're undervaluing Dillon? I think you're undervaluing Tanev. Right now, that's a terrible deal for Vancouver. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have Dillon, but trading Tanev isn't the way to do it.

(Stat shamelessly stolen from @ThomasDrance on twitter)

Yeah, it is a bad deal I know but in the long run I feel like Dillon will take over as our #1 just like how he is doing in Dallas. Maybe in the offseason since Dillon will most likely be cheaper to re-sign.

If Dillon IS in fact better, it is not by much at all. Come on man.

And as such anything more than Tanev and a 2nd for Dillon and a 3rd is not worth it both in terms of age cap length and miniscule difference in talent

The big big big difference between Tanev and Dillon is Dillon is anchoring the Dallas defense which is doing alright, and he is ONLY 23 years old! Now if he is on Dallas (a decent team) being their best defensemen, imagine putting him on here. He'll probably be a #2-3 defensemen on our team behind Hamhuis or Garrison.

I don't think Tanev can lead the Dallas Stars, I just can't see Tanev doing that. He is a really good defensemen but being a #1 on their team.. I just don't see it.

[Ghostsof1915]

Don't do drugs and log on CDC.

[CanucksSayEh]

He would be great to have, but moving Tanev for him is lateral at best. Maybe if we paid a lil more attention to our own back yard, we could have signed him.

I don't think BD is better, they are the same age, and Tanev is playing out of his mind right now with no signs of slowing down.

[BlueLemming]

I don't think Tanev can lead the Dallas Stars, I just can't see Tanev doing that. He is a really good defensemen but being a #1 on their team.. I just don't see it.

Tanev has 23:06 average ice time per game in December (Bieksa 23:26, Hammer 24:53). Combine that with his PK stats mentioned earlier... I think he's making a pretty good case to be in the top 2 if need be.

Although it depends on what you see a #1 consisting of. He's no Shea Weber, but Tanev is only going to get better with his defensive skills (already has the IQ) and Hamhuis-Tanev will be one of the best shut down pairs in the league.

Edit: Also if Dallas agrees with you... there's no chance they'll trade for him either haha.

[UFCanuck]

Dillon is a monster.

But Tanev has been improving every season and he's only getting better.

[RunningWild]

It's pretty remarkable how similar Tanev and Dillon are. Both are used on the #1 PK unit, both aren't given much PP TOI, similar usage against top lines, similar point totals and icetimes.

But via underlying #'s, Tanev is better. Tanevs a positive possession player, Dillons not. Tanev is a wayyyyyyyyyyy better PK option and puck mover at EV. etc etc

Not only that, but Dillon has been used as a shut down guy cause Dallas a weak back end. Van has one of, if not, the best back ends in the league. Yet Tanev has replaced Garrison, Edler and Bieksa. That's not easy to do.

I'd take Tanev over Dillon every day of the week. So I certainly wouldn't give up him and Jensen to get Dillon.

[LeanBeef]

Gettin Dillon would B HECTIC buddy you dont evn kno surrey reppin my buddy jagpreet went 2 skool wit him and hes straight up squad bro you dnt even no.

[Plum]

It's pretty remarkable how similar Tanev and Dillon are. Both are used on the #1 PK unit, both aren't given much PP TOI, similar usage against top lines, similar point totals and icetimes.

But via underlying #'s, Tanev is better. Tanevs a positive possession player, Dillons not. Tanev is a wayyyyyyyyyyy better PK option and puck mover at EV. etc etc

Not only that, but Dillon has been used as a shut down guy cause Dallas a weak back end. Van has one of, if not, the best back ends in the league. Yet Tanev has replaced Garrison, Edler and Bieksa. That's not easy to do.

I'd take Tanev over Dillon every day of the week. So I certainly wouldn't give up him and Jensen to get Dillon.

I think it is important to point in Tanev's game and I'm not trying to criticize him but everytime along the boards he can't get the puck away until the player turns around to get to net or try a pass. He just isn't strong enough, and teams will realize and use it to their advantage. But Dillon is physically strong enough to knock them down or off the puck, and you can't try to hide this problem for Tanev.

Tanev is a better puck poession player but the shot goes to Dillon. One of the thing this team lacks is strong physical defensemens and we don't notice it is because we are winning games and it isn't playoffs yet. When the opposing teams forwards are bigger than our defensemens what do you think is going to happen? Playoff hockey, if you aren't physical enough you won't win. LA, ANA, BOS, SJ, will beat you up.

And Tanev will get beat physically, it takes a toll in a 7 game series but if you are the one beating the other team up you will win which is Dillon's strength.

Tanev has 23:06 average ice time per game in December (Bieksa 23:26, Hammer 24:53). Combine that with his PK stats mentioned earlier... I think he's making a pretty good case to be in the top 2 if need be.

Although it depends on what you see a #1 consisting of. He's no Shea Weber, but Tanev is only going to get better with his defensive skills (already has the IQ) and Hamhuis-Tanev will be one of the best shut down pairs in the league.

Edit: Also if Dallas agrees with you... there's no chance they'll trade for him either haha.

Tanev leading a defense is hard to see especially without alot of help (Hamhuis). Not physical enough to stop PWFs or strong skaters. Chara wasn't the fastest or quickest stick but he still got it done. How? He beat up Crosby. Just like what I said above, in playoff hockey if you aren't physical enough you're no good.

Tanev is one of our best defensemens no doubt but I know old school playoff hockey and old school coaches and Sutter, Babcock, Julien, Ruff, Carlyle, Queneville, they'll beat it out of you. We got bullied by the Bruins, Kings, Sharks not outskilled. Dillon will help us not getting beat up and so will Torts.

Trend to cup winning teams is: physical play. Crosby and his skill won a long time ago.

Chicago (Bickell, Shaw), LA (Clifford, Richardson, Nolan, King, Stoll, Mitchell, Greene, ), Sharks (Torres, Burish), Boston (Thornton, Paille, Lucic, Chara, McQuaid, Boychuk, Sedienberg, Krejci) these are examples of how to win a cup now.

Not saying lets trade for goons but Tanev is a softie and will disappear in the playoffs. Fan of Tanev but he is a softie.

[DrChill]

I would do something around edler for Dillon

[RunningWild]

I think it is important to point in Tanev's game and I'm not trying to criticize him but everytime along the boards he can't get the puck away until the player turns around to get to net or try a pass. He just isn't strong enough, and teams will realize and use it to their advantage. But Dillon is physically strong enough to knock them down or off the puck, and you can't try to hide this problem for Tanev.

Tanev is a better puck poession player but the shot goes to Dillon. One of the thing this team lacks is strong physical defensemens and we don't notice it is because we are winning games and it isn't playoffs yet. When the opposing teams forwards are bigger than our defensemens what do you think is going to happen? Playoff hockey, if you aren't physical enough you won't win. LA, ANA, BOS, SJ, will beat you up.

And Tanev will get beat physically, it takes a toll in a 7 game series but if you are the one beating the other team up you will win which is Dillon's strength.

It's def one way to look at it. But I'll take the guy who can keep the puck out of his own net better than the other guy. Tanev does that. Tanevs best games have come against STL, Bos, and LA this season (and last). In fact, in his rookie yr (10/11 Cup finals against Bos), this kid wasn't on the ice for a single goal against at EV. Not one.

He doesn't need to physically dominate, he doesn't rely on that - never will. But it doesn't matter, the opposition still gets fewer shots on net when Tanevs on the ice vs. Dillon. The opposition scores fewer goals, and the opposition has the puck a lot less when Tanevs on the ice vs. Dillon. In my eyes, those are way more important than a guy who hits harder or can push guys out of the crease quicker. Those skills haven't allowed him to be a better d-man than Tanev so far.

There's this fallacy that Bos, STL, LA etc are good teams cause they are big. The reality is they are always amoungst the top puck possesion teams in the league. Chi didn't win the Cup last yr cause they're big, they won cause they were the top possession team in league. All these teams have the puck more than their opponent. Tanev allows for the Canucks to do that. Dillon doesn't.

[Plum]

It's def one way to look at it. But I'll take the guy who can keep the puck out of his own net better than the other guy. Tanev does that. Tanevs best games have come against STL, Bos, and LA this season (and last). In fact, in his rookie yr (10/11 Cup finals against Bos), this kid wasn't on the ice for a single goal against at EV. Not one.

He doesn't need to physically dominate, he doesn't rely on that - never will. But it doesn't matter, the opposition still gets fewer shots on net when Tanevs on the ice vs. Dillon. The opposition scores fewer goals, and the opposition has the puck a lot less when Tanevs on the ice vs. Dillon. In my eyes, those are way more important than a guy who hits harder or can push guys out of the crease quicker. Those skills haven't allowed him to be a better d-man than Tanev so far.

There's this fallacy that Bos, STL, LA etc are good teams cause they are big. The reality is they are always amoungst the top puck possesion teams in the league. Chi didn't win the Cup last yr cause they're big, they won cause they were the top possession team in league. All these teams have the puck more than their opponent. Tanev allows for the Canucks to do that. Dillon doesn't.

I didn't know he was really that good at that young in the playoffs where I thought he couldn't succeed in. But I think he was still a little sheltered in minutes and played against lower competition in his earlier years. He is playing big minutes now and playing against the best on the first pairing.

Interesting stats but when you compare these stats (assuming these are real) you have to factor in his team, his partner, coaching philosophy. Dillon plays with Golioliski and Tanev with Hamhuis. Hamhuis is better than Golioliski defensively so that matters quite a bit. And maybe Tanev is better defensively than Dillon, someone brought this up to me and the person said something about if Tanev keeps taking big hits will his career last? Will an injury affect his game? I've never seen Dillon take a big hit before so it seems that Dillon is the player to get less injured faster but Tanev keeps getting up...

Yes they're puck possession teams but they're bulky teams aswell. They aren't speedy skilled teams they are big, slow, puck possession teams who play keep away. But on defense they're big, mean and hurt you with their hits. That is what made them successful and in the playoffs you'll rarely score more than 3-4 goals in the west. Chara, Greene, Mitchell, Regher, McQuaid, Boychuk, Polak, Jackman, are type of players that Dillon plays like. Tanev plays a more like Lidstorm game or Voynov game which involves more stick than body.

Tanev is a heck of a kid but everytime I think LA, BOS, STL, ANA and some other good playoff teams/cup winners I think hard nosed hockey and strong physical defense. Sedins got punished in the playoffs with those cross checks but Dillon really brings some good old school strong beat up hockey. Bieksa and Stanton are the only ones I see that can lay some bruises on the back end and other teams have their fare share of Tanevs but I feel like every team needs a real physical DFD on their team to be successful 2-4 is what I think is necessary to win cups.

[CanucksSayEh]

Tanev will be a playoff beast. Was great when thrown into SCF as a rookie, easily our best d-man vs the Kings. What happened when he was injured last year? we got swept.

Dillon would be fine, if we moved Edler for a forward, then there would be room for him. Dallas doesn't let him go for cheap though.

[Plum]

Tanev will be a playoff beast. Was great when thrown into SCF as a rookie, easily our best d-man vs the Kings. What happened when he was injured last year? we got swept.

Dillon would be fine, if we moved Edler for a forward, then there would be room for him. Dallas doesn't let him go for cheap though.

Defense wasn't an issue to losing though. We didn't score enough goals.

[harmer]

Both guys are playing great for their teams so they won't go anywhere although Dillion is a monster and I would love to see him on the Canucks

[CanucksSayEh]

Defense wasn't an issue to losing though. We didn't score enough goals.

Trading a Dman for a Dman aint gonna fix that. The D was still an issue though, especially one Alexander Edler. Minus the 1-0 loss to LA, we prob lost the last 7 playoff games due to stupid defensive breakdowns and turnovers. Tanev doesn't do that, he makes good passes under heavy forechecks, something pretty uncommon on this team.

[Dogbyte]

Dillon is a very good player but we'd be trading similar players.

[DrChill]

Trading a Dman for a Dman aint gonna fix that. The D was still an issue though, especially one Alexander Edler. Minus the 1-0 loss to LA, we prob lost the last 7 playoff games due to stupid defensive breakdowns and turnovers. Tanev doesn't do that, he makes good passes under heavy forechecks, something pretty uncommon on this team.

That is why I would prefer

Edler, Jensen, Schroeder

Dillion and Eakins

Fill both teams needs I think

Dillon is a very good player but we'd be trading similar players.

Agreed, go with Edler

[JeremyCuddles]

Like our BC d-men on the team he'll find his way here via free agency. Am I right?

Honestly I'd rather try trade Ed for him but we all know beating that dead horse is getting rather annoying, even coming from a guy who hates Ed.

On another note trading D for D seems rather pointless especially if we lose an offensive prospect. We need a top 6 scorer which we probably won't get this year. You know, process and all. So we should keep our scoring prospects, and our current best D-man and wait for our super rookies next year to bring us to Lord Stanely's cup.