Nikita Tryamkin | D

[guntrix]

4 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I'm not sure that's the route we'd take. I was trying to think of this again now that Hutton's back and paired with Tryamkin as I think (and thought last year) they were a good pairing together. If we lose a defenceman from the right side they could stick as a pairing, but would likely be split in the event of one of our left side D moved.

 

Tanev moved:

Edler Stecher

Hutton Tryamkin

Sbisa Gudbranson

 

Edler moved:

Tryamkin Stecher

Hutton Gudbranson

Sbisa Tanev

 

Sbisa moved:

Edler Stecher/Tanev

Hutton Gudbranson

Tryamkin Tanev/Stecher

 

I'm not putting them in pairing 1, 2, 3 order or anything, so don't bother with that. It's more that I don't see as good of pairings where we'd have our two largest defenders on the same pairing. Otherwise you're putting Sbisa or Tanev with Hutton and I don't think you take full advantage of our personnel.

If anything, this proves that the Gudbranson deal was a bad move. Considering Sbisa's play this season, Gud is the odd man out. An expensive one at that.

 

It would also be a mistake to sit Tryamkin when Gud comes back as Tryam has a far higher ceiling imo. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, guntrix said:

If anything, this proves that the Gudbranson deal was a bad move. Considering Sbisa's play this season, Gud is the odd man out. An expensive one at that.

 

It would also be a mistake to sit Tryamkin when Gud comes back as Tryam has a far higher ceiling imo. 

Tryamkin has quicker feet and hands than Gudbranson for sure.  

[73 Percent]

32 minutes ago, guntrix said:

If anything, this proves that the Gudbranson deal was a bad move. Considering Sbisa's play this season, Gud is the odd man out. An expensive one at that.

 

It would also be a mistake to sit Tryamkin when Gud comes back as Tryam has a far higher ceiling imo. 

Does he even have a timeline. Looks like you're creating a problem when reading there isn't one.

[Sean Monahan]

3 hours ago, guntrix said:

If anything, this proves that the Gudbranson deal was a bad move. Considering Sbisa's play this season, Gud is the odd man out. An expensive one at that.

You say that like Gud was an in-season acquisition. Sbisa improved last year, sure, but he took another step this year- following the Gudbranson trade.

[cripplereh]

I think at the TDL  a D man will be moved or before the draft to make room for all these

 

If a move is made we will have to get a D man back for the draft and then protect sbisa  but we will see what happens

[guntrix]

4 hours ago, Gooseberries said:

Does he even have a timeline. Looks like you're creating a problem when reading there isn't one.

No player in our current defense is retiring soon nor has expressed interest in leaving. It's a problem that will come eventually be it late this season or at the start of next season. I really do hope that Benning is thinking ahead instead of putting it off and disregarding it as a problem with no current timeline.

 

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

You say that like Gud was an in-season acquisition. Sbisa improved last year, sure, but he took another step this year- following the Gudbranson trade.

I don't think it matters if he was an in-season acquisition or an off-season one. Had Sbisa not taken that extra step, it would be him in Gud's shoes. 3.6 mil/per potentially sitting in the press box... and I'm leaving out a guy like Biega who is always solid in a bottom six role... I wonder how guys like Subban, Brisbois and McEneny feel knowing the defense is clogged and Juolevi will probably leapfrog them based on his draft position alone. 

 

Imo, trading away a guy like McCann and a second for Gud was bad asset management (and it's showing with Tryamkin's demands to play in the NHL).

Edited February 12, 2017 by guntrix

[PhillipBlunt]

8 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I'm not sure that's the route we'd take. I was trying to think of this again now that Hutton's back and paired with Tryamkin as I think (and thought last year) they were a good pairing together. If we lose a defenceman from the right side they could stick as a pairing, but would likely be split in the event of one of our left side D moved.

 

Tanev moved:

Edler Stecher

Hutton Tryamkin

Sbisa Gudbranson

 

Edler moved:

Tryamkin Stecher

Hutton Gudbranson

Sbisa Tanev

 

Sbisa moved:

Edler Stecher/Tanev

Hutton Gudbranson

Tryamkin Tanev/Stecher

 

I'm not putting them in pairing 1, 2, 3 order or anything, so don't bother with that. It's more that I don't see as good of pairings where we'd have our two largest defenders on the same pairing. Otherwise you're putting Sbisa or Tanev with Hutton and I don't think you take full advantage of our personnel.

Good points, elvis. 

[PhillipBlunt]

10 hours ago, Boudrias said:

I like your idea. Watching the Columbus game it became very apparent that they thought they could play a physical game against Van which they did. Tryamkin responded but having Guddy there as well Van could play that game as well. Sbisa's physical game has dropped off and Edler can play that game but is not a leader. I expect Tryamkin will be a more offensive force next year and having a partner who backs him well will be critical. I don't think there is another Canuck d-man who can cover the ice like Tryamkin can.  

Having such a multifaceted defense going forward is awesome. 

[-AJ-]

It seem to me that Gudbranson only looks like a bad deal in hindsight. Had we known we'd get a bigger and better Gudbranson in Tram, we obviously wouldn't have tried as hard to acquire him. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

[Dannydog]

Next year is the dreaded sophmore season for Tram and Stetch. I remember all the excitement with Hutty last year and now its we've seen his top potenetial and he's regressing. I imagine it's possible for tram and stetch to also suffer the sophmore jinx this upcoming year. There's no problem with having depth in D. Its the biggest complaint CDC had before last year. It will all be set in place who management will trade or set up as expansion draft bait. Trade Eddy , Biega for expansion. Take any other offers on players only if its a Canucks win win. Trade tanev next year for potential scoring wingers or picks if benning hasn't found a gem. 

 

[Father Ryan]

3 hours ago, ajhockey said:

It seem to me that Gudbranson only looks like a bad deal in hindsight. Had we known we'd get a bigger and better Gudbranson in Tram, we obviously wouldn't have tried as hard to acquire him. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

Totally agree. At time of that deal, we had one dependable pairing; Edler-Tanev. After that, Hutton had emerged, but the rest was a grab bag of players that had either proven themselves to not be NHL, were borderline NHL, or you really didn't know what the h**l you were getting. Guddy provided some (apparent) stability and would stabilize another pairing, thereby putting players closer to the position that their talents allowed, instead of overplaying them and be constantly exposed.

No one could have foreseen that Sbisa would continue to improve to the point that CDC (well some of us) are considering him to be on par, if not better, than Guddy. No one foresaw (except maybe management) that Stetcher would be this good, much less this good this quickly. And lastly, with Tryamkin improving so much, and with a ceiling that looks to be approaching top 2 consideration...well, yeah we can consider that deal to be less than spectacular.

But really, our top six is now really seven deep: Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Guddy, Tryamkin, Stetcher and Sbisa. Actually sounds like a good problem to have, rather than the "crap shoot" we had last year.

[elvis15]

11 hours ago, Dannydog said:

Next year is the dreaded sophmore season for Tram and Stetch. I remember all the excitement with Hutty last year and now its we've seen his top potenetial and he's regressing. I imagine it's possible for tram and stetch to also suffer the sophmore jinx this upcoming year. There's no problem with having depth in D. Its the biggest complaint CDC had before last year. It will all be set in place who management will trade or set up as expansion draft bait. Trade Eddy , Biega for expansion. Take any other offers on players only if its a Canucks win win. Trade tanev next year for potential scoring wingers or picks if benning hasn't found a gem. 

 

The problem with the sophomore year is twofold:

1. Players in their first year are an unknown, and as opposition gets to know their tendencies and strengths it gets tougher for them to play their game as easily.
2. After a good year, players usually get more responsibility. That means more minutes, bigger assignments, etc. Nothing comes as easily in those situations.

If they don't do as well, it's not necessarily regression. If they don't bounce back, either during the year or in the year following, then you can start to consider if their rookie year was an outlier or if they're just struggling with the added pressure.

[Dannydog]

1 minute ago, elvis15 said:

The problem with the sophomore year is twofold:

1. Players in their first year are an unknown, and as opposition gets to know their tendencies and strengths it gets tougher for them to play their game as easily.
2. After a good year, players usually get more responsibility. That means more minutes, bigger assignments, etc. Nothing comes as easily in those situations.

If they don't do as well, it's not necessarily regression. If they don't bounce back, either during the year or in the year following, then you can start to consider if their rookie year was an outlier or if they're just struggling with the added pressure.

Yes i agree . Hutty has a lot more to show, yet with the emergence of stetch some have proclaimed hutty  topped out.To trade off tanev now would seem premature if tram and stech suffer the same obsticles .Tanev's value will remain high next season.. Edler's value, i'm not convinced will recover. Trade him as soon as possible. protect another.

[Putgolzin]

I think Tryamkin is quickly moving into becoming one of my favourite Canucks.

 

I love how pissy he gets when guy screw stuff up. Yesterday they kept showing how mad he was at himself after that one goal, but he had gotten beat long before we recovered the puck, only to have Granlund get stripped of it when he carried it in front of our own net.

Then later in the game, he just started a rush himself.

 

It seems he's quickly tiring of being held back by others mistakes.

[Boudrias]

12 hours ago, Dannydog said:

Yes i agree . Hutty has a lot more to show, yet with the emergence of stetch some have proclaimed hutty  topped out.To trade off tanev now would seem premature if tram and stech suffer the same obsticles .Tanev's value will remain high next season.. Edler's value, i'm not convinced will recover. Trade him as soon as possible. protect another.

I am for a Tanev trade because he does not have a NTC, has value, lacks offense and I question how well he can stand heavy physical play. The Canuck team development timeline is such that the young d-core can gain experience while the forward group is acquired. It comes down to choices. Edler, Tanev, Guddy and Sbisa are all draft eligble. One has to be moved. Edler at 20 - 22 TOI is still an option for another 3 seasons. This is not without risk but I doubt Edler waives on a trade. He could be threatened with exposure to Vegas but I don't think Benning would do that. Many fans suggest Edler be traded. I don't like that option because he likely does not bring back as much in return. Some fans fear that Sbisa's season is a one off. IMHO Sbisa gained traction last year and has continued is move upward. He leads the d-core with a +9. His offense still has unrealized potential and it is superior to Tanev's.  

[Gaudette Celly]

16 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Some fans fear that Sbisa's season is a one off. IMHO Sbisa gained traction last year and has continued is move upward. He leads the d-core team with a +9. His offense still has unrealized potential and it is superior to Tanev's.  

Fixed 'er.

[Bissurnette]

On 2017-02-12 at 6:54 AM, ajhockey said:

It seem to me that Gudbranson only looks like a bad deal in hindsight. Had we known we'd get a bigger and better Gudbranson in Tram, we obviously wouldn't have tried as hard to acquire him. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

I'm in the opposite boat to be honest. I thought it was a bad deal at the time but I've grown fonder of it over time. Now I like the trade and still think we come out on top. Gudbranson is a role model. He's a vocal, emotional, and well-spoken leader. Not to mention his intimidating stature and physicality. All of those put together are his intangibles you hear so much about. Tryamkin does not make him expendable.

 

What (most of) this fan base needs to learn is that you can't have 1 guy pulling on the rope in terms of pushback. They always get discouraged and broken down less than halfway through the season. We need a wolf pack mentality so that teams stop feasting on the softness of this team. To develop that wolf pack mentality, you need multiple guys out there with plenty of push back, so that other Canucks know that there are intimidating guys on the team who will have their backs. They start joining that train, and you start getting buy in from everyone - wolf pack mentality.

 

The twins are great and we have been lucky to have them on this team for so long, but I think they bring a certain tame nature to this team. I'm not ashamed to say that I am looking forward to when we change that image, which comes with the changing of the old guard. People might say that 2 players alone don't have that effect on the whole team, but it's not any 2 players. It's the 2 players who are the faces and identity of this NHL club.

[PhillipBlunt]

12 minutes ago, Vanuckles said:

I'm in the opposite boat to be honest. I thought it was a bad deal at the time but I've grown fonder of it over time. Now I like the trade and still think we come out on top. Gudbranson is a role model. He's a vocal, emotional, and well-spoken leader. Not to mention his intimidating stature and physicality. All of those put together are his intangibles you hear so much about. Tryamkin does not make him expendable.

 

What (most of) this fan base needs to learn is that you can't have 1 guy pulling on the rope in terms of pushback. They always get discouraged and broken down less than halfway through the season. We need a wolf pack mentality so that teams stop feasting on the softness of this team. To develop that wolf pack mentality, you need multiple guys out there with plenty of push back, so that other Canucks know that there are intimidating guys on the team who will have their backs. They start joining that train, and you start getting buy in from everyone - wolf pack mentality.

 

The twins are great and we have been lucky to have them on this team for so long, but I think they bring a certain tame nature to this team. I'm not ashamed to say that I am looking forward to when we change that image, which comes with the changing of the old guard. People might say that 2 players alone don't have that effect on the whole team, but it's not any 2 players. It's the 2 players who are the faces and identity of this NHL club.

Yes, yes, aaaaaand yes. Well said.

 

Too many on here are dying to write off Gudbranson after the season he's had here, but refuse to take into account the contributing factors to the underwhelming nature of the season.

 

• His injury was severe enough that it has essentially shut him down for the season. There is also talk that he had been playing with the injury for some time before being shut down.
• He came from Florida to Vancouver, so he went to a new division in a new conference, and went from playing for a seasoned coach to playing with a second year rookie coach.
• He was immediately tasked with carrying a defense pairing and essentially mentoring a player only six months his junior, who is having a lackluster season.

 

The knee jerk reaction to throwing Gudbranson under the bus is just ridiculous. The Canucks have been slapped around for far too long, and need a player with Gudbranson's size, and more importantly, his fearlessness and willingness to lead.

Edited February 14, 2017 by PhillipBlunt

[Bissurnette]

45 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Yes, yes, aaaaaand yes. Well said.

 

Too many on here are dying to write off Gudbranson after the season he's had here, but refuse to take into account the contributing factors to the underwhelming nature of the season.

 

• His injury was severe enough that it has essentially shut him down for the season. There is also talk that he had been playing with the injury for some time before being shut down.
• He came from Florida to Vancouver, so he went to a new division in a new conference, and went from playing for a seasoned coach to playing with a second year rookie coach.
• He was immediately tasked with carrying a defense pairing and essentially mentoring a player only six months his junior, who is having a lackluster season.

 

The knee jerk reaction to throwing Gudbranson under the bus is just ridiculous. The Canucks have been slapped around for far too long, and need a player with Gudbranson's size, and more importantly, his fearlessness and willingness to lead.

Exactly. The difference between the 2 markets alone is enough of a shock to anybody's system and needs lots of time to get used to. Patience.

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Vanuckles said:

Exactly. The difference between the 2 markets alone is enough of a shock to anybody's system and needs lots of time to get used to. Patience.

And it seemed fairly evident that Gudbranson didn't see the trade coming. He handled it admirably though.

 

I did notice too, when he was on the ice, that teams were far more tentative. He'll get it together.