Nikita Tryamkin | D

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

5 hours ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

Puts him inside the top-10 for D scoring in the KHL. Not bad for a guy who's not considered a primarily offensive defenseman and who's also younger than most (if not all) of the others in the top-10.

[Shirotashi]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 11:51 PM, elvis15 said:

Nope, don't have to redefine anything. I think I'm closer to the wider definition used by people who are in hockey circles. But, as I said, I think we have different definitions and I explained how I'm defining it and that we don't match. It happens, I disagree with your assessment that we should start even including him in that conversation.

 

If you think he could be a Pronger (or a Chara or whatever), that's fine, but he's a ways away from that even now. Pronger was putting up 30 points with the Whalers in his rookie year as a 20 year old where Tryamkin has yet to crack 10. Pronger's second season (still younger than Tryamkin) had more points in less games. Then he moved to the Blues and steadily increased his point totals until he had a 62 point season - all while being one of the toughest SOBs to ever play the game. Tryamkin is tough and can use his size but is much cleaner a player and is a long way from contributing offensively like Pronger was at the same age.

 

Franchise could be closer, and I see strong potential in him, but as I said above he's got to show more than just being big and convert some offence as well. Without it I don't know if he reaches that level.

 

For generational (I mean, is there even another level of player above that?) he'd have to be showing signs of being a complete and dominant player already. Showing that in the KHL isn't enough.

 

And that's kinda my point. He has a small body of work in the NHL but hasn't really shown anything other than being physical and a good skater. He doesn't dominate play at both ends of the ice, and hasn't shown the offence necessary yet to put him in the same class as Pronger or others, let alone say generational. You're welcome to be high on him, and hope he returns - I'm the same - but let's not get too crazy on overhyping him.

 

As I've been saying alongside the generational discussion, if he really was showing those signs of being a generational defenceman then he'd easily be worth more to us than a Karlsson or Hedman (and Burns with his slow start). If Benning and Co. saw that in him, they would have happily paid for that potential to keep him around, and he would have earned far more ice time earlier than he was getting. They didn't see it, and I don't either.

 

As far a Bure, he was arguably the most exciting player to ever play the game. When he was healthy he was absolutely in the discussion for generational, but his legacy was lessened by his early injuries. But that has nothing to do with Tryamkin, as there really aren't any parallels there in how they played once they came to the NHL.

I think your under selling Tryamkin on a whole. I think he was the most exciting player on the ice last year, just like Bure was his 1st year. I honestly watched him closely like I actually watched the games, all of the games not just the highlights. I sincerely believe he was a solid puck moving D man. I thought his break out pass was sharp and accurate and I thought his slapshot was getting better and better, we haven't had a serious slap shot threat back there since Salo. You ADD on to all of this the fact that he was dominating physically(Remember the game vs the Ducks?)... I'm sorry that we cannot seem to find common ground. IF he develops the way he was trending before he left, and adds offense? Yes we have a generational talent on our hands. I know you don't agree but I don't think you watch hockey.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Shirotashi

[samurai]

8 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Puts him inside the top-10 for D scoring in the KHL. Not bad for a guy who's not considered a primarily offensive defenseman and who's also younger than most (if not all) of the others in the top-10.

i like him a lot, but his decision to go back from the standpoint of competition and quality is like someone deciding to choose the AHL over the NHL. Of course he had off ice reasons but there shouldn't be any surprise about him doing well in the K.

 

We got Stech, Pouliot, Tanev, Hutton as guys who still got many years.  Might toss in Guddy cause Benning seems to want him.  But we got Juolevi, Chatfield, Brisebois, and Sautner is apparently doing well right now.  Not to mention Holm and McEneny.    My point being is probably from a development standpoint going to the K might have not been  the best move if he wants to be a top 2 big minutes guy.  He's got some serious competition.

 

Sautner has got some history

 

Captained the Oil Kings in 2014-15. Member of the 2014 Memorial Cup Championship team and won the WHL plus-minus award with a plus-59 rating that same season. In 2011-12, skated in 59 games for Edmonton, winning the WHL Championship and reaching the Memorial Cup Tournament. Compiled 24-93-117 with a plus-125 in 265 career WHL games.

 

 

 

 

[HorvatToBaertschi]

Silver lining: without tryamkin, we were able to play Pouliot. 

Still hoping this beast comes back

i have a gut feeling he will

[Boudrias]

7 hours ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

Silver lining: without tryamkin, we were able to play Pouliot. 

Still hoping this beast comes back

i have a gut feeling he will

Pouliot is indeed a 'silver' lining. Maybe GOLD! His progress to date has been impressive. 

 

The risk Tryamkin took when he left was that the Canuck depth might over take him. I do not have a lot of confidence in KHL stats and play for that matter. If he settles his life  and wants back to the NHL I would be excited to see him back in Van. IMO Benning is in a good spot. He can entice Tryamkin back to Van or have a trading chip. The better he does in the KHL the more value there is. Strangely the better Burmistrov and eventually Goldobin do in Van the better the odds he returns. 

[TLindenIsGod]

I don't think Nikita will improve when the biggest offensive force in his league is Nigel Dawes. Wish he would have stayed but hoping to see him in camp after his contract with Avto is done.

 

[elvis15]

On 11/14/2017 at 11:53 PM, Shirotashi said:

I think your under selling Tryamkin on a whole. I think he was the most exciting player on the ice last year, just like Bure was his 1st year. I honestly watched him closely like I actually watched the games, all of the games not just the highlights. I sincerely believe he was a solid puck moving D man. I thought his break out pass was sharp and accurate and I thought his slapshot was getting better and better, we haven't had a serious slap shot threat back there since Salo. You ADD on to all of this the fact that he was dominating physically(Remember the game vs the Ducks?)... I'm sorry that we cannot seem to find common ground. IF he develops the way he was trending before he left, and adds offense? Yes we have a generational talent on our hands. I know you don't agree but I don't think you watch hockey.

I've already said he has the potential ceiling to become an elite defenceman, but sure, I don't watch hockey because I don't call him generational - pretty much the top possible group you can put a player in.

 

Him adding offence would maybe put him in the 20+ point a year range. He'd have to add major offence to start and at least be pushing the high 30's/low 40's as well as dominating physically to get near the generational conversation.

[Jackalman]

I don’t mean to interject here, but tryamkin is not now, nor will he ever be a generational player. The term generational in this context means best of their generation. Since I can remember hockey (so early 80s) their have been 4-5 players who you could call generational. Gretzky, Lemieux, maybe jagr, Crosby, and McDavid (who may or may not actually become generational). Thing about all these players is they were all identified as EXEPTIONAL talents before being drafted, and have all achieved a great deal by the time they where as old as tryamkin is now. He could become a dominant player for sure. He could be chara  dominant, or even better, but that would still never make him a generational player. It’s too late for that.

 

All the players I mentioned above entered the league very young and where all considered close to the best if not the best in the league within 3 years in the league. Tryamkin will never be considered generational. If he comes back to the nhl and dominates he may be considered a franchise player, but he will never be the best player of his generation.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Jackalman
Wanted to add

[Shirotashi]

6 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I've already said he has the potential ceiling to become an elite defenceman, but sure, I don't watch hockey because I don't call him generational - pretty much the top possible group you can put a player in.

 

Him adding offence would maybe put him in the 20+ point a year range. He'd have to add major offence to start and at least be pushing the high 30's/low 40's as well as dominating physically to get near the generational conversation.

Hey thanks for being a sport and answering my questions pal. We don't agree at the end of the day, but atleast we can exchange ideas and be civil. TY.

[Shirotashi]

5 hours ago, Jackalman said:

I don’t mean to interject here, but tryamkin is not now, nor will he ever be a generational player. The term generational in this context means best of their generation. Since I can remember hockey (so early 80s) their have been 4-5 players who you could call generational. Gretzky, Lemieux, maybe jagr, Crosby, and McDavid (who may or may not actually become generational). Thing about all these players is they were all identified as EXEPTIONAL talents before being drafted, and have all achieved a great deal by the time they where as old as tryamkin is now. He could become a dominant player for sure. He could be chara  dominant, or even better, but that would still never make him a generational player. It’s too late for that.

 

All the players I mentioned above entered the league very young and where all considered close to the best if not the best in the league within 3 years in the league. Tryamkin will never be considered generational. If he comes back to the nhl and dominates he may be considered a franchise player, but he will never be the best player of his generation.

I wonder how many players we identify as generational actually didn't have that great of a start to their careers. I wonder how many took time to

flourish. People that poo poo Tryamkin as a generational player always reference players who had great starts. I just don't agree that we know

what Tryamkin will or will not be. I don't agree with your assessment that because those players had amazing rookie years that exclusively means

that they can be generational. So by your rationale if I came into the NHL and my first 3 years I had like 30 points, and then the rest of my 10 year

career I have 90+ I would not be a generational player because of those first 3 years? Makes no sense I think your being to literal in your interpretation.

 

Tryamkin was actually amazing in his first year, he positively made a difference every. single. time. he was on the ice. He made mistakes, but he

was crazy to watch. Scratched a real itch for Vancouver fans due to his dominance physically. I almost think its sabotage that hes not on the team

right now. Like all arguments about generational aside, how in gods name did someone not lose their job when he left? How? If I owned this team

the management group would owe me a fycking head for that boon doggle of a colossal cluster fyck.

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Shirotashi

[RogersTowell]

On 16/11/2017 at 7:22 PM, TLindenIsGod said:

I don't think Nikita will improve when the biggest offensive force in his league is Nigel Dawes. Wish he would have stayed but hoping to see him in camp after his contract with Avto is done.

 

It gets better.  Linden Vey is the current scoring leader in the KHL as of Nov. 18th (same team as Dawes).  It's a real gud league.

[Jackalman]

5 hours ago, Shirotashi said:

I wonder how many players we identify as generational actually didn't have that great of a start to their careers. I wonder how many took time to

flourish. People that poo poo Tryamkin as a generational player always reference players who had great starts. I just don't agree that we know

what Tryamkin will or will not be. I don't agree with your assessment that because those players had amazing rookie years that exclusively means

that they can be generational. So by your rationale if I came into the NHL and my first 3 years I had like 30 points, and then the rest of my 10 year

career I have 90+ I would not be a generational player because of those first 3 years? Makes no sense I think your being to literal in your interpretation.

 

Tryamkin was actually amazing in his first year, he positively made a difference every. single. time. he was on the ice. He made mistakes, but he

was crazy to watch. Scratched a real itch for Vancouver fans due to his dominance physically. I almost think its sabotage that hes not on the team

right now. Like all arguments about generational aside, how in gods name did someone not lose their job when he left? How? If I owned this team

the management group would owe me a fycking head for that boon doggle of a colossal cluster fyck.

 

There have been no players identified as generational that didn’t flourish very quickly. That is part of what makes them generational. They are better than EVERYONE else. Start to finish. No time to flourish. They are the best from the get go and everyone knows it. 

 

And no. Having 3-30 point seasons followed by 10-90 point seasons would not make you a generational player. And it’s not my rational. Its the mean of the word, tryamkin is not now and will never be considered generational. Im not going to continue this discussion any further as it’s not worth the time. If you want to call tryamkin a possible generational player be my guest.

 

 

[tas]

8 hours ago, Shirotashi said:

I wonder how many players we identify as generational actually didn't have that great of a start to their careers. I wonder how many took time to

flourish. People that poo poo Tryamkin as a generational player always reference players who had great starts. I just don't agree that we know

what Tryamkin will or will not be. I don't agree with your assessment that because those players had amazing rookie years that exclusively means

that they can be generational. So by your rationale if I came into the NHL and my first 3 years I had like 30 points, and then the rest of my 10 year

career I have 90+ I would not be a generational player because of those first 3 years? Makes no sense I think your being to literal in your interpretation.

 

Tryamkin was actually amazing in his first year, he positively made a difference every. single. time. he was on the ice. He made mistakes, but he

was crazy to watch. Scratched a real itch for Vancouver fans due to his dominance physically. I almost think its sabotage that hes not on the team

right now. Like all arguments about generational aside, how in gods name did someone not lose their job when he left? How? If I owned this team

the management group would owe me a fycking head for that boon doggle of a colossal cluster fyck.

 

so just to be.clear, you think tryamkin has the potential to play 25-30 minutes a night, in every situation, while putting up 50-80 points every year and winning multiple norris trophies?

 

because that's how you define a generational defenceman. 

[Rob_Zepp]

4 hours ago, RogersTowell said:

It gets better.  Linden Vey is the current scoring leader in the KHL as of Nov. 18th (same team as Dawes).  It's a real gud league.

[nowhereman]

11 hours ago, Shirotashi said:

I wonder how many players we identify as generational actually didn't have that great of a start to their careers. I wonder how many took time to

flourish. People that poo poo Tryamkin as a generational player always reference players who had great starts. I just don't agree that we know

what Tryamkin will or will not be. I don't agree with your assessment that because those players had amazing rookie years that exclusively means

that they can be generational. So by your rationale if I came into the NHL and my first 3 years I had like 30 points, and then the rest of my 10 year

career I have 90+ I would not be a generational player because of those first 3 years? Makes no sense I think your being to literal in your interpretation.

 

Tryamkin was actually amazing in his first year, he positively made a difference every. single. time. he was on the ice. He made mistakes, but he

was crazy to watch. Scratched a real itch for Vancouver fans due to his dominance physically. I almost think its sabotage that hes not on the team

right now. Like all arguments about generational aside, how in gods name did someone not lose their job when he left? How? If I owned this team

the management group would owe me a fycking head for that boon doggle of a colossal cluster fyck.

 

Bobby Orr, Doug Harvey and Raymond Bourque are generational defensemen. Do you really think Tryamkin was on that path?

 

And who's to say how much influence Tryamkin and his wife had on his decision? You can't just start firing people when a player decides to leave, as the Canucks may not have really had any control in the situation.

[alfstonker]

7 hours ago, RogersTowell said:

It gets better.  Linden Vey is the current scoring leader in the KHL as of Nov. 18th (same team as Dawes).  It's a real gud league.

Linden Vey was always a good player. Apart from anything else he understood the game, that's why he fitted in on different lines so well. He attracted a lot of criticism on here but I am now of the opinion that should be seen as a glowing recommendation for any player.

[elvis15]

18 hours ago, Jackalman said:

I don’t mean to interject here, but tryamkin is not now, nor will he ever be a generational player. The term generational in this context means best of their generation. Since I can remember hockey (so early 80s) their have been 4-5 players who you could call generational. Gretzky, Lemieux, maybe jagr, Crosby, and McDavid (who may or may not actually become generational). Thing about all these players is they were all identified as EXEPTIONAL talents before being drafted, and have all achieved a great deal by the time they where as old as tryamkin is now. He could become a dominant player for sure. He could be chara  dominant, or even better, but that would still never make him a generational player. It’s too late for that.

 

All the players I mentioned above entered the league very young and where all considered close to the best if not the best in the league within 3 years in the league. Tryamkin will never be considered generational. If he comes back to the nhl and dominates he may be considered a franchise player, but he will never be the best player of his generation.

While I think it's very hard to be considered generational without being identified as such at the draft, I don't think it's impossible. Plenty more have gotten that tag too early and bailed, but I think there are some players like Nick Lidstrom (drafted in the 3rd round) who have put themselves in or at least close to that conversation.

 

12 hours ago, Shirotashi said:

Hey thanks for being a sport and answering my questions pal. We don't agree at the end of the day, but atleast we can exchange ideas and be civil. TY.

That's fair. I'm glad to find a good discussion.

[SilentSam]

Dont' recall if this interview was posted here,.  But it is interesting..

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/nikita-tryamkin-comfortable-home-khl/

[WeneedLumme]

2 hours ago, SilentSam said:

Dont' recall if this interview was posted here,.  But it is interesting..

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/nikita-tryamkin-comfortable-home-khl/

Sounds very much like he does expect to return to Vancouver at the end of his contract, if he and the Canucks can agree on terms.

[SilentSam]

31 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Sounds very much like he does expect to return to Vancouver at the end of his contract, if he and the Canucks can agree on terms.

I lean towards that too,  it really sounds like he felt frustrated with WD,.  And needed to leave for many reasons, wanting to regroup.