Nikita Tryamkin | D

[Outsiders]

I thought I read/heard somewhere we can't sign him until July 1? Meaning he wouldn't be able to play for us this season?? I think it was in 31 thoughts? Maybe I'm wrong.

[Junkyard Dog]

3 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Don’t see a trade for Baertschi if we can’t give him away, can’t see a trade for Leivo if he is out for two or three months with a fractured kneecap.

Yeah. Stated that prior to finding that out about Leivo. 
 

Harder to predict Baer. People dont want him now but could take a flyer if circumstances changed for them like injuries. 

[Elias Pettersson]

10 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Probably one of them if we go that route. 
 

Likely I see us trying to re-sign Tanev. 

I don't think we are going to re-sign Tanev.  We don't have the cap space next year.  He will be a UFA and will want a long term deal at $5-6 million.  Don't think I'd want to re-sign Tanev to a 5-6 year deal at those numbers considering his injury history.  We already got burnt this year with Ferland who could be out the rest of the year or longer.  We can't afford to re-sign another player to a long term deal who hasn't played a full season in his entire career. 

 

I understand what he brings to the team but it is too risky.  We will have to compensate by bringing in the young guys.  Tryamkin could be an option, Juolevi, Brisebois, etc.  At some point the young guys have to play.  If we just keep re-signing our veterans to long term deals we will be in cap purgatory very soon.  Edler and Benn are in the same situation.  Once their contracts run out they will need to be replaced with the young guys. 

 

At some point Benning's draft picks have to play and we have to integrate them into the team.  Once Petey and Quinn sign their extensions the money will run dry.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Elias Pettersson

[Hairy Kneel]

11 hours ago, aGENT said:

Tanev, Stecher as well...

Ferland on LITR too probably.

[Hairy Kneel]

6 hours ago, Outsiders said:

I thought I read/heard somewhere we can't sign him until July 1? Meaning he wouldn't be able to play for us this season?? I think it was in 31 thoughts? Maybe I'm wrong.

I think JB would have to notify the league by end of Dec if we are to try adding Tryamkin by the end of the year.

If they haven't notified the league then yes probably July 1. Which I think would be a mistake. We might need him to finish the season and maybe playoffs.

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I don't think we are going to re-sign Tanev.  We don't have the cap space next year.  He will be a UFA and will want a long term deal at $5-6 million.  Don't think I'd want to re-sign Tanev to a 5-6 year deal at those numbers considering his injury history.  We already got burnt this year with Ferland who could be out the rest of the year or longer.  We can't afford to re-sign another player to a long term deal who hasn't played a full season in his entire career. 

 

I understand what he brings to the team but it is too risky.  We will have to compensate by bringing in the young guys.  Tryamkin could be an option, Juolevi, Brisebois, etc.  At some point the young guys have to play.  If we just keep re-signing our veterans to long term deals we will be in cap purgatory very soon.  Edler and Benn are in the same situation.  Once their contracts run out they will need to be replaced with the young guys. 

 

At some point Benning's draft picks have to play and we have to integrate them into the team.  Once Petey and Quinn sign their extensions the money will run dry.

Tanev is going to be +$5 mil and likely with term. Benning has to resign Markstrom and has to create some space for resigning the young stars. Tanev scores a goal the other night and fans go wild. I'm not willing to take the Tanev risk and assume there will be a market by the TDL. Any d-zone success by Vancouver is just as likely from ineffectiveness by the opposition. Pitt should have had half a dozen goals last night. The Van d-core is not close to being CUP competitive. Edler's return is essential. A healthy Edler might get them to playoffs. Playoffs should be one round and out. That's OK as this season is about getting there.  

[Slegr]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Tanev is going to be +$5 mil and likely with term. 

I'd be very surprised, even with Tanev as a UFA, that he could fetch that much from any team, based on his injury history. The most games he has played in any single season is 70 games, and on average, it's about 55 games. 

I'm hoping he signs a few more years with us at a very reasonable rate. 

[stawns]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Tanev is going to be +$5 mil and likely with term. Benning has to resign Markstrom and has to create some space for resigning the young stars. Tanev scores a goal the other night and fans go wild. I'm not willing to take the Tanev risk and assume there will be a market by the TDL. Any d-zone success by Vancouver is just as likely from ineffectiveness by the opposition. Pitt should have had half a dozen goals last night. The Van d-core is not close to being CUP competitive. Edler's return is essential. A healthy Edler might get them to playoffs. Playoffs should be one round and out. That's OK as this season is about getting there.  

I don't see anyone giving CT that much with his history.  I could see him signing a 1-2 year deal around $4-4.5m as a "show me you can stay healthy" contract.

[Boudrias]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't see anyone giving CT that much with his history.  I could see him signing a 1-2 year deal around $4-4.5m as a "show me you can stay healthy" contract.

Tanev is making $4.45 mil now. He is playing top 4. I agree that signing him with any duration carries a lot of risk. IMO regular season play flatters Chris Tanev's game. CUP play is much heavier with consistently stronger opposition. In CUP play I think you see a repeat on how the Flames handled Tanev. I like Tanev but still say he should have been moved over 2 years ago. All this aside if Benning wants to re-sign Markstrom he has to clear CAP and Tanev is one who could go.   

[stawns]

Just now, Boudrias said:

Tanev is making $4.45 mil now. He is playing top 4. I agree that signing him with any duration carries a lot of risk. IMO regular season play flatters Chris Tanev's game. CUP play is much heavier with consistently stronger opposition. In CUP play I think you see a repeat on how the Flames handled Tanev. I like Tanev but still say he should have been moved over 2 years ago. All this aside if Benning wants to re-sign Markstrom he has to clear CAP and Tanev is one who could go.   

Fair enough..........he should have moved him three years ago.

[theo5789]

50 minutes ago, Slegr said:

I'd be very surprised, even with Tanev as a UFA, that he could fetch that much from any team, based on his injury history. The most games he has played in any single season is 70 games, and on average, it's about 55 games. 

I'm hoping he signs a few more years with us at a very reasonable rate. 

I think he could easily get 5+ million on the market. It's the term that he won't get. He may get term if he's willing to sign for less like Ferland did, so I guess it depends on what Tanev wants. So does he want like 6 million for 2-3 years or 4.5 for 4-5 years? Of course with more term comes with trade clauses and/or a movement clause.

[theo5789]

47 minutes ago, stawns said:

Fair enough..........he should have moved him three years ago.

Tough to say that would be the right decision. Who would we have replaced him with and what we're teams offering (all rumours suggested Toronto trying to low-ball us)? Him being partnered with Hughes to start this season was probably invaluable as he took care of the defensive side of things while he was getting comfortable offensively. Always one the top shot blockers and go to PK guys, not easily replaceable. He's a good skater and while he doesn't have the offensive numbers, I think his offensive IQ is underrated. His only real knock is staying healthy, but he improves any defense when he's in (very Salo-like in that sense).

[stawns]

5 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Tough to say that would be the right decision. Who would we have replaced him with and what we're teams offering (all rumours suggested Toronto trying to low-ball us)? Him being partnered with Hughes to start this season was probably invaluable as he took care of the defensive side of things while he was getting comfortable offensively. Always one the top shot blockers and go to PK guys, not easily replaceable. He's a good skater and while he doesn't have the offensive numbers, I think his offensive IQ is underrated. His only real knock is staying healthy, but he improves any defense when he's in (very Salo-like in that sense).

I have zero issues with him as a player, he's a solid 2-4 dman and a shot blocking machine.

[theo5789]

26 minutes ago, stawns said:

I have zero issues with him as a player, he's a solid 2-4 dman and a shot blocking machine.

Which is why it would be tough to have moved him 3 years ago when also considering our needs today.

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Which is why it would be tough to have moved him 3 years ago when also considering our needs today.

Well, he wasn't in the lineup much in those three years.

[Boudrias]

10 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Which is why it would be tough to have moved him 3 years ago when also considering our needs today.

The desire to move Tanev was never a reflection on his play. My concern was always is health and that will likely be the big discussion point as a UFA whether with Van or some other team. Moving him 2-3 years ago was always to be a hockey trade. Whatever came back would be the decision maker. If it had been a young prospect he would possibly be playing now and had the experience to play a part on a CUP contender in 2023. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Boudrias

[theo5789]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

Well, he wasn't in the lineup much in those three years.

That's in hindsight in which we wouldn't have known prior to those three seasons, so it would've taken a crystal ball to know to trade him at that point for the reason of being too often out of the lineup.

[theo5789]

14 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The desire to move Tanev was never a reflection on his play. My concern was always is health and that will likely be the big discussion point as a UFA whether with Van or some other team. Moving him 2-3 years ago was always to be a hockey trade. Whatever came back would be the decision maker. If it had been a young prospect he would possibly be playing now and had the experience to play a part on a CUP contender in 2023. 

Having a player like Tanev capable of taking the hard minutes and sheltering young prospects to allow them to develop is just an integral towards building a future Cup contender. No one could have predicted he would be as often injured as he has been 3 years ago.

[J.I.A.H.N]

This is a Tryamkin thread...……..right boys!

[Boudrias]

6 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Having a player like Tanev capable of taking the hard minutes and sheltering young prospects to allow them to develop is just an integral towards building a future Cup contender. No one could have predicted he would be as often injured as he has been 3 years ago.

Tanev is a steadying influence whether for Hughes or hopefully Tryamkin if he comes back on the LD. It is all about the TOI and the prospects. When Benning resigned Tanev he had little option. 

Tanev's game experience:

2012-13: 67 games split between the AHL & NHL

    13-14: 64

    14-15: 70

    15-16: 69

    16-17: 53

    17-18: 42

    18-19: 55

One could also make the argument that with a deeper roster Tanev might not experience the same down time. I am sure he played many games he should not have which could have impacted his recovery time. Your point earlier about potential o-zone upside is well taken. He has been wheeling up ice, with speed, more this year. If Tryamkin is really available this spring it means a contract and again dealing with the CAP issue.