Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Boudrias
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the roster size chnages 

 

Quote

The 23-man roster limit is in place from the conclusion of the preseason until 12:01 am on the day of the NHL's Trade Deadline. After that teams are allowed to have an unlimited active roster at the NHL level, provided players are signed to one of their 50 contract slots.

So it is possible to insert Tryamkin onto the roster without loosing another player, except from what I see Tryamkin is not registered on our 50 man allowance ( by the way Rafferty is on the 50 man roster.) so should JB include him in the 50 man list it will be the first indication that they want him back. I have to say IMO Vcr defense is a tad under sized and those that are taller/bigger are not the likes of a Bortuzzo or a McNabb. It's going to be interesting to watch JB jump through hoops come 25th February  :lol:

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

First of all the roster size chnages 

 

So it is possible to insert Tryamkin onto the roster without loosing another player, except from what I see Tryamkin is not registered on our 50 man allowance ( by the way Rafferty is on the 50 man roster.) so should JB include him in the 50 man list it will be the first indication that they want him back. I have to say IMO Vcr defense is a tad under sized and those that are taller/bigger are not the likes of a Bortuzzo or a McNabb. It's going to be interesting to watch JB jump through hoops come 25th February  :lol:

Nik's on our reserve list: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks/reserve-list

 

which actually has some very exiting potential on it: Nik, Hoglander, Madden, Podz, Rathbone... maybe even Utanen if he keeps progressing. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Nik's on our reserve list: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks/reserve-list

 

which actually has some very exiting potential on it: Nik, Hoglander, Madden, Podz, Rathbone... maybe even Utanen if he keeps progressing. 

So does this allow Nik to get in the lineup in our playoffs without playing a regular season game? ( I think it does) .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SilentSam said:

So does this allow Nik to get in the lineup in our playoffs without playing a regular season game? ( I think it does) .

Yes as long as he signs a contract and is one of our 50 contracts after the trade deadline he can come over and play anytime.  I believe his season ends before the playoffs begin unless Avto go all the way to the finals, so there is a good chance he will be on our roster this year.  I think both Tryamkin and Benning want to make that happen, I don't see any reason why Tryamkin would want to continue to play in Russia when he can make so much more money here in the NHL.  The issues have been resolved by now I think, CHL Willy is gone, we have room on defence to fit him in.  No reason they can't get a deal done to bring him back.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilentSam said:

So does this allow Nik to get in the lineup in our playoffs without playing a regular season game? ( I think it does) .

I do believe you are correct, sir.

 

To play in the NHL playoffs, a player must be on the NHL roster by the deadline (to clarify, not the 23-man active roster, here, but the 50-man roster of players under NHL contract who are in the NHL or loaned elsewhere). The only exception to this is the case of players on the reserve list (mostly unsigned drafted players) who are playing in Europe or the NCAA. Occasionally they will sign an ELC and play on the NHL team in the playoffs after their season is over. 

 

Any pro player a team doesn’t have the rights to who has played in a league not in North America must pass through entry waivers if he is signed to an NHL deal. This keeps NHL teams from talent hunting in Europe at this time of the year. On rare occasions, it is done. There were some “character” players added to a few teams in 2018 after the Olympics and just before the deadline who have cleared waivers and played on their teams.

 

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2019/2/19/18226193/this-years-nhl-trade-deadline-the-times-dates-and-rules-toronto-maple-leafs

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Nik's on our reserve list: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks/reserve-list

 

which actually has some very exiting potential on it: Nik, Hoglander, Madden, Podz, Rathbone... maybe even Utanen if he keeps progressing. 

Thank for that. I looked at just the front cover which seems to add up to the 50 man roster limit and the rules state that they must be part of the 50 man roster so the reserve list actually includes 90 players NOT 50 players which actually eliminates Tryamkin. Tryamkin is on the 90 man list but NOT included on the 50 man list. That's how I read it any way. I think the 90 man roster eliminates players who can't be signed by other teams?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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.

 

I can agree with those reasons for not wanting to re-sign Tanev, but who replaces him next season? Remember, we could potentially be giving up an unprotected 1st rounder next year, so it's not a great time to take a step back. Do you think that any of Tryamkin, Brisebois, Rafferty, etc. can actually step into that role effectively? I don't. 

 

Benning hasn't been able to find a suitable replacement for Tanev in 5-ish years. If he did we would be much more comfortable letting him walk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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.

The following year we lose Edler who will be 35 and possibly retiring.  I can’t imagine being without both in 2 years and Tanev would be the much more viable option at that point. 
 

We have enough guys contracts gone to re-sign Petey and Hughes. Baer, Sutter, Edler, Benn, Pearson. 
 

Tanev would be a good stop gap veterans for the youth. 4/5 years to allow young guys to step much. Can’t expect any of the young guys to fill his spot and be as effective so quickly. That’s a risk and if it doesn’t pan out we’re stuck with having a sign a random UFA who would be probably more costly. 
 

If Tanev decides to walk that changes things obviously but it is up to Benning and co to see where his head is at before TD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

Thank for that. I looked at just the front cover which seems to add up to the 50 man roster limit and the rules state that they must be part of the 50 man roster so the reserve list actually includes 90 players NOT 50 players which actually eliminates Tryamkin. Tryamkin is on the 90 man list but NOT included on the 50 man list. That's how I read it any way. I think the 90 man roster eliminates players who can't be signed by other teams?? 

nope see my post a few above - you can bring guys in if they are on your reserve list and in the NCAA or KHL. McAvoy from Boston e.g., came in from college right into the playoffs for 6 games to begin his career. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...