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

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Drouin

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How about we resign Tanev?  Guy is a warrior, still young, and is great

Agreed, I'd take my chances and re-sign him when he becomes a UFA.  Even if we lose him for nothing we got enough bank from the Petey/Hughes picks to not set this franchise back, plus I am confident he'll want to re-sign for a fair value.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by the answers. Tanev is probably last on that list of players I would trade. Virtanen we at least have decent replacements (a healthy Ferland, Leivo) and we have Demko to potentially replace Markstrom. He may not be as good as Markstrom yet but Demko is leaps and bounds better at the same age. At some point we need to give Demko the reins to see how he does as a #1 anyways. Tanev we have nothing close to proven to replace him and trading him may have adverse effects on Hughes. RAfferty and Tryamkin are bigger questions marks in terms of a Hughes pairing than the other potential replacement options. It's not a risk worth taking. If Tanev was showing a decline in ability I'd be more concerned but he's been our most consistent player (when healthy) probably the last 7 years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How about we resign Tanev?  Guy is a warrior, still young, and is great

and he makes hughes feel comfortable and confident on the ice

why would the team risk doing anything to upset hughes current development

he is blossoming right now

 

but who cares? move tanev anyway??

i really do not get this discussion

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Outsiders said:

Trade Tanev

 

1. We shouldn't resign a 30 year old, injury prone defensive defensemen for 5 million. Not to mention this is Tanev's last deal to cash in on and would want  a 3-4 year term.

 

2. He puts up little offensive numbers (better this year but look who he plays with, Hughes is creating everything. Not to mention all he does is cough up the puck after he hits the red line and just dumps the puck in because he can't make a play. 

 

3. We aren't winning the cup and if you think we are missing the playoffs because we trade him you're not watching our team. Petey, JT,Horvat,Marky and Hughes are the reason we are where we are. We have a solid team around them but Tanev isn't a make or break player. We'd miss the playoffs if Petey and Marky went down for the rest of the season(even then we'd probably find a way). Not because we traded Tanev. Right now there is like a 90% chance we make the playoffs if we play .500 hockey the rest of the way. Can't see going like 10-17-2 over one player and if we do then we got bigger problems then we think. I'll take the 90% odds and cash in on Tanev's high value.

 

4. Can't let him walk for nothing. He is having a career year. PTS and health wise, lets capitalize on that. I believe since d-men are so valuable and especially top 4, that you could get a 1st rounder or top prospect. I'd take that all day long. Having a top prospect that would potentially be a major factor when we are competing for the cup is a win. If we get our first back then Benning and Brackett WILL get us a player that will contribute going forward (again a win). We got nothing to lose, why keep Tanev for 2 more months to potentially win 1 playoff round than trade him for a potential key piece to our future contending team. Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

5. Anyone can play with Q.Hughes. QH makes Tanev look good not the other way around. Don't lose sight of that. Tryamkin could play with Hughes (and actually protect him) and do just fine. Everyone's acting like the difference between Tanev and another replacement (in this case Tryamkin) is like Jordie Benn replacing Quinn Hughes. ITS NOT

1. Speculation. He may like to stay here for reasonable term and cap hit.

 

2. His role isn't to put up offensive numbers. Gets paid accordingly as defensive defensemen don't make as much as point generators from the blue line.

 

3. You never know once you get in. I'm not saying it is likely but you never know. While petey and markstrom are integral to team success Tanev is an integral component to our D corp. Our D is significantly worse if we switch out Benn for Tanev. Additionally we have finally got to a place where we have some depth in our forward and D groups. Why absolutely gut that for a pick or prospect that might turn into a 2nd or 3rd liner in 5 years.

 

4. At some point the endless 'trade asset x for pick y' has to stop. We also get value from having a competitive team in the playoffs. Right now the Canucks need playoff experience more than another prospect or pick. In your first 2 points you devalue Tanev due to his injury history, low offensive numbers and turnovers then go on to think a team is going to pay a top prospect or a 1st round pick? Which one is it? By the same token if he is worth that to another team he is worth that to ours, he wears an 'A', you have to balance what it may do to team chemistry as well. IMO this team needs playoff experience more than another 25-32 pick... if he would even get that. I think it is more likely for teams to be offering 2nd rounders, in which case it is certainly not worth it.

 

5. I think they both play a role in eachother's success. Put Benn with Hughes and I am not so sure Quinn sees the same success, both defensively and offensively. IIRC Tryamkin can play both sides but is better playing in the LD spot. He may not be the best fit for Hughes as is. Tryamkins style isn't the stay at home type either, I'm not sure they would be the best mix stylistically. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

Agreed, I'd take my chances and re-sign him when he becomes a UFA.  Even if we lose him for nothing we got enough bank from the Petey/Hughes picks to not set this franchise back, plus I am confident he'll want to re-sign for a fair value.  

Can't afford to let a pending UFA with value walk for free. That is why our rebuild took so long in the first place. We let to many players walk, (Ryan Miller, Dan Hamhuis) We aren't winning the cup this year. So many posters on here are implying Tanev is a make it or break it type player. If he really is other teams will overpay, as they think  Tanev will put them over the top.  We will receive a 1st rounder or top prospect. This is the difference between having a elite team around Petey and Hughes and an "average team" down the line. Have to continue to restock the prospect pool. That's how good teams stay competitive. When guys want huge money and term, they have a cheaper option to replace that guy and the drop off ain't much between players. I'm not paying Tanev 5 million for 3-4 years. I'm replacing him with Tryamkin, Rafferty, or Juolevi and using that extra cap space to find other avenues to make my team better, or saving  it for Petey/Hughes extensions. 

Edited by Outsiders
  • Wat 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

We let to many players walk, (Ryan Miller, Dan Hamhuis) We aren't winning the cup this year. So many posters on here are implying Tanev is a make it or break it type player. If he really is other teams will overpay, as they think  Tanev will put them over the top.  We will receive a 1st rounder or top prospect.

We weren't going to get much for Miller or Hamhius, even the return for Hansen and Burrows was nominal at best.  Losing Tanev for nothing is not going to set this franchise back nor are you getting a 1st or a prospect for Tanev's rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yup. Was having this discussion in one of the player threads last week, DET is not far off from rebounding IMO. They've got a SOLID prospect pool.

I wish i could share your optimism with the Red Wings..I believe Stevie Y is on the right track, but I don't think that Holland left him with a whole lot..Larkin was a home run ,but I have found their drafting since then, to be a bit underwhelming tbh.

 

Having a top pick (provided they dont wind up picking 4th OA) will go a long way to help out the team..To me, they still look a few years away from being competitive..The Red Wings are coming up on year 4 of no playoffs (something as Canuck fans we familiar with..Benning appears to have righted the ship after 4 playoff-less years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

I wish i could share your optimism with the Red Wings..I believe Stevie Y is on the right track, but I don't think that Holland left him with a whole lot..Larkin was a home run ,but I have found their drafting since then, to be a bit underwhelming tbh.

 

Having a top pick (provided they dont wind up picking 4th OA) will go a long way to help out the team..To me, they still look a few years away from being competitive..The Red Wings are coming up on year 4 of no playoffs (something as Canuck fans we familiar with..Benning appears to have righted the ship after 4 playoff-less years).

They have a pretty damn solid prospect base.

 

Hronek, McIsaac and Cholowski on top of Seider. I'd happily take any of those guys on D.

 

And Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Fabbri, Valeno, Svechnikov and Zadina etc are not a bad starting point for forwards.

 

And as you note, they'll likely see a top 4 pick in a solid draft this year as well.

 

And 4 years of no playoffs is actually a remarkably short 'rebuild' time. Most teams take longer than that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

1. Speculation. He may like to stay here for reasonable term and cap hit.

 

2. His role isn't to put up offensive numbers. Gets paid accordingly as defensive defensemen don't make as much as point generators from the blue line.

 

3. You never know once you get in. I'm not saying it is likely but you never know. While petey and markstrom are integral to team success Tanev is an integral component to our D corp. Our D is significantly worse if we switch out Benn for Tanev. Additionally we have finally got to a place where we have some depth in our forward and D groups. Why absolutely gut that for a pick or prospect that might turn into a 2nd or 3rd liner in 5 years.

 

4. At some point the endless 'trade asset x for pick y' has to stop. We also get value from having a competitive team in the playoffs. Right now the Canucks need playoff experience more than another prospect or pick. In your first 2 points you devalue Tanev due to his injury history, low offensive numbers and turnovers then go on to think a team is going to pay a top prospect or a 1st round pick? Which one is it? By the same token if he is worth that to another team he is worth that to ours, he wears an 'A', you have to balance what it may do to team chemistry as well. IMO this team needs playoff experience more than another 25-32 pick... if he would even get that. I think it is more likely for teams to be offering 2nd rounders, in which case it is certainly not worth it.

 

5. I think they both play a role in eachother's success. Put Benn with Hughes and I am not so sure Quinn sees the same success, both defensively and offensively. IIRC Tryamkin can play both sides but is better playing in the LD spot. He may not be the best fit for Hughes as is. Tryamkins style isn't the stay at home type either, I'm not sure they would be the best mix stylistically. 

To reply to your points.

 

1. Great, if he wants to do that sign back in the offseason. When has a guy took less money and term to stay with a team? We always say it and it never happens. He will get a raise on his 4.45 million and will want 5 million with term (like every player does). 

 

2. I agree that isn't his role, but you don't pay 5 million for a player thats 30 with injury troubles. Especially when we are tight with cap. Not to mention we have players to fill the void. Those players will never get a chance if Tanev stays. 

 

4. I wouldn't say I devalued Tanev. I pointed out reasons and flaws as to why you don't break open the bank for players that aren't game changers. Every year teams over pay at the deadline to get what they think the "missing piece" is for their team. I'm not saying Tanev is a bad player. I pointed out flaws, which are injury prone, not a point producer or play driver, he's now 30 and will want to cash in. He's a good defensive defensemen and that will have value at the TDL. I'd take a 2nd rounder. We have pulled out Demko, (Lind and Gadjovich same draft) , Woo and Hoglander in the 2nd round since Benning took over. The other 2 years we didn't have 2nd rounders. Call me crazy, but I think 4 of those 5 I listed will play an important role for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

To reply to your points.

 

1. Great, if he wants to do that sign back in the offseason. When has a guy took less money and term to stay with a team? We always say it and it never happens. He will get a raise on his 4.45 million and will want 5 million with term (like every player does). 

 

2. I agree that isn't his role, but you don't pay 5 million for a player thats 30 with injury troubles. Especially when we are tight with cap. Not to mention we have players to fill the void. Those players will never get a chance if Tanev stays. 

 

4. I wouldn't say I devalued Tanev. I pointed out reasons and flaws as to why you don't break open the bank for players that aren't game changers. Every year teams over pay at the deadline to get what they think the "missing piece" is for their team. I'm not saying Tanev is a bad player. I pointed out flaws, which are injury prone, not a point producer or play driver, he's now 30 and will want to cash in. He's a good defensive defensemen and that will have value at the TDL. I'd take a 2nd rounder. We have pulled out Demko, (Lind and Gadjovich same draft) , Woo and Hoglander in the 2nd round since Benning took over. The other 2 years we didn't have 2nd rounders. Call me crazy, but I think 4 of those 5 I listed will play an important role for us. 

If Tanev isn't able to fit into our cap next year then he walks. My point is that I think the Canucks are at the point that having a deep team for the playoffs and the opportunity for playoffs experience is more valuable than a late second rounder that is likely to be pick 55+. To use your example, we are talking Gadjovich range and not Lind, Woo, Hoglander or Demko range. We are a better team with him than with out him and I would like the best team possible for the playoffs.

Edited by I.Am.Ironman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

Can't afford to let a pending UFA with value walk for free.

It happens all the time in the NHL and it isn't "for free" if you get good service from the player in his last season and then have his contract space/AAV open in the CAP.   You only make trades that help your team and fit in with an overall plan.   Every combination is evaluated by every management team in the NHL.   You cannot make trades another GM isn't willing to make and you most certainly shouldn't make trades if it messes up an overall plan.

 

You cite Miller and Danny H.   The former was always a rent and they used him as such.   The latter has a NMC and invoked it to not be moving on his kids before school was out.   Don't create false narratives as if there was this massive trade potential in either case.    

 

The Canucks have actually had very few FAs really ever move on that wasn't by mutual agreement.   Big names like the Sedins and Edler re-signed for not more than market and in the former case, likely considerably less.   

 

The best moves the Canucks make this trade period with their pending UFAs may be the moves the don't make....and that will still be better for them now AND in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

We weren't going to get much for Miller or Hamhius, even the return for Hansen and Burrows was nominal at best.  Losing Tanev for nothing is not going to set this franchise back nor are you getting a 1st or a prospect for Tanev's rights. 

We would have easily gotten a 2nd for Hamhuis and a 3rd or prospect for Miller.  Let me list the following for you.

 

Drafted in 2nd round since Benning took over

 

Demko

Lind

Hoglander

Woo

Gadjovich

 

Drafted in 3rd round since Benning took over

 

Madden

Tryamkin

DiPietro

Lockwood

Brisebois 

 

 

I highlighted the players above I feel will play a role for our team going forward. I count 7 players. Now tell me, what are Hamhuis and Miller doing for us?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

That is why our rebuild took so long in the first place.

:blink:

 

giphy.gif

 

I think you should go ask some other teams fans how long rebuilds can take and get back to us...:lol:

 

45 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

Tryamkins style isn't the stay at home type either, I'm not sure they would be the best mix stylistically. 

That actually is the exact role he's playing in the K.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

We would have easily gotten a 2nd for Hamhuis and a 3rd or prospect for Miller.  Let me list the following for you.

 

Drafted in 2nd round since Benning took over

 

Demko

Lind

Hoglander

Woo

Gadjovich

 

Drafted in 3rd round since Benning took over

 

Madden

Tryamkin

DiPietro

Lockwood

Brisebois 

 

 

I highlighted the players above I feel will play a role for our team going forward. I count 7 players. Now tell me, what are Hamhuis and Miller doing for us?

 

 

Oh sweet Gordie it continues!

 

If we 'easily' could have got a 2nd for Hamhuis or a 3rd for Miller, we would have.

 

We couldn't, so we didn't.

 

Seriously, show us some examples of 35+ year old goalies getting 3rd at TDL's...we'll wait.

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

:blink:

 

giphy.gif

 

I think you should go ask some other teams fans how long rebuilds can take and get back to us...:lol:

 

That actually is the exact role he's playing in the K.

hard to tell from the short blips of video but from the regular game watches that seems to be the case. 

 

I think Nik will be even more effective on smaller NHL ice. I would expect to see him be used by Green very much in a stay at home role as well. He's so damn big I'm not sure you really want him clearing the net tho, he'll just screen Marky most of the time :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

We would have easily gotten a 2nd for Hamhuis and a 3rd or prospect for Miller.  Let me list the following for you.

 

Drafted in 2nd round since Benning took over

 

Demko

Lind

Hoglander

Woo

Gadjovich

 

Drafted in 3rd round since Benning took over

 

Madden

Tryamkin

DiPietro

Lockwood

Brisebois 

 

 

I highlighted the players above I feel will play a role for our team going forward. I count 7 players. Now tell me, what are Hamhuis and Miller doing for us?

 

 

hammer had a ntc that he refused to wave  , miller   was only going to play for cali teams  so that limits any value there and the cali team aren't going to give any assets for a guy they can scoop up in the off season for free 

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
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...