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

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

I stopped reading at the bolded if you were referring to Boeser lol.

 

He gets his back broken by getting checked into an open door and now he is injury prone?

 

Yeah...ok.    :picard:

Great story. Except he’s missed  chunks of games in all three seasons hasn’t he.  
 

62 games, 69 games, 57/69 games 
 

“Canucks’ Brock Boeser ready to salvage injury-ridden season if NHL resumes”

 

“This is also the third straight season in which the 2015 first-round pick has missed significant time due to injury: 12 games with a rib-cartilage fracture Boeser suffered Feb. 10.” 
 

Take your outrage elsewhere. Also, This is a Tryamkin thread.  We’ve veered way off topic. 

Edited by qwijibo
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Great story. Except he’s missed  chunks of games in all three seasons hasn’t he.  
 

62 games, 69 games, 57/69 games 
 

“Canucks’ Brock Boeser ready to salvage injury-ridden season if NHL resumes”

 

“This is also the third straight season in which the 2015 first-round pick has missed significant time due to injury: 12 games with a rib-cartilage fracture Boeser suffered Feb. 10.” 
 

Take your outrage elsewhere. Also, This is a Tryamkin thread.  We’ve veered way off topic. 

Curious, Q,   What’s your opinion on Tanev ?

  I have him as time expired here..  For all of the above reasons and comments that @Nuxfanabroad made a page back.

Time to get Tryamkin on our tracks and a couple of well deserving lads out of Utica rotating in next season .

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Curious, Q,   What’s your opinion on Tanev ?

  I have him as time expired here..  For all of the above reasons and comments that @Nuxfanabroad made a page back.

Time to get Tryamkin on our tracks and a couple of well deserving lads out of Utica rotating in next season .

Tanev, when healthy, is a top notch defender.  Problem is Vancouver hasn’t been able to rely on him staying healthy.  Paired with a PMD he’s a valuable piece, but he’s logged a lot of hard years for a 30 year old. I’m ok with letting him walk.  I’m not sure that Tryamkin is the answer, but time will tell on that front. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Tanev, when healthy, is a top notch defender.  Problem is Vancouver hasn’t been able to rely on him staying healthy.  Paired with a PMD he’s a valuable piece, but he’s logged a lot of hard years for a 30 year old. I’m ok with letting him walk.  I’m not sure that Tryamkin is the answer, but time will tell on that front. 

I see Tryamkin as a defender that is unlike Tanev, but better in many other ways, and has the potential and longetivity to be better than Tanev has been, in a less “shine the light” fashion . After watching Nik play this season, I’m quite sure he will prove this within his next full season with us.

Tryamkin IS something this team has not seen for quite some time, and the type of Ironman always needed for playoff play.

Im looking forward to the Draft, and UFA... and a Cap announcement.   I would rather see this season as finished so Teams can concentrate on those issues, training camp, and the next season starting with new norms..   one without face licking,.  And perhaps even a penalty for “face washing” now.

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, qwijibo said:

It’s far more of a team stat.  It’s useless on its own.
 

 Thomas Chabot is a career (-) player and was -18 this season but he’s widely regarded as one of the best young D in the game.

 Stetcher is likely a cap casualty cast off bottom 4 D but was a +10 this year.  Based purely on +\- with no other context which player would you rather have? 
 

if you think +\- is an useful stat in evaluating a player you have to take Stetcher.  Personally I take Chabot 

I guess it depends on what you are looking for and how much u have to spend. Chabot is one of my favourite players since I watched him in the WJC, but he's not a Hughes impact type player. For the role he plays I think I'd have to take a serious look at what else is out there. He's similar to Barrie who  I wouldn't want  on my roster. You can't be dazzled by his rushing ability to the detrement of other defiencies and then asked to pay a premium ….tough call

Edited by Fred65
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 12:16 PM, qwijibo said:

You are suggesting that a young top 2-3 40 point D is worth significantly less than an injury prone scoring winger.  A winger who, by the way, struggled to put the puck in the net this season.  It’s just not a reasonable evaluation.
 

 Top scoring D are much harder to find than scoring wingers.  Therefore they’re more valuable.  all that said I think a 1/1 trade is reasonable.  A trade where NJ gives the equivalent of 2 additional 1st round picks is far from reasonable.  
 

with regards to your argument using +\- .  There’s a reason it’s made fun of.   You need a ton of context for it to give even a blurry snap shot of the player’s play.  

 

On 5/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, Fred65 said:

There's a reason why that stat is still kept today and why  insiders still refer to players as either a plus player or a negative player

I really don't understand why people discredit this stat. You want the team to score goals when you're on the ice and not give them away when you are on the ice or changing.

 

That getting scored on during a change is bs, everyone is responsible for not getting scored on and includes not giving it away in a vulnerable position so your teammates get scored on.

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

 

I really don't understand why people discredit this stat. You want the team to score goals when you're on the ice and not give them away when you are on the ice or changing.

 

That getting scored on during a change is bs, everyone is responsible for not getting scored on and includes not giving it away in a vulnerable position so your teammates get scored on.

 As I said. It’s more of a team stat.  If you’re on the worst team in the league, odds are your +\- will reflect that.  Shall we discuss the season Edler had a league worst -39?  Does that mean he was the worst player in the league that year? It’s a flawed stat.  Taken on its own without a boatload of context it’s useless 

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

 As I said. It’s more of a team stat.  If you’re on the worst team in the league, odds are your +\- will reflect that.  Shall we discuss the season Edler had a league worst -39?  Does that mean he was the worst player in the league that year? It’s a flawed stat.  Taken on its own without a boatload of context it’s useless 

I suppose at that level. I know on the teams I played on it was pretty indicative. I wouldn't say he's the worst but his d sucks at times. In that vein you can also say goals and assists are useless to without context. 

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

I suppose at that level. I know on the teams I played on it was pretty indicative. I wouldn't say he's the worst but his d sucks at times. In that vein you can also say goals and assists are useless to without context. 

It’s indicative within a roster. Like if everyone on the team is a plus except one player, who is a significant- player. That would tell you something.  But to just randomly look at a players +\- without that kind of context the stat becomes practically meaningless 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, qwijibo said:

 As I said. It’s more of a team stat.  If you’re on the worst team in the league, odds are your +\- will reflect that.  Shall we discuss the season Edler had a league worst -39?  Does that mean he was the worst player in the league that year? It’s a flawed stat.  Taken on its own without a boatload of context it’s useless 

I tend to think over an extended period it's still good. I know I always asked players immediately following the game , win or loss , what their plus minus was. Kind of keeps their play focused on what's important

  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 11:16 AM, qwijibo said:

You are suggesting that a young top 2-3 40 point D is worth significantly less than an injury prone scoring winger.  A winger who, by the way, struggled to put the puck in the net this season.  It’s just not a reasonable evaluation.
 

 Top scoring D are much harder to find than scoring wingers.  Therefore they’re more valuable.  all that said I think a 1/1 trade is reasonable.  A trade where NJ gives the equivalent of 2 additional 1st round picks is far from reasonable.  
 

with regards to your argument using +\- .  There’s a reason it’s made fun of.   You need a ton of context for it to give even a blurry snap shot of the player’s play.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Googlie said:

Poor Quinn Hughes.  He must be despondent carrying the stigma of being a negative player.....  -10 over his entire NHL career

It certainly an area he needs to improve on, if Makar can be a plus player so to should Hughes

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m curious what everyone’s “walk away” number is for Tryamkin?
 

Like what’s the max AAV you’d find acceptable?

 

For me, I’m thinking $2.25 million max (and would prefer under $2 million). I’d probably play hardball with his agent if they’re pushing for $3 million.

 

I just feel like his time away from the NHL shouldn’t have increased his value. The rumoured extension offer when he left was $2 million, and I’d say his value today should be flat or reduced, compared to when he was still here (maybe a slight increase in dollar amount due to cap%).

 

Plus, he really doesn’t have a strong negotiating position. Canucks hold the NHL rights. If he wants to come back, he needs to sign with Vancouver. And, while I know all the arguments for why stat-watching doesn’t tell the whole story with Tryamkin, he’s nonetheless had his minutes and points decrease over the length of his KHL deal, and that trajectory needs to be considered in assigning a value for any new contract.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I’m curious what everyone’s “walk away” number is for Tryamkin?
 

Like what’s the max AAV you’d find acceptable?

 

For me, I’m thinking $2.25 million max (and would prefer under $2 million). I’d probably play hardball with his agent if they’re pushing for $3 million.

 

I just feel like his time away from the NHL shouldn’t have increased his value. The rumoured extension offer when he left was $2 million, and I’d say his value today should be flat or reduced, compared to when he was still here (maybe a slight increase in dollar amount due to cap%).

 

Plus, he really doesn’t have a strong negotiating position. Canucks hold the NHL rights. If he wants to come back, he needs to sign with Vancouver. And, while I know all the arguments for why stat-watching doesn’t tell the whole story with Tryamkin, he’s nonetheless had his minutes and points decrease over the length of his KHL deal, and that trajectory needs to be considered in assigning a value for any new contract.

It's tricky for me. I think if he wants more money then we need more term. I'm comfortable with 3 million, but it'll have to be 4+ years for me. I'd go up to 2.75 for 3 years. If he wants a 2 or less show me type contract, then he has to accept 2-2.5. No clauses in his contract though, so if we sign him with term, I'm not too worried about not being able to trade him should he not pan out here as there will be teams that will take a chance on a guy of his size (although I can't really see how he wouldn't pan out here as long as he's putting in an honest effort).

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It's tricky for me. I think if he wants more money then we need more term. I'm comfortable with 3 million, but it'll have to be 4+ years for me. I'd go up to 2.75 for 3 years. If he wants a 2 or less show me type contract, then he has to accept 2-2.5. No clauses in his contract though, so if we sign him with term, I'm not too worried about not being able to trade him should he not pan out here as there will be teams that will take a chance on a guy of his size (although I can't really see how he wouldn't pan out here as long as he's putting in an honest effort).

JB is in a good place when you think about it. If Tryamkin won't sign he ain't going to get that money in the KHL and he just sits out the NHL for a season. If he's comfortable with what he can bring then look for a long term deal if he just wants to advertise himself and look to move on or look for a longer term deal then sign a 1 year deal. I don't think IMO that either he or his agents are that sure of his future success

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

It's tricky for me. I think if he wants more money then we need more term. I'm comfortable with 3 million, but it'll have to be 4+ years for me. I'd go up to 2.75 for 3 years. If he wants a 2 or less show me type contract, then he has to accept 2-2.5. No clauses in his contract though, so if we sign him with term, I'm not too worried about not being able to trade him should he not pan out here as there will be teams that will take a chance on a guy of his size (although I can't really see how he wouldn't pan out here as long as he's putting in an honest effort).

I’d be really scared of a 4+ year term at 3+ million per. It could be the deal of the century, if Tryamkin becomes the next Chara. It would even be a great deal if he hits a more realistic ceiling of an NHL level 2nd pair/shutdown Dman. But Tryamkin could also easily be the next Erik Gudbranson, or even the next Griffin Reinhart. Getting locked into a lengthy term with that kind of player would arguably be a worse fate for our overall cap health than the Luongo recapture penalty.
 

I’m hoping for a one year “show me” deal that’s fair, even generous IMO, at somewhere around the $2 million mark.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I’d be really scared of a 4+ year term at 3+ million per. It could be the deal of the century, if Tryamkin becomes the next Chara. It would even be a great deal if he hits a more realistic ceiling of an NHL level 2nd pair/shutdown Dman. But Tryamkin could also easily be the next Erik Gudbranson, or even the next Griffin Reinhart. Getting locked into a lengthy term with that kind of player would arguably be a worse fate for our overall cap health than the Luongo recapture penalty.
 

I’m hoping for a one year “show me” deal that’s fair, even generous IMO, at somewhere around the $2 million mark.

Say you get that 1 yr/2 mill & he noticeably outperforms Myers? Then when you have to sign EP & QH, you've also got this D $ imbalance. Myers will be exposed, & Nik needs a shoehorn to fit his hit.

 

The 2 or 3 yr, 3 mill $ risk, is better than the 6 mill dollar dice rolls we've taken with UFA's.

 

To me, the Myers gamble should mean we have to let CT seek his fortunes elsewhere. We take THAT hit for the gamble on this player.

 

If there's one slight criticism I have for this current regime, it's that they've committed too big a %(total team AAV) to guys in the late summer/autumn of their careers. You've gotta trust more early to mid-20's talent, to either sink or swim.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I’d be really scared of a 4+ year term at 3+ million per. It could be the deal of the century, if Tryamkin becomes the next Chara. It would even be a great deal if he hits a more realistic ceiling of an NHL level 2nd pair/shutdown Dman. But Tryamkin could also easily be the next Erik Gudbranson, or even the next Griffin Reinhart. Getting locked into a lengthy term with that kind of player would arguably be a worse fate for our overall cap health than the Luongo recapture penalty.
 

I’m hoping for a one year “show me” deal that’s fair, even generous IMO, at somewhere around the $2 million mark.

I get the concern, but 3 million a season isn't far off of bottom pairing money (on a more balanced defense group) and I think that's his floor. His skating (for a guy his size) already puts him ahead of Gudbranson/Reinhart, which is key to the current NHL. I don't think I'd go more than 3 million on this next contract, so it's about how many years would he take at 3 million (minimum 4 years at this price tag IMO). We offered 2 years at 2 million before he left, but I'm comfortable with 2.5 million for 2 years as an offer now if he wants less term to prove himself). I'm not a fan of a one year deal given his potential and I believe takes him right to UFA (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Why I'm not concerned about the term, especially at 3 million, is that he would still be very tradable. We were still able to trade Gudbranson despite not the best outlook during his time here (and got a decent player in return) and he was traded again. This is with an even higher cap hit than the proposed Tryamkin number. GMs covet dmen with size still and that doesn't take into account of Tryamkin's skating. Someone like Zaitsev was able to be traded despite his cap hit (although I think Zaitsev is a bit better than he gets credit for). This tradability minimizes the risk of him not panning out for whatever reason (only one I can think of is if he's unhappy here and wants out because in terms of his play, it's doubtful that he can't be at worst a bottom pairing dman).

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Say you get that 1 yr/2 mill & he noticeably outperforms Myers? Then when you have to sign EP & QH, you've also got this D $ imbalance. Myers will be exposed, & Nik needs a shoehorn to fit his hit.

 

The 2 or 3 yr, 3 mill $ risk, is better than the 6 mill dollar dice rolls we've taken with UFA's.

 

To me, the Myers gamble should mean we have to let CT seek his fortunes elsewhere. We take THAT hit for the gamble on this player.

 

If there's one slight criticism I have for this current regime, it's that they've committed too big a %(total team AAV) to guys in the late summer/autumn of their careers. You've gotta trust more early to mid-20's talent, to either sink or swim.

The current % of players of that suggested age group will get pushed out soon enough as their contracts expire and the younger, more developed players step in. We had signed some vets in the meantime to allow for the development of our young players which is just as important as drafting/acquiring them. With that said, we currently have one of the younger teams in the league and our current vets will expire when this young core gets to that mid-20s level to become the vets and start the next wave/cycle.

  • Hydration 2
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...