Nikita Tryamkin | D

[Googlie]

On 5/20/2020 at 11:52 AM, 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

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

[Fred65]

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

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

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.

[theo5789]

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).

[Fred65]

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

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

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.

[Nuxfanabroad]

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.

[theo5789]

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).

[theo5789]

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.

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

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

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).

I hear you. And I’m not really all that scared. Even a bad contract is manageable, and guys Tryamkin’s size, even if they play like dog**** (not saying he will) seem to tradable commodities, at least for a while (there’s always a GM who covets size that will believe a change of scenario will somehow redeem a hulking pylon).

 

Again, not saying Tryamkin’s gonna suck, but if he does, we can probably get out of it.

 

I guess mostly I’d just like to see him come back as a “bargain,” especially after him leaving for three years, and everything that’s happened in the interim. We already have enough overpaid boat anchors on this roster, so I’d hate to see another one added (even if it’s not necessarily going to hurt us too bad). My feeling is that Tryamkin can play NHL hockey, at least at a third pairing level. I’d like to see him paid as a third pairing guy, and then hopefully he outperforms his deal. 

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I hear you. And I’m not really all that scared. Even a bad contract is manageable, and guys Tryamkin’s size, even if they play like dog**** (not saying he will) seem to tradable commodities, at least for a while (there’s always a GM who covets size that will believe a change of scenario will somehow redeem a hulking pylon).

 

Again, not saying Tryamkin’s gonna suck, but if he does, we can probably get out of it.

 

I guess mostly I’d just like to see him come back as a “bargain,” especially after him leaving for three years, and everything that’s happened in the interim. We already have enough overpaid boat anchors on this roster, so I’d hate to see another one added (even if it’s not necessarily going to hurt us too bad). My feeling is that Tryamkin can play NHL hockey, at least at a third pairing level. I’d like to see him paid as a third pairing guy, and then hopefully he outperforms his deal. 

If would be much harder on our cap if he does outperform his cap on a one year deal. I guess I feel like 3 million for say 4 years would already be a bargain (assuming we can fit this number under the cap). A comparable for me is Zadorov who recently signed a one year deal for 3.2 million. Of course he's more proven at the NHL level, but if Tryamkin can play at his level after one season, then we are looking at paying comparatively (I expect he will get around 4 million on his next contract) and that's not factoring in potential UFA status. So we can save now or save over a duration of a contract? With the risk minimized by the trade factor, I'd rather gamble and save over the duration of the contract.

[Nuxfanabroad]

22 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

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.

Yeah, it's a fair argument. Also a shame that JB has to take heat for that controversial 3 mill, Lu-fiasco.

 

Can only speak for myself. As a fan, I'm more comfortable with Tree at 3 yrs/9 mill, than perhaps 4 or 5 of our vet contracts(when they were initiated, that is). I simply really like this kid, & think he's precisely what the lineup calls for.

 

Lastly, hated how WD handled him..amongst many other gaffes I'd lay at WillieD's feet. To give this kid a good shot/fair deal seems right, after all that unexplainable mayhem.

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour 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.

Griffin Rhienhart had barely 30 NHL games and is a perennial AHL player.

Gudbranson has half the speed and half the defensive coverage of Tryamkin.  Hutton got 2.8 M out of the gate. I think Tryamkin did enough in his 79 games here to be worth at least that.

I think 3 x 3 would be fair because the upside is better than anything we have on the farm. 

[aGENT]

3 hours 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).

On a short deal, absolutely. $2.5m is pushing it IMO.

 

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

I’d probably play hardball with his agent if they’re pushing for $3 million.

I'd definitely want a few years at that rate.

 

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

 

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%).

Need to factor in covid revenue drop as well. That should more than cancel the previous inflation.

 

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

 

 

[Pete M]

What ever contract he signs. it won't be as bad as LE's or Sutter's....the homers can spin it as JB can learn.

[stawns]

4 hours ago, theo5789 said:

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).

JB has timed it pretty well I think.

[stawns]

3 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Griffin Rhienhart had barely 30 NHL games and is a perennial AHL player.

Gudbranson has half the speed and half the defensive coverage of Tryamkin.  Hutton got 2.8 M out of the gate. I think Tryamkin did enough in his 79 games here to be worth at least that.

I think 3 x 3 would be fair because the upside is better than anything we have on the farm. 

Tryamkin has proven absolutely nothing yet, other than he can be a decent bottom pairing dman.  That might be his floor, but no one knows because he decided to bolt.  I've said it from the beginning, I will be surprised if he signs in Van.  I hope, however, that he does.

[Kanukfanatic]

No interest from me in paying 3 million for an unproven NHL player like Tryamkin.

 

I would not mind him back on the Canucks in the 6 spot on D, but paying him more than 2.3 or so for a couple years would be a mistake. He needs to prove he can actually play in the NHL. All he has shown so far is he can play in the KHL which is a league way lower in skill.

 

Hopefully the nucks get him at a reasonable cost...otherwise....jettison him lol.

[Googlie]

As an aside, if Stecher isn't resigned, I wonder what Edler and Tryamkin would be like as a pairing.  I can't remember if they were ever together in Tree's first stint with us.

[Hairy Kneel]

7 hours ago, stawns said:

Tryamkin has proven absolutely nothing yet, other than he can be a decent bottom pairing dman.  That might be his floor, but no one knows because he decided to bolt.  I've said it from the beginning, I will be surprised if he signs in Van.  I hope, however, that he does.

I'm pretty sure Tryamkin knows he has to prove himself again,  whole new team, new coach, but he will square up fine on the bottom  pairing to start. At least this time he won't be benched behind a ineffectual Philip Larsen. Which no one, especially Tryamkin could understand. His job will be to clear the crease and I think he knows that.