Christopher Tanev | #8 | D

[JustABandwagoner]

I see Tanev worth no more than a 2nd + low B prospect. 

 

Why? He gets injured too often and that other GM's tend to de-value other team players to get them for cheaper. So in that, I firmly do not believe Tanev will receive an A prospect OR a first 

 

 

[bluesy_shoes]

1 hour ago, DontMessMe said:

I see Tanev worth no more than a 2nd + low B prospect. 

 

Why? He gets injured too often and that other GM's tend to de-value other team players to get them for cheaper. So in that, I firmly do not believe Tanev will receive an A prospect OR a first 

 

 

That's less than Burrows and Hansen got. Tanev plays way more minutes than those guys, and he's just entered his prime years as a late-bloomer. He's still getting stronger. 

Most of his injuries are from sacrificing the body in the shooting lane. On a better team that doesn't get lit up with shots and defend as much as the Canucks do, he'd be much more durable. I think he'd be great anchoring the PK and second pairing on a contender. He would definitely return more than what you suggest, especially considering he always plays hard minutes and his contract is great. He'd be great replacing an aging guy like Paul Martin on San Jose.

[JustABandwagoner]

3 minutes ago, bluesy_shoes said:

That's less than Burrows and Hansen got. Tanev plays way more minutes than those guys, and he's just entered his prime years as a late-bloomer. He's still getting stronger. 

Most of his injuries are from sacrificing the body in the shooting lane. On a better team that doesn't get lit up with shots and defend as much as the Canucks do, he'd be much more durable. I think he'd be great anchoring the PK and second pairing on a contender. He would definitely return more than what you suggest, especially considering he always plays hard minutes and his contract is great. He'd be great replacing an aging guy like Paul Martin on San Jose.

It depends how desperate teams are too. If i was a team that ain't desperate I aint paying more than a 2nd + meh prospect 

 

Very max i would give is a late 1st. like 28th and further 

Edited April 20, 2018 by DontMessMe

[Rob_Zepp]

4 hours ago, DontMessMe said:

I see Tanev worth no more than a 2nd + low B prospect. 

 

Why? He gets injured too often and that other GM's tend to de-value other team players to get them for cheaper. So in that, I firmly do not believe Tanev will receive an A prospect OR a first 

 

 

As already pointed out in this thread, his number of games played is similar to many other Dmen in the league.   It is a tough position.   Moreover, some of his injuries are of the freakish nature and simply bad luck - that evens out.   If anything, it is this board the undervalues this player.   He is widely respected in the NHL as one of the roughly top 10 pure Dmen and a shutdown guy that can join any top four in the league.    Those players do not go for a "2nd and a low B prospect".   

[aGENT]

On 2018-04-18 at 4:43 PM, aGENT said:

Oduya maybe? His Thrashers and Hawks trades were probably most analogous to Tanev's current age etc. I'd argue Tanev has slightly more value but not tonnes.

 

Edit:

 

Hamonic is probably another but he's arguably worth a touch more. So something in the middle 

 

On 2018-04-18 at 5:33 PM, aGENT said:

Also netted a 2nd and a 3rd on his own. Hamonic netted a 1st and two 2nds. Like I said, Tanev's value is likely somewhere in the middle. 

 

Retain on his salary/take salary back/add other pieces and that value increases. 

Tanev's value IMO ^^^

[JustABandwagoner]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

Tanev's value IMO ^^^

2nd and 3rd seems about right. 

 

1st and two 2nds is a dream... 

 

Lower your expectations of Tanev value so you won't be disappointed in what we get for him IF we do trade him. I truly believe people on this board overvalue our players cuz we're bias unfortunately.  I wonder what a non-bias hockey forum will see Tanev value as. 

 

 

https://twitter.com/TSN1040/status/987502440923762689

Edited April 21, 2018 by DontMessMe

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, DontMessMe said:

2nd and 3rd seems about right. 

 

1st and two 2nds is a dream... 

 

Lower your expectations of Tanev value so you won't be disappointed in what we get for him IF we do trade him. I truly believe people on this board overvalue our players cuz we're bias unfortunately.  I wonder what a non-bias hockey forum will see Tanev value as. 

 

 

https://twitter.com/TSN1040/status/987502440923762689

Non-bias........

[aGENT]

17 hours ago, DontMessMe said:

2nd and 3rd seems about right. 

 

1st and two 2nds is a dream... 

 

Lower your expectations of Tanev value so you won't be disappointed in what we get for him IF we do trade him. I truly believe people on this board overvalue our players cuz we're bias unfortunately.  I wonder what a non-bias hockey forum will see Tanev value as. 

 

 

https://twitter.com/TSN1040/status/987502440923762689

Nope.

 

Like I said, his value lies somewhere between those.

[Fakename70]

On 19/04/2018 at 6:28 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Outside of "this market" is something I know better than "this market" and he is thought of extremely highly "outside of this market".   In fact, he seems vastly underappreciated by fanbase in Vancouver if you are a barometer for such.   He is spoken of in Ontario hockey circles with considerable reverence as old school hockey people love his game.

I'm not so sure about that. And, if he's "spoken of in Ontario hockey circles with considerable reverence" my guess it's likely because he's from there. It's the same in VAN regarding "BC boys" in the NHL. 

Came across yet another RHD yesterday that he's making more money than: John Carlson. For the life of me, I can't figure out any reason at all why Chris Tanev should be getting paid more money per season than him. I hate to dwell on the paycheques these guys get - I rarely do - but exactly what are the Canucks getting by comparison for what they're paying? Seriously, I just don't see it. I suppose that this is a question for the pro-Tanev analytics geeks, but, I'm more a fan of the old-fashioned eyeball test. And, for what he's getting paid, I'm not 100% convinced he passes it. 

[Rob_Zepp]

14 minutes ago, Fakename70 said:

I'm not so sure about that. And, if he's "spoken of in Ontario hockey circles with considerable reverence" my guess it's likely because he's from there. It's the same in VAN regarding "BC boys" in the NHL. 

Came across yet another RHD yesterday that he's making more money than: John Carlson. For the life of me, I can't figure out any reason at all why Chris Tanev should be getting paid more money per season than him. I hate to dwell on the paycheques these guys get - I rarely do - but exactly what are the Canucks getting by comparison for what they're paying? Seriously, I just don't see it. I suppose that this is a question for the pro-Tanev analytics geeks, but, I'm more a fan of the old-fashioned eyeball test. And, for what he's getting paid, I'm not 100% convinced he passes it. 

Clearly for you, based upon your posts, defense is as much about offense as defense.   That is why you rate things the way you do.   Not saying you are wrong but am saying many in hockey don't rate players in same way.

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, Fakename70 said:

Came across yet another RHD yesterday that he's making more money than: John Carlson. For the life of me, I can't figure out any reason at all why Chris Tanev should be getting paid more money per season than him.

Maybe it has something to do with when they signed their last contracts, and how good they were playing at the time they signed their last contracts?

[Fakename70]

4 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Clearly for you, based upon your posts, defense is as much about offense as defense.   That is why you rate things the way you do.   Not saying you are wrong but am saying many in hockey don't rate players in same way.

I try to avoid talking about what the rest of the league is doing. My main focus point is the Canucks and how much better they were with guys on the blue line who could chip in. I don't think there's anything wrong with that expectation, as it's a 200ft game, not 100. Otherwise, offensive stats wouldn't be under consideration for the Norris and there wouldn't be a Selke award for the best two-way forward. For those who swear Tanev is in his prime and/or his best days are in front of him, my question is: how many of those days will be spent on IR? Two things you can pretty much count on from the Canucks defencemen: Edler and Tanev getting hurt. And neither one of them impressing anyone when the Canucks have the puck. I'm not as fixated on offence as you might think, but I just fail to see how a guy who's so invisible in that aspect supposedly rates so highly  compared to other players around the league who do chip in AND are every bit as impressive on defence (if not more) than Tanev. Trying to give the guy the benefit-of-the-doubt, but, I just can't. 

[Fakename70]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

Maybe it has something to do with when they signed their last contracts, and how good they were playing at the time they signed their last contracts?

Couldn't be that. At no point in their respective careers has Chris Tanev ever rated higher nor outperformed John Carlson. I'll never believe that. 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

I try to avoid talking about what the rest of the league is doing. My main focus point is the Canucks and how much better they were with guys on the blue line who could chip in. I don't think there's anything wrong with that expectation, as it's a 200ft game, not 100. Otherwise, offensive stats wouldn't be under consideration for the Norris and there wouldn't be a Selke award for the best two-way forward. For those who swear Tanev is in his prime and/or his best days are in front of him, my question is: how many of those days will be spent on IR? Two things you can pretty much count on from the Canucks defencemen: Edler and Tanev getting hurt. And neither one of them impressing anyone when the Canucks have the puck. I'm not as fixated on offence as you might think, but I just fail to see how a guy who's so invisible in that aspect supposedly rates so highly  compared to other players around the league who do chip in AND are every bit as impressive on defence (if not more) than Tanev. Trying to give the guy the benefit-of-the-doubt, but, I just can't. 

You were shown a games played comparison and ignored that and now want to keep on about it so there you go.  You have clearly made up your mind and even in the face of data don't agree so I guess on this topic, discussion closed.   You don't think he is worth much.   Lucky for Canucks, most of NHL likely disagrees.   

[Fakename70]

16 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You were shown a games played comparison and ignored that and now want to keep on about it so there you go.  You have clearly made up your mind and even in the face of data don't agree so I guess on this topic, discussion closed.   You don't think he is worth much.   Lucky for Canucks, most of NHL likely disagrees.   

No, there YOU go. Along with the rest of the "pro-Tanev analytics geeks" I referred to earlier. Apparently you're under the assumption that this is the first season I've ever watched him play. If my mind is made up, I can assure you it goes far beyond whatever data you're capable of spewing out to make your case about the guy. I'm a firm believer that that sort of thing is more for those who don't pass the eyeball test. I'm not convinced Tanev does. Certainly not with regards to him being one of the league's "premiere shutdown defencemen" (CDC'r quote) who'll command "a king's ransom" (another CDC'r quote) in return trade value. 

We agree on one thing: I don't think he's worth (that) much. 

We disagree on whether or not the rest (or, "most", as you put it) of the NHL agrees. 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Fakename70 said:

No, there YOU go. Along with the rest of the "pro-Tanev analytics geeks" I referred to earlier. Apparently you're under the assumption that this is the first season I've ever watched him play. If my mind is made up, I can assure you it goes far beyond whatever data you're capable of spewing out to make your case about the guy. I'm a firm believer that that sort of thing is more for those who don't pass the eyeball test. I'm not convinced Tanev does. Certainly not with regards to him being one of the league's "premiere shutdown defencemen" (CDC'r quote) who'll command "a king's ransom" (another CDC'r quote) in return trade value. 

We agree on one thing: I don't think he's worth (that) much. 

We disagree on whether or not the rest (or, "most", as you put it) of the NHL agrees. 

He is worth a mid to late first rounder or decent prospect.    /story.

[aGENT]

On 2018-04-21 at 4:10 PM, Fakename70 said:

Couldn't be that. At no point in their respective careers has Chris Tanev ever rated higher nor outperformed John Carlson. I'll never believe that. 

Carlsson is likely going to be making $7m+ after this summer FWIW.

[SingleThorn]

Any retool/ rebuild has to hit rock bottom. I think we are now heading 'upwards'. A small step, but we are now going in a positive direction.

What the 'nucks need at this time is a solid veteran d group. Maybe a calm, efficient RHD who can play 20+ min and shelter all our shiny new toys.

 

Where oh where can we find such a d man ? Seems that about 56 different postings have determined that this can be achieved by trading CT !

 

The whole 'trade CT' movement is just not based on logic. CT is exactly the kind of player we need ! Cue 27 more 'trade CT' threads !

Edited May 8, 2018 by SingleThorn

[Sugar baby watermelon]

On 4/20/2018 at 1:54 PM, bluesy_shoes said:

That's less than Burrows and Hansen got. Tanev plays way more minutes than those guys, and he's just entered his prime years as a late-bloomer. He's still getting stronger. 

Most of his injuries are from sacrificing the body in the shooting lane. On a better team that doesn't get lit up with shots and defend as much as the Canucks do, he'd be much more durable. I think he'd be great anchoring the PK and second pairing on a contender. He would definitely return more than what you suggest, especially considering he always plays hard minutes and his contract is great. He'd be great replacing an aging guy like Paul Martin on San Jose.

Paul Martin already has a replacement, it's Joakim Ryan, a 7th round dman success story, but Tanev would be an upgrade on either Dillon/Demelo.  Was there a prospect from SJ that piques your interest.

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by AlwaysACanuckFan