Sean Monahan Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I came across this piece by Botchturd this morning and thought it might be something CDC would be interested in. While I don't think it's a totally far-fetched idea, I'm of the opinion we should keep the Tan Man and Botch doesn't present his argument terribly well anyway (shocker). Personally, I stopped reading as soon as he said Tanev is better than Adam Larsson. http://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/jason-botchford-should-the-canucks-trade-chris-tanev Quote Should the Canucks trade Chris Tanev? JASON BOTCHFORD More from Jason Botchford Published: July 19, 2016 Updated: July 19, 2016 7:24 PM PDT Filed Under:The Province Sports Hockey Vancouver Canucks VANCOUVER February 13 2016. Vancouver Canucks #8 Christopher Tanev and Toronto Maple Leafs #40 Michael Grabner look back the puck in the second period of a regular season NHL hockey game at Rogers Arena, Vancouver, February 13 2016. Gerry Kahrmann / PNG staff photo) / PNG staff photo) ( For Prov / Sun Sports ) 00041674A [PNG Merlin Archive] The Canucks' Chris Tanev, shown playing against Michael Grabner and the Toronto Maple Leafs last season, has become one of the best defensive defencemen in the NHL. Gerry Kahrmann / PNG When Team Canada was hugging a third-period lead in the gold medal game at the world hockey championships, Chris Tanev was playing more than anyone. He is 26 years old, and there is a distinct possibility he could average out as the best defensive defenceman in hockey for the next three to five years. That skill set seems like it should be vitally important to the Vancouver Canucks, a team yearning to get back into a playoff race after giving up the eighth-most goals in the NHL last season. But you can’t help but wonder. Should the Canucks trade Tanev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Wild Sean Monahan said: I came across this piece by Botchturd this morning and thought it might be something CDC would be interested in. While I don't think it's a totally far-fetched idea, I'm of the opinion we should keep the Tan Man and Botch doesn't present his argument terribly well anyway (shocker). Personally, I stopped reading as soon as he said Tanev is better than Adam Larsson. http://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/jason-botchford-should-the-canucks-trade-chris-tanev I loathe botchford, but I've been saying that for a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I'm gonna give 'er a big ol' gigantic NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 No to Tanev but I'd look into trading Edler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted July 20, 2016 Author Share Posted July 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, stawns said: I loathe botchford, but I've been saying that for a year It's not a terrible idea, but his use of analytics while totally ignoring Larssen's is pretty weak. If they feel Tryamkin or Sbisa can play regular top 4 minutes I guess it could work but it would also be counter-productive to the organization's goal of making the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer League All Star Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 No doubt his value will be very high but he is a valuable asset that is incredibly hard to replace. He fits in our group and has never really been a problem in terms of demanding playing time or off-ice issues. He is also still getting better. I would hang onto him as our group of young prospects grow into NHL-ers and we are back competing for the cup. Which Tanev will likely be playing at a high level through the entirety of that period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowichan Canuck Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I'd trade anyone if the returning asset is more valuable/younger/cheaper. You can't say you wouldn't trade Tanev until you know what is coming back this way. So YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 It all depends on the return but if you can land a bonafide top line player for a developed undrafted defensemen you would be an idiot not to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Middle of summer, literally nothing happening regarding Canucks on or off ice, nobody reading newspapers anymore, garbage journalist suggests trading a very well liked Canucks player - ok then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 There is literally no reason to trade Chris Tanev. Botchturd is clearly just writing whatever he can this summer in hopes of staying relevant to a starved fan base. It seems somewhat obvious that Benning is building a defense that plays to multiple strengths. It was quite clear at many points last year, that the Canucks defense, while mobile, was far too timid and undersized to manage in this conference and division. Signing Tryamkin last season, and trading for Gudbranson, were answers to that deficiency. Perfect answers. Tanev's cerebral game is a necessity to this blueline. He plays with a poise that isn't learned, it's just there. This season will be one that will demonstrate how integral he is to the Canuck's defense. As is Hutton's burgeoning offensive game. As is Edler's hopeful return to a complete game. Leaving one spot for either Sbisa, Biega, Pedan, Larsen, or Juolevi to grab in training camp. With Stecher and Subban also in the mix. 6 players with loads of potential vying for one spot. That's a sight better than things have looked in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Anyone is tradable for a massive overpayment but we shouldn't be actively shopping him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 So he acknowledges how very good Tanev is, at the same time he suggests we should consider trading him. Kind of an oxymoron. Or maybe just a moron. I think for a team to have the best chance of success, you have to have players in key roles who do their jobs really, really well. Ideally, you want a top six who can put the puck in the net, and a bottom six who can eat up the extra minutes without being a liability, while chipping in here and there. You want an elite goalie to stop the pucks. You want a PMD on the back end who can quarterback a powerplay. And you want a defender who can be put up against the top line of the opposing team. Naturally, most any player is tradable depending on the return, and Tanev is no exception, but he fills his role really, really well. Yes, we could trade him, but nobody in our organization has the ability to neutralize the opposition like Tanev can. Even if we managed to get a decent scoring forward in return, the amount of goals that would be scored against us would suffer equally, so what is the point? If you look at the blueline that is expected to be iced in the new season, there are certain players who stand out in their roles and certain players that do not. Standouts: Tanev - Discussed Gudbranson - Adds physicality and some stay-at-home abilities (though the stats don't suggest he is particularly great at the latter. But we just got him so he's not going anywhere) Tryamkin - Add ridiculous physicality. IMO, could be one of our most important defenseman going forward. Hutton - Could turn into a premier offensive defenseman, and may be a huge piece to giving us the scoring from the blueline that we've lacked lately. Not-so-standouts: Sbisa - Not really a bad defenseman, but doesn't have the skills in any area to ever be more than a bottom or complimentary pairing . Edler - Brings some of this, some of that. An above average all-around defenseman, and better than all the negative attention he gets on CDC. Still, not standout in any particular area, and not really the role player everyone was expecting after a very strong start in the league. In my opinion, if we were to ever trade Tanev, the return would have to be astronomical. Although better than last year, our team still doesn't have all the elements I mentioned in my second paragraph, and to lose another in an excellent stay at home defenseman would hurt us badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Huscroft Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Quote I loathe botchford, but I've been saying that for a year Botch is a good dude. I've met him a few times over the past couple of years and sat down with him for beers. I don't think people quite get Botch. He writes things to start a conversation and most times (no offence) people take it the wrong way. Having said that, as good as Tanev has been, I think people have put him on this pedestal. Why is that? Well, if you look up and down the Canucks D the last few years, he's the only one who has really stood out with any type of consistency. If you can trade Tanev and add someone like, I don't know, Tyson Barrie, I'd say it's well worth it. Quote No to Tanev but I'd look into trading Edler. I think they've explored this option before. They know what they can get for Edler and it's nothing near what they would expect. As strange as this may sound, I think Edler is a big and much needed piece for the Canucks right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I'd trade him if the price is right. Even if you disagree about him being better than Larsson, he isn't far off. I'd say at this point in his career he has proven more, albeit he doesn't have the potential Larsson does. And look at the return that he got. Tanev could bring us some really attractive pieces, and while I would be sad to see him go, I'm all for making the team better should we get an offer that does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Could he land us a player like Matt Duchene? He is in Coach Roy's bad books and has no NTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 I wouldn't be against trading him if the return was right, but I just feel like his market value would be lower than his on-ice value. Pretty sure he would fetch less than Gudbranson. For that reason I don't think it would/should happen. The only time I could see us trading him for massive return would be a the trade deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Huscroft Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Mackcanuck said: Could he land us a player like Matt Duchene? He is in Coach Roy's bad books and has no NTC Not if Colorado is exploring a Landeskog trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 25 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said: It's not a terrible idea, but his use of analytics while totally ignoring Larssen's is pretty weak. If they feel Tryamkin or Sbisa can play regular top 4 minutes I guess it could work but it would also be counter-productive to the organization's goal of making the playoffs. The only way Tryamkin plays top 4 is with Tanev/Gudbranson IMO. So yeah, it's a bit counter-productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 in reply to the title: Yes the Canucks should trade Tanev if they were to improve their team just like with any player. Otherwise they should NOT be actively pursuing moving him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 If it meant fleecing another GM by getting a Taylor Hall equivalent in a trade that some call the most lopsided in 40 years than sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.