[Discussion] Tanev..Where To?

[Nuxfanabroad]

Have seen a number of posters suggest this, for a variety of good reasons. I'm sure we'll ALL mostly agree, this is a damn fine bloke & excellent D-man.

 

Probably the biggest reason he should be dealt, is that he's a prime-aged asset, that must be highly-regarded, throughout the league. His value is near it's peak. If there's any possible criticism, it might be with a slender build he seems increasingly susceptible to injury.

 

General question to one & all..Where would be the best destination(if mgt decides to) to trade CT? We pretty much should all assume, OFFENSIVE pieces, and/or high picks, would constitute the necessary return.

 

General criteria to find match:

 

1 - a team that needs a rh-d

2 - available cap space, or way to squeeze in CT's 4.5 mill cap

3 - surplus young, offensive prospects or regulars

4 - preferably NOT a hated rival(namely, Chi & LA, IMHO)

5 - they have an unsavoury(perhaps expiring?) albatross that we might absorb, to enhance return(this is optional)

 

Lastly, I'd prefer this is a good team(or, shows strong future). Again prob all will agree, CT's been a good soldier, so I think he deserves to land in a good team/scenario.

 

So, where to?..

[shoeyj86]

I would imagine the teams what would be most interested in a player like Tanev would be (purely speculation, based off current roster, assets, trending direction):

 

Arizona -- young and lacks top RHD, analytics based mngmnt group, lots of prospects in cupboard

 

Detroit -- blueline is weak and needs upgrade, has players on nhl roster that could be traded for, hasnt usually relied on 1st rnd picks the same as other orgs to bolster nhl roster

 

Toronto -- to me they are the most obvious teade partner. Tanev/Reilly would be a Babcock wet dream, they have assets bursting at the seams

 

Edmonton -- least likely since, but they can always use an upgrade on back end. 

 

New Jersey -- after losing larsen NJ definitely could use a top 4 RHD to help stabilize things.

 

Ultimately, if a Tanev trade was to happen. We absolutely have to get a 1st rnd pick in return as part of the deal IMO as a Tanev trade signifies a the direction the team would head (to the bottom of the standings like a rock in water), so multiple picks eaely in the draft is key. 

[Canuck Surfer]

Just who replaces Tanev in the line up if we trade Tanev > Larsson? There is rebuilding. And there is descending into a pit.  Tanev is also young enough he'll still be in his prime before we come out the other end. He's a keeper!

 

Sorry.  Bad concept is bad concept.

[Nuxfanabroad]

8 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Just who replaces Tanev in the line up if we trade Tanev > Larsson? There is rebuilding. And there is descending into a pit.  Tanev is also young enough he'll still be in his prime before we come out the other end. He's a keeper!

 

Sorry.  Bad concept is bad concept.

Stecher, Gudbranson, Tryamkin.  depth: Biega, Subban

 

Left side we have Olli & Brisebois on the way.

 

Ultimately of our 6 daily, operational D. I'd like all of them to have a slapper ranging from good to heavy. I'd like at least FOUR of them to be able to knock a fwd HARD onto his wallet. & yes, they'd all best be able to move the puck, quickly & competently.

[Mathew Barzal]

Lawson Crouse seems like the prototypical Benning target.

 

Young, big bodied, high drafted, stagnating player who we can throw into top six duties.

 

Crouse + 1st (top 10 protected)

[Nuxfanabroad]

Just now, Mathew Barzal said:

Lawson Crouse seems like the prototypical Benning target.

 

Young, big bodied, high drafted, stagnating player who we can throw into top six duties.

 

Crouse + 1st.

That sounds pretty reasonable.

[Ghostsof1915]

Just because you can move a player doesn't mean you should.

 

1) He's injured.

2) We are not giving up our first this year unless the return is crazy. 

3) Edler and Sbisa are far more unreliable and inconsistent. I'd rather get a lesser return and get addition by substraction. 

 

In short, as Gudbranson isn't settled in yet, nor is Larsen. We don't know where Trymakin or Stetcher fits yet. 

There's too many question marks to trade one of our few reliable stay at home defenders. 

So don't hold your breath on us making any trades this year. 

 

Horvat would bring a big value back, should we trade him too? 

[Nuxfanabroad]

2 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Just because you can move a player doesn't mean you should.

 

1) He's injured.

2) We are not giving up our first this year unless the return is crazy. 

3) Edler and Sbisa are far more unreliable and inconsistent. I'd rather get a lesser return and get addition by substraction. 

 

In short, as Gudbranson isn't settled in yet, nor is Larsen. We don't know where Trymakin or Stetcher fits yet. 

There's too many question marks to trade one of our few reliable stay at home defenders. 

So don't hold your breath on us making any trades this year. 

 

you're a sharp poster, Ghosts, & I like your product.

 

That said, I'm looking from the potential counterpart's pov..not ours.

Just say we go on to lose, for another long stretch. Would basically render this season as done-deal. Don't have to peer deeply into this here tunnel to see darkness.

Upside to me is represented by flipping some assets for youth. Enjoy watching young teams rise together.

[Ghostsof1915]

14 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

you're a sharp poster, Ghosts, & I like your product.

 

That said, I'm looking from the potential counterpart's pov..not ours.

Just say we go on to lose, for another long stretch. Would basically render this season as done-deal. Don't have to peer deeply into this here tunnel to see darkness.

Upside to me is represented by flipping some assets for youth. Enjoy watching young teams rise together.

 

I get that you want to improve the team. But to use the Leafs as an example (gack). They traded away Phaneuf who was supposedly un-tradeable. But they kept Gardiner and Rielly, and Van Riemsdyk (yes he's a forward, but a productive one). Why? Because they needed something to build around. Tanev is a guy you can put on any of the 3 lines as a d-man. Hutton, Gudbranson, and Try, Stetcher are fine as well. It's the unreliable, and unproductive guys we need to part with. It's not always about the highest return. It's the best return. 

 

Tanev is not the problem, nor is he the solution in trading him. 

[billabong]

I'm only on team trade tanev if we get legit 22 yr old top 6 forward we can't get anyway else

 

drouin, draisaitl, landeskog...

[Phil_314]

15 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I get that you want to improve the team. But to use the Leafs as an example (gack). They traded away Phaneuf who was supposedly un-tradeable. But they kept Gardiner and Rielly, and Van Riemsdyk (yes he's a forward, but a productive one). Why? Because they needed something to build around. Tanev is a guy you can put on any of the 3 lines as a d-man. Hutton, Gudbranson, and Try, Stetcher are fine as well. It's the unreliable, and unproductive guys we need to part with. It's not always about the highest return. It's the best return. 

 

Tanev is not the problem, nor is he the solution in trading him. 

I get the notion of keeping good guys to build around and fully support it, as without the foundation formerly bottomed-out teams (e.g. Oilers, Panthers, Blue Jackets) have seen prospects spoiled due to rushing and lack of roster insulation.  However, as you pointed out there are other players already on the blue-line on the right side who are "fine" and productive as well (namely Troy and Guddy), and looking at the roster there is IMO already a foundation to build around, composed of players throughout the roster (italics denotes older vets insulating the youth but who should be moved soon before they pass their best before date if the right deal comes along, while bold denotes youth to allow to develop and form the next generation).  

Danny, Hank, Hansen, Sven, Bo, Eriksson, Sutter (Jake, Rodin? Granlund???); Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Gudbranson, Stecher, Tryamkin; Miller, Markstrom 

 

While some guys are question marks, on a rebuilding team it's fine to allow for some growing pains to fully allow these players to come to fruition in their development, and from the list above IMO the forward group is and has been in need of reinforcements for some time now.  Short of Boeser (and maybe Stukel/ Brett McKenzie, depending on how rosy your glasses are) fact is the future forward group is pretty shallow, while the back end is arguably not short of ready candidates to log minutes.  On a team that should be looking forward to the future and seeking to address the imminent need to replace both Twins' production in relatively short order, let's also be real that trading dead weights won't result in much of a return, and it takes quality assets to get quality back.  

In short, I agree that trading him won't fix the team as an individual move, but that it should come as part of a movement to shed vets to acquire quality as the team thinks more for the future, as that's what the team needs to do.  Writing is on the wall, the team is bottoming, and I think that though he's not the problem he can be part of the team's overall solution moving forward, despite it meaning he could end up on another team.        

[Nuxfanabroad]

^ well stated, Phil. Lazy to type(just the lazy-type!), but you've basically brushed the colours off my palette.

[cripplereh]

I would have to say he stays here unless a great offer for a 25 to 30 goal scorer comes up!

[SaintPatrick33]

Apparently Friedman, one of the leading insiders of the NHL, stated that if Tanev were to be made available there would be "tons of interest"

 

This means teams would be willing to give up some great assets for him. As @billabong stated, if we get a young stud who has some dangle, let er rip JB!

[Nuxfanabroad]

OJ  ..TS

Tryamkin ..EG

 

Why not go fwd with this set as our foundation?

 

Got to add to the stock of forwards.

[SilentSam]

5 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Just who replaces Tanev in the line up if we trade Tanev > Larsson? There is rebuilding. And there is descending into a pit.  Tanev is also young enough he'll still be in his prime before we come out the other end. He's a keeper!

 

Sorry.  Bad concept is bad concept.

Hey Surfer,. I think Stetcher has proved he can replace Tanev if he is moved. He has great value to us to get the offensive power we need. Chris would do better on another team and would probably be targeted to hit and injured less than he is here.

I think Pedan would come up to cover the 7 spot.

My big city wish is E Kane for Tanev.. Buffalo absorbing some of the salary.. as Tanev's salary is reasonable.. but his NTC comes into play next year.

[Nuxfanabroad]

2 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Hey Surfer,. I think Stetcher has proved he can replace Tanev if he is moved. He has great value to us to get the offensive power we need. Chris would do better on another team and would probably be targeted to hit and injured less than he is here.

I think Pedan would come up to cover the 7 spot.

My big city wish is E Kane for Tanev.. Buffalo absorbing some of the salary.. as Tanev's salary is reasonable.. but his NTC comes into play next year.

That's an interesting(but risky) proposal. Heard Buff want LH-D. I'd do Edler for this troublemaker..but would want more for Tanev.

[Junkyard Dog]

If Toronto feels that they could move younger assets to help this team transition now and moving forward then Tanev would be a good piece for them to acquire. They are tied in 2nd for most goals against.

 

We wouldn't get any of MNM and perhaps not their 1st but they have other good pieces like two 2nd round picks in 2017 and two 2nd round picks in 2018. On top of that they have some good prospects. They have a lot of young assets.

 

If we wanted to go into a rebuild, which we should want, then the Leafs would be a good team to deal Tanev to.

 

Dallas and Philly are also giving up a lot of goals as well.

[cripplereh]

to me if we move tanev would be a good fit with the blue jackets and we get Jenner or Saad  either straight across or give them back their 2nd and get a 4th in return or something to that effect

[DownUndaCanuck]

I'd hold off on trading Tanev or Edler until we've got the #1 or #2 pick in the draft secured for Liljegren. That kid is going to be a Norris winner, Karlsson-type player and if we can snag him we may as well get rid of our current top-2 defencemen, let Hutton, Gudbranson and one of Edler/Tanev play the majority of minutes until Juolevi, Liljegren, Tryamkin, (maybe Subban) and Stecher are in their primes. That's as good a defensive unit as they come. Lots of puck movers, not many shutdown D-men so I'd rather trade away Edler and keep Tanev.