The Case for Trading Chris Tanev

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, oldnews said:

I'm not a fan of this reasoning.

Selling Tanev imo is a bad idea if as you suggest the market is a buyer's market / values negatively impacted by ED.  Dealing Tanev also makes this team a whole lot less respectable and imbalanced imo - no one holds the group together quite like his presence - that is unless you're looking forward to crushed confidence and lining up for lottery picks.

 

I think there are other factors to look at and boiling it down to simply return isn't the way to look at it, particularly in the short term.

A lot of teams are going to lose an asset in expansion - and the market could shift quite dramatically to a seller's market as competitive teams look to replenish what they lost, some of them, very good players.  The relative difference in Tanev's value could represent a significant loss.

In addition, the relative value of a guy like Edler vs Tanev is not likely to remain a constant - Tanev is 26, with three years of term remaining.  Edler is 30, with 2, (and a number of significant, limiting injuries in his past - unfortunately not the player he was and unlikely to be again.)   You have lots of time if your intention is to deal Tanev in the end.  Edler on the other hand....

 

I think the wiser thing to do is retain Tanev and resolve to move Edler, whether it's before or at the ED.  I disagree that age and NTC complicate matters too much in an already... That to me sounds like you're talking yourself into a preference to use Tanev to add a forward.  

It's a crossroads imo and one way or another, Edler looks to be the most obvious rebuild move - and if you retain Edler, you sure as hell may as well retain Tanev as well.   For me, it's a LHD that's got to move by ED - and that comes down to Edler or Sbisa.  If you're going to lose on someone, you take the loss there as opposed to on Tanev's value - for a number of reasons.

 

And how much of a loss is it?  

You're going to lose an asset regardless.  You're also not going to get a blockbuster return on Edler regardless.

Hypothetically, if you can 'only' get the equivalent of a 2nd for Edler - imo a giveaway even under the circumstances, but for spitball sake, say you get a 2nd for Edler (as opposed to a late pick as you suggest for Sbisa - or adding to Tanev to get a forward - which I think is no longer a wise move given the shift of balance in losing Tryamkin and adding Dahlen, Goldobin and a top 5 likely forward.

So you get a 2nd for Edler - you manage to retain Sbisa - and you potentiallu sign a UFA - say a guy like ?Kulikov?.

Would I deal Edler for Kulikov one for one?  I dunno, maybe under the circumstances.  Would I like to retain Sbisa - yes.  Is the 2nd therefore such a loss?  Maybe not so much.  The same/similar scenario can be played out with Tanev or Sbisa of course, but I think the timeline to move Edler is far more sensitive than Tanev - the ED is the imperative (and also does not require him waiving for him to be moved).

Again, I wouldn't move Tanev if it represents taking a major loss on his value. I think he's the one most likely to retain value despite the ED. That is specifically why I suggest him over Edler. I think he likely receives less comparable value back in trade ahead of the ED. 

 

I don't move either if I don't get value. 

 

If we can get Edler to waive his NTC and find a team he approves and get 'decent' value from them, by all means his age etc make him a more likely target to move for rebuilding team. Just seems like there's a lot of hurdles there to make that work and likely for less relative value.  All options should be explored though. 

 

But make no mistake, moving either will represent 'looking forward to crushed confidence and lining up for lottery picks.'

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

Philly's gonna give us their mid 1st for Edler.

They have some UFAs (MDZ and Schultz) = some holes opening up - and McDonald is....(not very good = a bad contract)

And a lot of young D - Provorov, Morin, Gostisbehere, Hagg. 

They could use a veteran top 4 D and have always loved Edler.

The price for D is only going to rise after ED - teams will be looking to fill losses / holes....

They only really have Gost and Gudas to protect - opportune time for them to shop is now.

Edler waiving for Philly..?

[riffraff]

13 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Edler waiving for Philly..?

As far as the NHL is concerned I couldn't think of a more opposite city to Vancouver.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Assuming Ottawa doesn't get past the 3rd rd, I could see Edler going there.

-Burr paves the way

-Familiarity with Karlsson

-low key market, likely suits him

 

There's talk Ott may lose Methot at ED. Problem there is their picks have been cleaned out, pretty much.

 

Mtl or Ott seem like decent targets.

[Derp...]

If weee moving Tanev we need to get back more than what we payed for Gudbranson. Otherwise JB will look silly for giving up the better Dman for less return. 

 

If we do get a 1 year deal done for Gudbranson, I could see us moving him at the deadline instead of Tanev next season.

[Baggins]

23 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Again, I wouldn't move Tanev if it represents taking a major loss on his value. I think he's the one most likely to retain value despite the ED. That is specifically why I suggest him over Edler. I think he likely receives less comparable value back in trade ahead of the ED. 

 

I don't move either if I don't get value. 

 

If we can get Edler to waive his NTC and find a team he approves and get 'decent' value from them, by all means his age etc make him a more likely target to move for rebuilding team. Just seems like there's a lot of hurdles there to make that work and likely for less relative value.  All options should be explored though. 

 

But make no mistake, moving either will represent 'looking forward to crushed confidence and lining up for lottery picks.'

We'd get better value for Tanev. In all likelihood if Edler waived he do it to go to a contender. Those teams are already deep on D and he'd possibly be exposed to the ED. Tanev on the other doesn't have an NTC and could be moved to any team capable of protecting him. It's a bidding war (Tanev) versus a select few (Edler). Tanev would bring the best return.

[messier's_elbow]

Seems like a lot of you guys want to make a trade just for the sake of making a deal. Hard no on trading Tanev unless it's for a young stud forward. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

We'd get better value for Tanev. In all likelihood if Edler waived he do it to go to a contender. Those teams are already deep on D and he'd possibly be exposed to the ED. Tanev on the other doesn't have an NTC and could be moved to any team capable of protecting him. It's a bidding war (Tanev) versus a select few (Edler). Tanev would bring the best return.

Exactly. IF there's a deal to move a D ahead of the ED that actually nets us a return, It's Tanev.  A team might actually pay close to what he's worth and be able to protect him without any limits on what team that might be.

 

I don't see that happening with Edler or sbisa.

 

If there isn't a decent deal for Tanev out there... well then they've got some hard decisions to make.

 

Seems like a lot of you guys want to make a trade just for the sake of making a deal. Hard no on trading Tanev unless it's for a young stud forward. 

We're quite likely losing a D (Sbisa) for nothing if we don't make a trade. It's not 'for the sake of making a deal'.

 

[theminister]

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Exactly. IF there's a deal to move a D ahead of the ED that actually nets us a return, It's Tanev.  A team might actually pay close to what he's worth and be able to protect him without any limits on what team that might be.

 

I don't see that happening with Edler or sbisa.

 

If there isn't a decent deal for Tanev out there... well then they've got some hard decisions to make.

 

We're quite likely losing a D (Sbisa) for nothing if we don't make a trade. It's not 'for the sake of making a deal'.

 

This would only hold true if a couple of conditions were met though, right?

 

1) The interested team has to view Tanev as the better player, better fit for their roster, than any of the other names available (Fowler/Vatanen, Brodin/Scandella/Dumba, Hickey/DeHaan, J. Johnson, etc)

 

2) The cost to acquire Tanev is of commensurate value to the aforementioned players, with there being a small opportunity cost from the extra player exposed.

 

To me, that's a big 'might.'

 

But I also consider the risk to exposing Sbisa being overblown. One, I think it's far from certain he'd be taken over a guy like Pedan, and two, losing him wouldn't be a major long term hit relative to the loses of other teams in the ED. He has one year left until UFA and the need to resign him is average at best IMO. Yes, it would be better to get an asset for him, now it at the TDL this year, but it's a relatively minor consideration all told. 

 

If we are going into the hypothetical, which teams do you see having a desire to add a protected D? Who is the next player they expose because if it? Can you find even 5 reasonable fits for a player like Tanev?

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, theminister said:

This would only hold true if a couple of conditions were met though, right?

 

1) The interested team has to view Tanev as the better player, better fit for their roster, than any of the other names available (Fowler/Vatanen, Brodin/Scandella/Dumba, Hickey/DeHaan, J. Johnson, etc)

 

2) The cost to acquire Tanev is of commensurate value to the aforementioned players, with there being a small opportunity cost from the extra player exposed.

 

To me, that's a big 'might.'

 

But I also consider the risk to exposing Sbisa being overblown. One, I think it's far from certain he'd be taken over a guy like Pedan, and two, losing him wouldn't be a major long term hit relative to the loses of other teams in the ED. He has one year left until UFA and the need to resign him is average at best IMO. Yes, it would be better to get an asset for him, now it at the TDL this year, but it's a relatively minor consideration all told. 

 

If we are going into the hypothetical, which teams do you see having a desire to add a protected D? Who is the next player they expose because if it? Can you find even 5 reasonable fits for a player like Tanev?

 

Never said it wasn't a big 'might'  But it's still the most likely 'might' of our three aforementioned D. That's basically my entire point.

 

Agree on Sbisa. It would be nice to not lose him for free but he's also relatively replaceable. Having Tryamkin still here, even more so.

 

Honestly, haven't had a lot of time to look in to it but I know ARZ could protect him and according to Oldy, Philly has space as well. Not sure who else.

 

[cbdoubleu]

21 hours ago, Hank Moody said:

Then in 3-4 years when we're ready to compete for a playoff spot, we're looking at:

 

Player (Age)

 

Stecher (26) - Juolevi (22)

Hutton (27) - Liljegren/Foote (21)

Gudbranson (28) - Filler Dman/J. Subban

 

 

Guillaume Brisebois

 

Remember him?

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, cbdoubleu said:

 

Guillaume Brisebois

 

Remember him?

 

Hasn't played even a single game at the AHL level yet (granted for good reason - ain't old enough yet).  Probably just a tad early to pencil him in - even in 3 or 4 years.  Good numbers though (though remember it is in Quebec league - don't they tend to rack up numbers there? - I'll be honest I haven't seen him play even a single game)

[cbdoubleu]

1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Hasn't played even a single game at the AHL level yet (granted for good reason - ain't old enough yet).  Probably just a tad early to pencil him in - even in 3 or 4 years.  Good numbers though (though remember it is in Quebec league - don't they tend to rack up numbers there? - I'll be honest I haven't seen him play even a single game)

Fair enough, but you also have Stecher as a top pairing D man in 3 years which is a really homer opinion of Stecher. He's a good top 4 guy, but on a winnig team I just don't see Stecher as being an impact top pairing guy. It's too early to write him off, but I was not as impressed with Stecher as I was even with Hutton in his 1st year. And he's certainly no Juolevi, or Werenski, Chabot, etc. I think we still need to draft another true PP QB top pairing guy and probably lose either Hutton or Stecher at some point for more muscle and leadership in our top 4. 

 

There's also Tate Olson in the system who should be in the mix as well.

 

I'm still really high on Brisebois being a gem. Plays with a lot of heart, team captain on several teams. Nothing special offensively but if you're looking for a guy to be another leader out there.

[aGENT]

16 minutes ago, cbdoubleu said:

I'm still really high on Brisebois being a gem. Plays with a lot of heart, team captain on several teams. Nothing special offensively but if you're looking for a guy to be another leader out there.

*crosses fingers* Tanev replacement in a few years.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

23 minutes ago, cbdoubleu said:

Fair enough, but you also have Stecher as a top pairing D man in 3 years which is a really homer opinion of Stecher. He's a good top 4 guy, but on a winnig team I just don't see Stecher as being an impact top pairing guy. It's too early to write him off, but I was not as impressed with Stecher as I was even with Hutton in his 1st year. And he's certainly no Juolevi, or Werenski, Chabot, etc. I think we still need to draft another true PP QB top pairing guy and probably lose either Hutton or Stecher at some point for more muscle and leadership in our top 4. 

 

There's also Tate Olson in the system who should be in the mix as well.

 

I'm still really high on Brisebois being a gem. Plays with a lot of heart, team captain on several teams. Nothing special offensively but if you're looking for a guy to be another leader out there.

Can't never have enough D prospects (since not all of them will pan out).  Things don't look good now on the ice but at least there appears light at the end of the tunnel.

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, J.R. said:

Edler waiving for Philly..?

I don't know Edler like you do.

I also wonder if it's possible he'd waive for Tampa. 

Neither of those teams were 'contenders' last year, but they were in the playoff hunt.

I'm not going to pretend to approve or veto NTC waives here - this is clearly spitballing and we have no idea what the player would choose to do.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I don't know Edler like you do.

I also wonder if it's possible he'd waive for Tampa. 

Neither of those teams were 'contenders' last year, but they were in the playoff hunt.

I'm not going to pretend to approve or veto NTC waives here - this is clearly spitballing and we have no idea what the player would choose to do.

As you say, I have no idea either but if I had to make an educated guess, TBL would be waaaay ahead of PHI on a list of places he'd likely waive to.

[oldnews]

Just now, J.R. said:

As you say, I have no idea either but if I had to make an educated guess, TBL would be waaaay ahead of PHI on a list of places he'd likely waive to.

If you say so.

When it comes down to it I have literally no interest in shopping Tanev as some of you here do.

 

When the mindset is "Benning better get value for Tanev while he can" - I think you're all getting carried away with the idea that anyone over 26 yrs has go to go - cuz this here's a rebuild?

 

To me, this is a similar question to 'who do you deal - Hansen / Burrows - or Sutter?'

 

If we move a D, imo it should be either Edler - or Sbisa.   You believe the latter might get you a 4th or 5th - I don't necessarily agree with that - but I also think it's possible to move Edler under the circumstances and get a reasonable value.

 

On the other hand, this may be a circumstance where Edler upticks next year - as Burrows did this year - but bottom line for me is that Tanev is one of a few guys we should not be shopping.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

When the mindset is "Benning better get value for Tanev while he can" - I think you're all getting carried away with the idea that anyone over 26 yrs has go to go - cuz this here's a rebuild?

Nope. Mine boils down to (although, yes it will be a hard task in a crap market) that he's likely to return the best value despite the ED IF you can find a dance partner (no small task) so we don't lose a D for free if possible.

 

I also don't like how often he's ragdolled/injured and worry about that catching up to him, especially in the West. He also has an NTC that kicks in this July and he'll be the same age Edler is now by the time we're realistically contending again.

 

Plenty of incentive to move him if there's a deal.

 

By all means we should explore Edler as well (even preferably) but that's an even bigger 'mission impossible' than Tanev ahead of the ED.

 

If not, I'm fully prepared to move Sbisa for a bag of pucks/lose him for nothing.

[oldnews]

15 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Nope. Mine boils down to (although, yes it will be a hard task in a crap market) that he's likely to return the best value despite the ED IF you can find a dance partner (no small task) so we don't lose a D for free if possible.

 

I also don't like how often he's ragdolled/injured and worry about that catching up to him, especially in the West. He also has an NTC that kicks in this July and he'll be the same age Edler is now by the time we're realistically contending again.

 

Plenty of incentive to move him if there's a deal.

 

By all means we should explore Edler as well (even preferably) but that's an even bigger 'mission impossible' than Tanev ahead of the ED.

 

If not, I'm fully prepared to move Sbisa for a bag of pucks/lose him for nothing.

Just don't care for that reasoning J.R.  Trade a 26 yr old entering the heart of his prime because.....he'd get the best return.  Not going to go around on this but just don't find that convincing reasoning at all.  We'd probably get more for Sutter than Burrows as well - but makes no sense to me to deal a player boiled simply down to return.