[Speculation] Tanev to Toronto (Scott Cullen)

[Alflives]

52 minutes ago, cripplereh said:

why would we want kane?? wait till he is free,right now we need to rebuild and not give up 2 to 3 good prospects,that would kill our team to get a guy that has issues

 

 

we are still rebuilding and have been for a couple years so we can not trade for the likes of a Kane,Reinhart or anything till we have a good team and extra players that will not get a chance with us, then and only then do we trade for a younger player that has upside or guy with two years and becomes a UFA.

 

Good building starts with good young players and we have some but not enough to make deals to get ahead and that is it we want to get ahead, trading now would not do that

If good building is like you say, then what in the heck was JB doing trading picks/prospects away for guys like Dorset, Sutter, Baer, and Gudbranson?  I really like your post, but your points have me kind of POed at JB:(

[Salacious Crumb]

33 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If good building is like you say, then what in the heck was JB doing trading picks/prospects away for guys like Dorset, Sutter, Baer, and Gudbranson?  I really like your post, but your points have me kind of POed at JB:(

Why waste the energy on negativity? In many threads you have posted about JB being told what to do by ownership. If anything your anger is misguided and should be directed at FA et al.

 

It is what it is Alf, we've been fans for almost 5 decades and seen the ebbs and flows of success (mostly ebbs then). Let's just hope we see a cup before we hit the dirt. Let's stay positive and hope we can build off the recent change in organizational philosophy. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Salacious Crumb said:

Why waste the energy on negativity? In many threads you have posted about JB being told what to do by ownership. If anything your anger is misguided and should be directed at FA et al.

 

It is what it is Alf, we've been fans for almost 5 decades and seen the ebbs and flows of success (mostly ebbs then). Let's just hope we see a cup before we hit the dirt. Let's stay positive and hope we can build off the recent change in organizational philosophy. 

You are the wisest of us Muppets.  

[Salacious Crumb]

39 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You are the wisest of us Muppets.  

Thank you for the compliment - you are far too kind.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Salacious Crumb said:

Thank you for the compliment - you are far too kind.

[shiznak]

4 hours ago, D-Money said:

That's what I thought too. Connor Carrick is really underrated around here. Everyone seems to want Kapanen + 1st, but CC is at least equivalent value to KK. Add in Leipsic, and it's a good deal for an injury-prone D-man, for a team desperate for skilled prospects.

I would much rather have Andrew Nielsen.

 

He reminds me of a young Dion Phaneuf. Big, tough, two-way defensemen, who can chip in offensively (14 goals in his first pro season), and he can play both sides. He has really skyrocketed up Toronto's prospect depth chart, and IMO, is their best defensive prospect, surpassing Dermott.

[D-Money]

11 minutes ago, shiznak said:

I would much rather have Andrew Nielsen.

 

He reminds me of a young Dion Phaneuf. Big, tough, two-way defensemen, who can chip in offensively (14 goals in his first pro season), and he can play both sides. He has really skyrocketed up Toronto's prospect depth chart, and IMO, is their best defensive prospect, surpassing Dermott.

Agreed. Would rather have Dermott or Nielsen. But if that's possible, it wouldn't happen until after the expansion draft.

[cripplereh]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

If good building is like you say, then what in the heck was JB doing trading picks/prospects away for guys like Dorset, Sutter, Baer, and Gudbranson?  I really like your post, but your points have me kind of POed at JB:(

they tried to make the team fight for a playoff spot and all three are still rather young so moving older guys and getting theres are something at the time that needed to be done, but now unless we can trade a D man or something that will help now then we can and should, but to give up to much for a Kane or Reinhart makes no sense yet for us

 

and the owners finally see this and that is why they said a rebuild now instead of trying to make the playoffs

[oldnews]

13 hours ago, cuporbust said:

Leipsic looks like he has decent numbers. I dunno. That with a young d man and a first round pick? Seems good to me. 

"Seems good to me" isn't really the grounds upon which you want to deal your best defenseman though.  If you're moving an asset like that, is it worth addressing the team's actual needs - as opposed to simply accepting a collection of parts, the sum of which seems to be ok value.

 

Leipsic is a talented, small forward, but where are you going to play Leipsic?  What makes (another) small left winger like Leipsic a good fit for the Canucks?

What makes Connor Carrick a good fit for this team?  In addition, Carrick is expansion eligible, so acquiring him leaves either him or Sbisa exposed in which case you potentially lose Tanev - and one of those two defensemen.  How does the return look if that happens?

If we're going to take another step backwards and deal Tanev, it arguably makes more sense to acquire prospects and picks and forego a guy like Carrick.  

[Honky Cat]

21 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

The opinions differ in terms of Tanev's value. Some suggest his value is higher than Larsson's. Some take the position that Tanev's value is lower than Larsson's. Would not mind to add something to Tanev, maybe a 2nd round pick or a winger (Boucher, Goldobin). It really depends would the Floridas GM considers to be a fair return for Barkov...

Will it be a buyers market for Tanev?...Or a sellers market..?...I'm going with the latter....We may as well keep him if were not going to get the desired return...All we can do as fans is speculate.

[oldnews]

8 hours ago, D-Money said:

He wasn't used in an offensive role with the Leafs this season. But he had 18 points in 15 games in last year's Calder Cup playoffs. His OHL and WJC numbers were also impressive.

 

The potential is most certainly there.

Carrick had 57.8% offensive zone starts this year - the highest on the Leafs blueline - and was both sheltered and paired with Gardiner for the most part (who scored 43 pts to Carrick's 8).  You might expect a bit more trickle down production from Carrick in those minutes and circumstances.  Imo his production was disappointing.

 

When push came to shove (the playoffs)  Babcock didn't really trust Carrick - didn't use him much even with injuries to RHD Polak and Zaitsev. 

I like Carrick (obviously - have him in a few fantasy leagues) - but to suggest that he wasn't used in an offensive role is pretty misleading imo - and he may translate his AHL upside at the NHL level at some point -  but he hasn't at this point - and there is a real possibility that he doesn't.  

I personally am not that keen to see him as a D piece in a Tanev deal.  If his production/puck continues not to translate - then he's a smallish, chippy, sort of offensive blueliner whose bread and butter is....what?

Does he have the upside and the defensive sense/intelligence that Troy Stecher does?    Doesn't really look like it.

Personally I think prospects makes more sense, particularly with the implications of the ED.

[Wolfgang Durst]

18 hours ago, timberz21 said:

If we were a contender, ask yourself would you trade Horvat to acquire Tanev????   That is what you are asking of Florida by proposing Barkov for Tanev.

1.

Yes, I would. Just look at Edmonton last summer. Most people around the NHL were wondering: what the hell is Chiarelli doing trading such a cornerstone like Taylor Hall away to get a player like Adam Larsson? Yes, it turned out that Chiarelli was right,  finally.  The Oilers did  not  only  made  the playoff there also made it to the second round of the playoffs. Some GM's around the league will take that as a good example, how they can shake up things and improve their overall roster. What do we  learn  about the Oiler 's

example? It's all about the right balance in quality, at the backend and at forward.

 

2.

GM's would not only look at the fact that Tanev is a RHD they would also consider Tanev's contract. If I  remember correctly his contract is worth 4.375 Mio. $ which is pretty

valuable. Especially teams facing cap space trouble would take this into consideration. Other RHD in the league of Tanev's calibre earn much more than the mentioned 4.4

Mio. $ and would require more cap space.

 

3.

I am talking about Barkov, who is based on the numbers he put up, not an elite 1C. I consider players like Draisaitl (77 points), Mc David (100 points), Auston Matthews as

elite 1C. Based on the numbers Barkov is far away from those players mentioned (he put up 55 points).

 

4.

Panthers are deep at C, they have two pretty good C in Trochek and Marchessault and some other complimentary Centres like Bjugstad. They really can afford it to surrender a player like Barkov in return for Tanev.

 

5.

Panthers ranked 20th in goal against for the season 2016/2017. A D-Man like Tanev, who is considered to be a shutdown D-Man around the league,  would definitely provide some help in getting less goals against.

 

Personally I think those are some pretty good arguments why a trade Tanev for Barkov straight is not that  far off. Would like to hear some arguments from you........!

 

[Wolfgang Durst]

On 16.5.2017 at 11:11 AM, Junkyard Dog said:

It is a lot easier to argue why Larsson holds more value.

 

He is just as reliable defensively, younger/more promising, brings in a significant physical presence and has been relatively healthy over the past few years unlike our Tanev.

 

All of which he does on a better contract. Larsson isn't night and day better than Tanev but he brings more to the table than Tanev does.

 

Barkov is also Florida's 1C and and was drafted in the same year as Horvat. He is way more valueable than Tanev. Florida would hang up.

 

 

I like this quote from you much more than your 1st quote (LOL). At least we reached the level of exchanging some thougths (pro's can con's). That's pretty good....... Love it.

[timberz21]

8 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

1.

Yes, I would. Just look at Edmonton last summer. Most people around the NHL were wondering: what the hell is Chiarelli doing trading such a cornerstone like Taylor Hall away to get a player like Adam Larsson? Yes, it turned out that Chiarelli was right,  finally.  The Oilers did  not  only  made  the playoff there also made it to the second round of the playoffs. Some GM's around the league will take that as a good example, how they can shake up things and improve their overall roster. What do we  learn  about the Oiler 's

example? It's all about the right balance in quality, at the backend and at forward.

 

2.

GM's would not only look at the fact that Tanev is a RHD they would also consider Tanev's contract. If I  remember correctly his contract is worth 4.375 Mio. $ which is pretty

valuable. Especially teams facing cap space trouble would take this into consideration. Other RHD in the league of Tanev's calibre earn much more than the mentioned 4.4

Mio. $ and would require more cap space.

 

3.

I am talking about Barkov, who is based on the numbers he put up, not an elite 1C. I consider players like Draisaitl (77 points), Mc David (100 points), Auston Matthews as

elite 1C. Based on the numbers Barkov is far away from those players mentioned (he put up 55 points).

 

4.

Panthers are deep at C, they have two pretty good C in Trochek and Marchessault and some other complimentary Centres like Bjugstad. They really can afford it to surrender a player like Barkov in return for Tanev.

 

5.

Panthers ranked 20th in goal against for the season 2016/2017. A D-Man like Tanev, who is considered to be a shutdown D-Man around the league,  would definitely provide some help in getting less goals against.

 

Personally I think those are some pretty good arguments why a trade Tanev for Barkov straight is not that  far off. Would like to hear some arguments from you........!

 

1. Hall is a unidimensional offensive, dispensable and with a reputation of being somewhat of a selfish player.  With Draitsail and McDavid coming up, the Oilers had plenty of offense to spare and it took Hall to fill a big need.  Not a lot of other team have that luxury.    Horvat and Barkov are much more well-rounded and offer more intangible than Hall and IMO more valuable, but that's me.  But still, Larsson is similar to Tanev, but more physical, more durable, and most importantly much younger with a good pedigree, hence the good return.

 

2. Look around shut-down, 2nd pairing, defensive defenceman, Tanev is not a bargain, he's right in the ballpark of fair market value.   Hjalmarsson 4.1, Vlasic,  4.25, Methot, 4.9, Ekholm, 3.75, McDonaugh 4.7, Savard 4.25.

 

3.  I wouldn't put Draitsail in the same league as McDavid or Matthews, he had a pretty good year, mostly playing with McDavid and had great playoff without playing with McDavid but he a notch under IMO.  Maybe Barkov had 25 pts less than Draitsail, but he also had 21 less games played and played most of the year without his #1 LW Huberdeau.

 

4. Maybe you don't consider Barkov and elite 1C, but i'm pretty sure the Panthers does.  Marchessault had 1 good season and you don't trade Barkov to make room for him if it's not guaranteed he can repeat.  None of them has 1C potential like Barkov. 

 

5.  If Florida was 20th in goals, why in the hell would they trade their #1 forward player???    It only going to get worst.   Tanev is a shutdown defenseman, he's not a goalie, he didn't prevent the Canucks from having one of the worst goal against in the league.

 

 

Neway, just glad your are not our GM, losing Horvat for a guy like Tanev, I would officially change allegiance.

[stawns]

12 hours ago, oldnews said:

Carrick had 57.8% offensive zone starts this year - the highest on the Leafs blueline - and was both sheltered and paired with Gardiner for the most part (who scored 43 pts to Carrick's 8).  You might expect a bit more trickle down production from Carrick in those minutes and circumstances.  Imo his production was disappointing.

 

When push came to shove (the playoffs)  Babcock didn't really trust Carrick - didn't use him much even with injuries to RHD Polak and Zaitsev. 

I like Carrick (obviously - have him in a few fantasy leagues) - but to suggest that he wasn't used in an offensive role is pretty misleading imo - and he may translate his AHL upside at the NHL level at some point -  but he hasn't at this point - and there is a real possibility that he doesn't.  

I personally am not that keen to see him as a D piece in a Tanev deal.  If his production/puck continues not to translate - then he's a smallish, chippy, sort of offensive blueliner whose bread and butter is....what?

Does he have the upside and the defensive sense/intelligence that Troy Stecher does?    Doesn't really look like it.

Personally I think prospects makes more sense, particularly with the implications of the ED.

Carrick was awful in the playoffs........his true ability was exposed, imo.  Not with a 39 and a half foot pole

[tas]

I'm sorry but when did scott cullen stop being a glorified data entry clerk and become a hockey analyst?

[Kungfudru]

On 2017-05-16 at 4:06 AM, SabreFan1 said:

If he had a choice, I think SR would prefer to be a centreman, but when it comes down to it he'll stay here in Buffalo as long as he gets the contract money that he is looking for after next season.

 

He's worth more than people on CDC want to give for him, but fair trades for any team on CDC are rare.  If SR ever does make his way to Vancouver for use as a centre in the future, he'll need some serious time in practice on the faceoff dot to get used to draws again.

What's a fair trade for SR in your opinion.  Tanev good enough? 

[SabreFan1]

2 minutes ago, Kungfudru said:

What's a fair trade for SR in your opinion.  Tanev good enough? 

Tanev doesn't with fit the Sabres' long term needs.  I'd explain more, but I've gone over it on CDC why he doesn't quite a few times already. 

 

With what the Canucks have that the Sabres would want they would have to overpay for SR in order to get him.  The Canucks aren't in a position to overpay for anything.

[Honky Cat]

3 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

Tanev doesn't with fit the Sabres' long term needs.  I'd explain more, but I've gone over it on CDC why he doesn't quite a few times already. 

 

With what the Canucks have that the Sabres would want they would have to overpay for SR in order to get him.  The Canucks aren't in a position to overpay for anything.

I'm going to disagree with you here (even though you are a sabres fan).."long term" is not in the Sabres plans (their rebuild is done..it went sideways..there is no 'long term') ..Their fans have been patient long enough,and they've been at the the top of the draft for several years....I'm pretty sure the owner and management are on a  'win now',make the playoffs at all costs...The Oilers and Leafs have both made bold moves to get to the next level,and have made the next step...the Sabres are in no position to have another season go south

[Angry Goose]

deal tanev to recoup the 5th and 6th picks the Canucks dont have ha j/k