Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

2018 NHL Entry Draft


Zfetch

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Petterrson's Dangle said:

Great, your opinion is not 'fact'....clearly our defensive group was alot better with Tanev in it and if you're suggesting Suckera, Benning, or Russell are as good or better than Tanev perhaps you should look up their advanced stats.

 

Its clear you're making assumptions not based on actual data. If you think any of those players are as effective as tanev you are sadly mistaken.

 

Especially when you consider zone starts, give aways/take away ratio and quality of competition. The advanced stats don't lie. And please don't come back with 'cherry picked' data. When you look at all those players advanced stats OVERALL, Tanev is far superior defensively to all of them. 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like these stats, when used to support the eye test.  Watching Tanev clearly shows he’s elite as a shut down Dman, and one of the very best in the world.  The stats clearly support that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

I like these stats, when used to support the eye test.  Watching Tanev clearly shows he’s elite as a shut down Dman, and one of the very best in the world.  The stats clearly support that.

This is where advanced stats help. As verification or refuting 'eye test' opinions. Often people say this guy is better than that guy or he sucks (Virtanen), but when you consider how a player is being deployed, their competition, how they affect the other team and game (which stats show), often that opinion that this guy is not that good or he sucks is refuted. Or in the case of Hannafin, not as good as people perceive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Petterrson's Dangle said:

Suggesting you look at advanced statistics that prove  tanev is by far a superior defensive defensman is a "strawman argument' to you?

 

ook

 

:lol:

Suggesting that I ever said russell is anywhere near tanev’s level is exactly what a strawman is. No where did i even remotely suggest that.  But as I said when your argument gets destroyed are free to make up what ever statements you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Suggesting that I ever said russell is anywhere near tanev’s level is exactly what a strawman is. No where did i even remotely suggest that.  But as I said when your argument gets destroyed are free to make up what ever statements you want. 

your argument was edmonton does not need tanev, common sense says that you believe their Right D's are as good or better than Tanev. 

 

Take care 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Petterrson's Dangle said:

This is where advanced stats help. As verification or refuting 'eye test' opinions. Often people say this guy is better than that guy or he sucks (Virtanen), but when you consider how a player is being deployed, their competition, how they affect the other team and game (which stats show), often that opinion that this guy is not that good or he sucks is refuted. Or in the case of Hannafin, not as good as people perceive.

I remember Pierre Maguire talking about players some fans loved, and saying something about combining watching the guy actually play, and looking at the stats, and the fans will see the player they liked so much (grass is greener hype) is really not that good at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

I remember Pierre Maguire talking about players some fans loved, and saying something about combining watching the guy actually play, and looking at the stats, and the fans will see the player they liked so much (grass is greener hype) is really not that good at all.  

That's because most fans miss the 'little' things players do to win games. Players like tanev, do those little things, and irrespective of whether his team wins or loses, the advanced stats uncover that reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Using Goals against as logic for needing tanev does not equate to need. Unless you forgot how bad Talbot played. Or you forgot that sekeras was injured for half the year or you completely whiffed not knowing that klefbom was also injured and only playing at about 60%. there is a reason why gm already public stated what they are looking for. A player like tanev was no one of them. And if you really want to look at the eye test. Take a look at what there d core consist of. A lot of players in the same mold of tanev. Hence why they arent looking for a player like him. 

actually it appears you did say they are as good or better than tanev - implied - take care. pleases don't change your arguments - they are already stated and easy to quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Petterrson's Dangle said:

your argument was edmonton does not need tanev, common sense says that you believe their Right D's are as good or better than Tanev. 

 

Take care 

Quite the long stretch you made there. Sounds like common sense isn’t your strong suit.

 

You should stick to suggesting marky and Sven could land cizikas and a top 15 pick, hahaha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

What ever helps you sleep better at night. Now stop derailing this thread. your bogus trade proposals belong in the white noise section not the draft thread. 

This proposal is a good one.  Plus, Tanev is one heck of good player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

You want RNH at Six mil Cap hit on the wing in our top six?  

I wouldn't mind him. Considering our current options, ya bring him in if the price is right lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cyoung said:

I wouldn't mind him. Considering our current options, ya bring him in if the price is right lol. 

He is a local boy.  I remember how good Cliff Ronning played for us.  He would have died for the team.  Maybe RNH could play harder for his home town team?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

He is a local boy.  I remember how good Cliff Ronning played for us.  He would have died for the team.  Maybe RNH could play harder for his home town team?  

He plays pretty hard man, I don't know where you've gotten this Idea of him. He's a strong two way player who puts up decent offensive numbers... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cyoung said:

He plays pretty hard man, I don't know where you've gotten this Idea of him. He's a strong two way player who puts up decent offensive numbers... 

RNH is a hard player?  Okay, but I don’t see that watching him.  

I would take him here, but only on a fair trade, and the Oilers retain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

This proposal is a good one.  Plus, Tanev is one heck of good player.  

No one said tanev isn’t a good player. Proposals involve two teams. You need to fullfill the needs of the other teams. In order to do that you actually need to look at there rosters. Look at what skill sets they have and what they are missing. Then you have to look at the value. 

 

 it would be like suggesting canucks giving up our 7th overall for grubauer just because our GAA was bad. And since he has a better save % it’s justifiable. Sorry but that’s not how value works. 

 

Again this debate does not belong in this thread it’s been ripped apart 1000 x’s in other threads that you’ve been apart of. You’ve seen the logic. The gm has made it clear what the team need. Anyone who’s watched them know what that team needs. Tanev is not a need of there’s. Would he improve there team sure he’d improve any team. But that doesn’t mean teams are all of the sudden willing to pay a high price for.  What makes the 1001 time this propsal is made any better?  Nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No one said tanev isn’t a good player. Proposals involve two teams. You need to fullfill the needs of the other teams. In order to do that you actually need to look at there rosters. Look at what skill sets they have and what they are missing. Then you have to look at the value. 

 

 it would be like suggesting canucks giving up our 7th overall for grubauer just because our GAA was bad. And since he has a better save % it’s justifiable. Sorry but that’s not how value works. 

 

Again this debate does not belong in this thread it’s been ripped apart 1000 x’s in other threads that you’ve been apart of. You’ve seen the logic. The gm has made it clear what the team need. Anyone who’s watched them know what that team needs. Tanev is not a need of there’s. Would he improve there team sure he’d improve any team. But that doesn’t mean teams are all of the sudden willing to pay a high price for.  What makes the 1001 time this propsal is made any better?  Nothing. 

This is your opinion.  

I don’t really care about the other teams’ needs and wants, or how they value our players compared to their players.  These proposals are not real!  It’s all made up!  It’s for fun!  It’s a Canuck’s board, so I would expect our team’s point of view to override the other teams, wouldn’t you?  

Again, it’s not like any of the trade proposals discussed here are real, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...