(Discussion) Is there an appetite to re-acquire Chris Tanev?

[billabong]

The Calgary Flames may be exposing Tanev in the expansion draft and instead of losing him for nothing they may look to get something for him.

 

To Van: Tanev

 

To Cgy: 4th round pick 2022

 

Schmidt went for a 3rd so I think a 4th is reasonable

 

Tanev, 31, has 3 years left at 4.5m per year and can still play at a high level, but for how long is the real question. 

 

NOTE: This scenario involves holtby going to Seattle.

 

Schmidt-Hamonic

Hughes-Tanev

Rathbone-Myers

Juolevi-Bowey

 

[JM_]

if we could get Calgary to retain maybe, thats the only way it works with our cap. 

 

I hope they do expose him tho, it would make the F'Lames that much easier to play. 

[Chris12345]

No way. Move on.

[Phil_314]

If the cap works I say yes, esp. at that price.  Hughes needs a safety blanket to cover his mistakes and Tanev's one of the better mobile shutdown D-men out there (nothing against Hamonic but Tanev and Hughes looked good out there, and better the devil you know).  Having Schmidt and Hamonic to take other shutdown minutes would be a major plus (Schmidt played on VGK's shutdown pair before he came over, and I think he and Hamonic would have a good mix of mobility and physicality).  Then being able to have Rathbone and Hughes as the PP specialists with ample defensive support would be a great look for them.

[Nuxfanabroad]

The most interesting question is prob something like CT, straight-up for Mr Whoop Whoop, NS ?

 

& I don't profess to know the answer. I like CT..but we're talkin' older & older, for a historically brittle dude.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

He's not available. The Flames love Tanev. Their coaches have publicly said that he made Hanifin much better. He made Quinn look great last year as well. Unfortunately, the Flames overpaid to get him - afaik, the Canucks were going to try to match the annual value but not the term. The Flames also overpaid to get Markstrom. If not for re-signing Virtanen (because he was so close to the magical 20-20 threshold) and the prolonged courtship of Ekmann-Larsson, we would have been able to retain Tyler Toffoli and even Stecher iirc.

Edited May 10, 2021 by vinny_in_vancouver

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Hasn't he been their best dman this year alongside Hanifin?

 

I don't think they will expose him. Its Giordano that they are likely to expose.

[philtbc829]

Nope....as much as I like the toothless wonder....time to move on...

[khay]

For 4th? Hmm, I'd do it and try to make the cap work out.

 

But would Calgary do it? Their defence is already rather weak. Unless they go out and get Savard/Larsson, I don't see Flames doing any such move, let alone for a 4th rounder.

[canuktravella]

 ya hard pass  ships sailed  lets draft clarke and go with

 

hughes clarke

rathbone schmidt

juolevi woo 

rafferty 

Edited May 10, 2021 by canuktravella

[Coconuts]

Absolutely not. I respect all the work and effort he put in as a Canuck, on and off the ice, but not signing him to that deal was the right move.

 

I'd sooner retain Hamonic. He wants to be here, he's solid defensively, and he brings a different kind of toughness than Tanev did. 

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, Chris12345 said:

No way. Move on.

Agreed.

 

Management made the correct decision in moving on from him.  Tanev likely will not age well given his style of play.   Neither will Markstrom.   It was a tough pill to swallow in losing them, but Benning made the corredt

decision.

 

Losing Toffoli hurts a lot however.   I do understand that the Canucks were trying to field offers on Boeser and Virtanen to try and keep Toffoli, but the Canucks received low ball offers.

[King Heffy]

Would prefer to draft Edvinsson or Svozil and move forward instead.

[TNucks1]

that would be a big fail imo, 

[-AJ-]

At the right price, maybe. I'd say he's still worth his contract, though that might not be the case near the end of his career if he slows down too much. Skating has often been one of his stronger points and he might not move as fast at 34 or 35 as now at 31.

 

To be honest, Hamonic, while worse than Tanev, seems to be a better bargain. More bang for your buck, so to speak.

 

I really wouldn't want to give up assets to trade for him though. It'd be more of an "if he was a UFA" interest than actually trading for him.

 

I do get the feeling that Tanev is a victim of "not a Canuck"-ism around here. Far as I can tell, he's still just as good as ever in Calgary so far.

[YEGCanuck]

No thanks, that ship has sailed. As a veteran leader Tanev will fill the role nicely in King County.

[Elias Pettersson]

I'd rather just sign David Savard as a UFA and give up zero assets.  Savard is bigger, better, stronger and probably will get the same contract as Tanev.

[Coconuts]

15 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

At the right price, maybe. I'd say he's still worth his contract, though that might not be the case near the end of his career if he slows down too much. Skating has often been one of his stronger points and he might not move as fast at 34 or 35 as now at 31.

 

To be honest, Hamonic, while worse than Tanev, seems to be a better bargain. More bang for your buck, so to speak.

 

I really wouldn't want to give up assets to trade for him though. It'd be more of an "if he was a UFA" interest than actually trading for him.

 

I do get the feeling that Tanev is a victim of "not a Canuck"-ism around here. Far as I can tell, he's still just as good as ever in Calgary so far.

Probably true, but not completely, given how large and diverse the Canucks fanbase is in it's thinking. 

 

I didn't like the contract when he signed it. The dollar value is probably fair, but the term was always too long for my liking. I was skeptical of his ability to stay healthy during the latter years of his career.

 

Some folks speak of him as if his final season as a Canuck was a norm, but it wasn't, particularly regarding his health. He's been able to stay healthy as a Flame, but losing him to injury was considered inevitable for years when he was a Canuck. One can blame deployment, bad luck, ice time, and a number of variables for his injury history as a Canuck but in the end it was what it was, and likely would have continued to be if he'd been retained. Maybe he'll be able to stay healthy in Calgary, we'll see. 

 

We were always better with him in the lineup, similar to how things were with Salo, but like Salo health was always a question. Salo also had some ridiculously bad luck with injuries, and was a considerably better D imo. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Coconuts

[Ghostsof1915]

Why do Canucks fans always look backwards instead of forwards? 

[Nucksfollower1983]

39 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Probably true, but not completely, given how large and diverse the Canucks fanbase is in it's thinking. 

 

I didn't like the contract when he signed it. The dollar value is probably fair, but the term was always too long for my liking. I was skeptical of his ability to stay healthy during the latter years of his career.

 

Some folks speak of him as if his final season as a Canuck was a norm, but it wasn't, particularly regarding his health. He's been able to stay healthy as a Flame, but losing him to injury was considered inevitable for years when he was a Canuck. One can blame deployment, bad luck, ice time, and a number of variables for his injury history as a Canuck but in the end it was what it was, and likely would have continued to be if he'd been retained. Maybe he'll be able to stay healthy in Calgary, we'll see. 

 

We were always better with him in the lineup, similar to how things were with Salo, but like Salo health was always a question. Salo also had some ridiculously bad luck with injuries, and was a considerably better D imo. 

ya he did, remember when he got bitten by the only kind of poisonous snake in Finland while playing golf?