Proposal: Tampa/Vancouver

[THE Green Man]

But you guys are so fond of telling us that Tanev isn’t a gamble when trying to get us to agree to a trade. So which is it: is he the top pairing defenseman who can be relied upon to stay on the ice that you insist he is when you guys are talking about how much we should pay for him, or is he the gamble you always switch to saying he is when the tables are turned and suddenly it’s your team that’s on the hook when he misses a large chunk of the season as he has every year of his career?

Thank you for proving my point.

At no point have I openly voiced that Tanev is a lock for an 82 game season no matter who he plays for. I do think that some of his shot blocking injuries would be less common on a better team, but that doesn't guarantee he won't take a random slap shot to the face for a broken jaw and dental surgery again. It's hockey, injuries happen- but I do understand other teams not wanting to give up premium assets for a guy who to this point has been injured because our team sucks and is always paired with a guy who can't move the puck out of our own end. If you had him paired with Hedman for example, an elite player along with your strong forward group, it's not wrong to say that chances are he would play in more games because he won't have to risk his body as much blocking shots or taking big hits to make the play out of the zone.

I suppose I do prove your point but not the the measure you keep insinuating that his injuries have dropped his value to. You may want to either strap in for lots of Tanev threads leading up to the draft though as I guarantee that without Juloevi in the fold for the opening night roster, Tanev being moved is going to be a high priority among the Canuck fan base- whether Benning sees it the same way is a totally different thing.

 

[AndreRoy]

I think both of those guys, Koekkoek in particular, are very much available. I'm just not sure Tanev is the kind of guy we're targeting.

Koekkoek can probably be had for a middling pick or a problem prospect of your own.

Peca is a little bit trickier because he's a big part of the Syracuse Crunch, but he looks NHL ready, and we don't really have room for another miniature speedster.

I can see both of those guys being available but I’d rather bring them both to camp and give them a legitimate chance to make the team. Koekkoek is our defensive prospect best positioned to fit into our lineup at the moment, and unless we bring in a more experienced defenseman I’d like to see him start the season opposite Girardi on the bottom pairing and finally get a chance at consistent playing time - if he doesn’t earn the job at that point then we can move on from him but I’d like to see us at least give him a real chance before we do so.

As for Peca I agree that we don’t need any more diminutive speedsters, but unless enough of our other forward prospects are ready I’d like to see him take over Cory Conacher’s spot. He’s a few years younger than Conacher, showed some nice offense in his limited time with the Lightning, had good chemistry on a third line with Killorn and Gourde, is a better center than Conacher, and won 56.9% of the faceoffs he took. Even if he spends most of his time in the press box I think he’d bring more to the table when we do play him than Conacher does.

 

[DFC]

I can see both of those guys being available but I’d rather bring them both to camp and give them a legitimate chance to make the team. Koekkoek is our defensive prospect best positioned to fit into our lineup at the moment, and unless we bring in a more experienced defenseman I’d like to see him start the season opposite Girardi on the bottom pairing and finally get a chance at consistent playing time - if he doesn’t earn the job at that point then we can move on from him but I’d like to see us at least give him a real chance before we do so.

As for Peca I agree that we don’t need any more diminutive speedsters, but unless enough of our other forward prospects are ready I’d like to see him take over Cory Conacher’s spot. He’s a few years younger than Conacher, showed some nice offense in his limited time with the Lightning, had good chemistry on a third line with Killorn and Gourde, is a better center than Conacher, and won 56.9% of the faceoffs he took. Even if he spends most of his time in the press box I think he’d bring more to the table when we do play him than Conacher does.

Honestly, I don't think it's going to work with Koekkoek. And some of the statements he's made have sounded more than a little bit frustrated. Rightfully so. Regardless of what we might think of Andrei Sustr, it appears the coaching staff has him ahead of Koekkoek on the depth chart. Same with Dotchin.

It just feels like it's time for a change of scenery with him. It's a lot like the Brett Connolly situation. I don't think we're going to hang onto him much longer in his current situation, and we've seen nothing to suggest he's capable of cracking our regular roster.

With Peca... He's a center, and he's like 25. I'm not saying we're looking to move him, but I think the only way he has any real value to us is if we're planning to move a guy like Tyler Johnson. The jury's a bit out on Peca, IMO. I could see him becoming next year's Yanni Gourde and I can see him becoming Vlad Namestnikov. But I don't think we'd be overly protective of him, if teams started sniffing around. Especially given the picks/prospects we gave up in the McDonagh deal. Wouldn't be a big surprise if Yzerman tried to stock the middle pick cupboard again.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Not for a guy who can’t stay on the ice. If he’s such a great player with such a great cap hit then you guys should keep him and stop making stupid threads that absurdly overrate his value.

We’ll happily keep him We don’t absurdly overrate his value, he’s one of the best shutdown defenseman in the game. Just cause he’s been injured a lot in the last couple years doesn’t mean we’re giving him up for nothing..

 

[DistantThunderRep]

We’ll happily keep him We don’t absurdly overrate his value, he’s one of the best shutdown defenseman in the game. Just cause he’s been injured a lot in the last couple years doesn’t mean we’re giving him up for nothing..

Kind of disingenuous to say the last couple of years when the guy has never played a healthy season in his career.

 

[AndreRoy]

Honestly, I don't think it's going to work with Koekkoek. And some of the statements he's made have sounded more than a little bit frustrated. Rightfully so. Regardless of what we might think of Andrei Sustr, it appears the coaching staff has him ahead of Koekkoek on the depth chart. Same with Dotchin.

It just feels like it's time for a change of scenery with him. It's a lot like the Brett Connolly situation. I don't think we're going to hang onto him much longer in his current situation, and we've seen nothing to suggest he's capable of cracking our regular roster.

With Peca... He's a center, and he's like 25. I'm not saying we're looking to move him, but I think the only way he has any real value to us is if we're planning to move a guy like Tyler Johnson. The jury's a bit out on Peca, IMO. I could see him becoming next year's Yanni Gourde and I can see him becoming Vlad Namestnikov. But I don't think we'd be overly protective of him, if teams started sniffing around. Especially given the picks/prospects we gave up in the McDonagh deal. Wouldn't be a big surprise if Yzerman tried to stock the middle pick cupboard again.

Unfortunately I agree with you that our coaching staff doesn’t seem to like Koekkoek for some reason and that there’s a good chance we’ll end up trading him. But even aside from believing in his potential I think there’s a good case to be made for at least starting the season with him. Sustr almost certainly won’t be back; as for Dotchin we’ve already seen what he can do with consistent playing time and the result was our coaching staff clearly losing faith in him down the stretch. So of the guys already on our roster who ended the season on the outside looking in I’m not so certain that Koekkoek is at much of a disadvantage.

In addition there’s a good chance that we’re going to try to trade Coburn this offseason, and unless we bring in another defenseman that would mean a spot opening up on the left side of our bottom pairing; meanwhile the entire right side of our defense will be blocked for at least another year by Stralman, Sergachev, and Girardi. (Yes, we could theoretically move Serg back to the left, but we’ll want him playing in our top four at some point this season and unless they’re going to put Yzerman’s prized acquisition McDonagh on the bottom pairing that’ll mean keeping Serg on the right.) So Koekkoek would seem to have an edge there as well. Throw in our desperate need for defensemen who can move the puck (especially on Girardi’s pairing as he’s flat out awful at it) and it just makes too much sense for us not to give the 3LD spot to Koekkoek at least to start the season and see once and for all if he can be a contributor going forward. This is all assuming of course that we don’t bring in another defenseman and that Masin doesn’t beat him out in camp.

As for Peca I’m not so sure his chances are dependent on Johnson being moved so much as they are on the readiness of our other prospect centers. Yes, moving Johnson would give Peca more importance as a potential injury replacement in our top six if Stamkos or Point were to go down, but unlike Johnson Peca can play effectively in our bottom six as well. He works well on a line with Killorn which TJ never has, and he’s also well suited as a fourth line energy guy. Even if we bring Paquette back due to his redemptive playoff performance you know he’s going to spend a good portion of the season injured, and we also don’t know whether or not Cirelli’s offense this past year was a flash in the pan. So unless one of our other prospect centers can beat him out I see Peca as a guy who can take Conacher’s roster spot and both push Cirelli and Paquette as well as replace one of them if he goes down; he could also slot in at wing from time to time as we’ve done with Conacher to mix things up, and be used as a faceoff specialist in key situations. And if Paquette isn’t brought back then Peca’s chances of finding a role on the team are even greater.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t trade either of those guys for the right offer, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to move them cheaply either - not unless we’ve got a better option on hand.

 

[AndreRoy]

We’ll happily keep him We don’t absurdly overrate his value, he’s one of the best shutdown defenseman in the game. Just cause he’s been injured a lot in the last couple years doesn’t mean we’re giving him up for nothing..

Nobody’s asking you to give him up for nothing. It’s always your fanbase that’s trying to foist him on us - you don’t see Lightning fans going around begging for Tanev and demanding that you give him to us at a discount.

 

[Cogburn]

Nobody’s asking you to give him up for nothing. It’s always your fanbase that’s trying to foist him on us - you don’t see Lightning fans going around begging for Tanev and demanding that you give him to us at a discount.

And most of our fan base wants to keep him. We have like 3 guys with 30 accounts trying to start stuff with Toronto fans, and a few others who want to move him elsewhere to stop the madness.

If Tampa doesn't want to pay, it's fine, a puck mover seems to be what a lot of Lightning fans want, and that's not Tanev. Keeping him to help Juolevi out isn't a bad thing.

 

[THE Green Man]

And most of our fan base wants to keep him. We have like 3 guys with 30 accounts trying to start stuff with Toronto fans, and a few others who want to move him elsewhere to stop the madness.

If Tampa doesn't want to pay, it's fine, a puck mover seems to be what a lot of Lightning fans want, and that's not Tanev. Keeping him to help Juolevi out isn't a bad thing.

Juolevi won't be back for a while with his upcoming back surgery. I don't think Tampa is really a fit anymore once they got McD. Toronto still makes sense and the Islanders to an extent but the rest of the league is up in the air.

 

[DFC]

Unfortunately I agree with you that our coaching staff doesn’t seem to like Koekkoek for some reason and that there’s a good chance we’ll end up trading him. But even aside from believing in his potential I think there’s a good case to be made for at least starting the season with him. Sustr almost certainly won’t be back; as for Dotchin we’ve already seen what he can do with consistent playing time and the result was our coaching staff clearly losing faith in him down the stretch. So of the guys already on our roster who ended the season on the outside looking in I’m not so certain that Koekkoek is at much of a disadvantage.

In addition there’s a good chance that we’re going to try to trade Coburn this offseason, and unless we bring in another defenseman that would mean a spot opening up on the left side of our bottom pairing; meanwhile the entire right side of our defense will be blocked for at least another year by Stralman, Sergachev, and Girardi. (Yes, we could theoretically move Serg back to the left, but we’ll want him playing in our top four at some point this season and unless they’re going to put Yzerman’s prized acquisition McDonagh on the bottom pairing that’ll mean keeping Serg on the right.) So Koekkoek would seem to have an edge there as well. Throw in our desperate need for defensemen who can move the puck (especially on Girardi’s pairing as he’s flat out awful at it) and it just makes too much sense for us not to give the 3LD spot to Koekkoek at least to start the season and see once and for all if he can be a contributor going forward. This is all assuming of course that we don’t bring in another defenseman and that Masin doesn’t beat him out in camp.

As for Peca I’m not so sure his chances are dependent on Johnson being moved so much as they are on the readiness of our other prospect centers. Yes, moving Johnson would give Peca more importance as a potential injury replacement in our top six if Stamkos or Point were to go down, but unlike Johnson Peca can play effectively in our bottom six as well. He works well on a line with Killorn which TJ never has, and he’s also well suited as a fourth line energy guy. Even if we bring Paquette back due to his redemptive playoff performance you know he’s going to spend a good portion of the season injured, and we also don’t know whether or not Cirelli’s offense this past year was a flash in the pan. So unless one of our other prospect centers can beat him out I see Peca as a guy who can take Conacher’s roster spot and both push Cirelli and Paquette as well as replace one of them if he goes down; he could also slot in at wing from time to time as we’ve done with Conacher to mix things up, and be used as a faceoff specialist in key situations. And if Paquette isn’t brought back then Peca’s chances of finding a role on the team are even greater.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t trade either of those guys for the right offer, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to move them cheaply either - not unless we’ve got a better option on hand.

Somehow, both Dotchin and Sustr remained above Koekkoek on the depth chart though. Both of them being moved to the outside looking in only tells just how far "outside" Koekkoek was/is. To me, he seems like a throw-in to some deal with bigger names as the focal point (a Johnson/Miller deal, maybe).

I'm not sure we go out of our way to move Coburn. We don't really need cap space this year. I think it's more likely we use him as a #6 (or even #7) this year, then let both him and Girardi walk, and then hand that money (+) over to Kucherov and Point.

I just don't see a huge turnover in D coming this year. We might add one guy, if we trade Johnson and/or Miller, but then I think we're going to hope the coaching change will have a positive impact.

But, if there's no big turnover, that still means Koekkoek's path is effectively blocked. We'd have to move several defensemen for him to squeeze into the 6 slot. Or he'd have to come to camp greatly improved. I don't know that we're gonna show that much faith in him. Again, it feels a bit like the Connolly situation, where it's just time to get what we can for him and hopefully he'll succeed elsewhere.

 

[AndreRoy]

And most of our fan base wants to keep him. We have like 3 guys with 30 accounts trying to start stuff with Toronto fans, and a few others who want to move him elsewhere to stop the madness.

If Tampa doesn't want to pay, it's fine, a puck mover seems to be what a lot of Lightning fans want, and that's not Tanev. Keeping him to help Juolevi out isn't a bad thing.

Fair enough, and for the record I have never said that Tanev isn’t a fine player when he’s healthy. He just isn’t healthy often enough for me to want to pay either the price to acquire him or his cap hit. We’ve spent the last several years watching the likes of Stamkos, Bishop, and Callahan go down on a near-annual basis so I just don’t want to see us end up in that position with yet another player. But I’ve got nothing against Tanev aside from his injury history and a history of annoyance with what you’re probably right about being a vocal minority of your fanbase that can’t take a polite “no thanks” for an answer (I don’t like it when Lightning fans do that either.)

 

[AndreRoy]

Somehow, both Dotchin and Sustr remained above Koekkoek on the depth chart though. Both of them being moved to the outside looking in only tells just how far "outside" Koekkoek was/is. To me, he seems like a throw-in to some deal with bigger names as the focal point (a Johnson/Miller deal, maybe).

I'm not sure we go out of our way to move Coburn. We don't really need cap space this year. I think it's more likely we use him as a #6 (or even #7) this year, then let both him and Girardi walk, and then hand that money (+) over to Kucherov and Point.

I just don't see a huge turnover in D coming this year. We might add one guy, if we trade Johnson and/or Miller, but then I think we're going to hope the coaching change will have a positive impact.

But, if there's no big turnover, that still means Koekkoek's path is effectively blocked. We'd have to move several defensemen for him to squeeze into the 6 slot. Or he'd have to come to camp greatly improved. I don't know that we're gonna show that much faith in him. Again, it feels a bit like the Connolly situation, where it's just time to get what we can for him and hopefully he'll succeed elsewhere.

As far as trading Coburn is concerned my motivation isn’t the cap so much as it is a) not wanting him in our starting lineup next season, and b) wanting to open a spot to start developing one of our prospects so that the following season we aren’t forced to play a bunch of inexperienced young guys at once. Coburn had a really bad season before redeeming himself in the playoffs while Girardi had a pretty good season before a very rough postseason; next season they’ll both be a year older and I don’t want us betting our Cup chances on them not falling off a cliff. In addition they’ll both be gone next summer and our potential replacements within the organization have little to no NHL experience.

In a perfect world what I’d like us to do is to trade one of Coburn or Girardi (most likely Coburn since Girardi has a full NTC), bring in an experienced but reasonably young defenseman who can carry the bottom pairing next season before stepping up to our top four the following year, and let whichever of Coburn or Girardi remains rotate with one of our prospects in the 6D spot. That way we can get one of our young guys some experience while at the same time avoiding a Sustr-Carle situation if the prospect struggles while the veteran falls off - thanks to the new acquisition we’d only need one of the two to play well to have a solid defense for the playoffs and even if both struggled we’d at least have somebody on the pairing who can carry him. The following season the new acquisition joins Hedman, Sergachev, and possibly a resigned Stralman in our top four and the prospect plays on our bottom pairing without a safety net.

If we don’t bring somebody in then IMO we still need an upgrade over having both Coburn and Girardi in the lineup and we still need to get one of the young guys some playing time. Sustr won’t be back and we’ve already seen what we have in Dotchin, so what makes the most sense to me would be to trade Dotchin, let Koekkoek start the season on the bottom pairing opposite Girardi, and keep Coburn around as the 7D since he’s better than Dotchin and can play either side and on the penalty kill. But the problem is we can’t trust Cooper not to start Coburn over Koekkoek, so to force his hand we’d have to trade Coburn and keep Dotchin as the 7D (unless we can sign a UFA to a cheap one-year deal for that purpose.) If Koekkoek doesn’t cut it then we give Cernak or Masin a shot, but it makes sense to give Koekkoek a chance first before rushing one of those guys up.

What I don’t like about sticking with the status quo is a) it didn’t work for us, b) I don’t trust either Coburn or Girardi to play well all year, much less both of them, and c) the following season if they both leave we’ll be stuck trying to fill a bunch of holes with young guys that aren’t ready. We need some fresh blood on our blue line whether it comes from outside the organization, from within, or both.

I do agree that if we’re going to trade Koekkoek I would prefer to see him as part of a package in a bigger deal rather than simply trading him alone for a mediocre pick. Maybe we trade TJ or JT for a defenseman and throw in Koekkoek as a replacement in exchange for a replacement forward. Something like that would be fine with me because it would mean we wouldn’t have a spot for him on our roster anyway; I just don’t see the point of us trading him for a mid round pick when we would gladly trade such a pick for a reclamation project with his upside.

 

[DFC]

As far as trading Coburn is concerned my motivation isn’t the cap so much as it is a) not wanting him in our starting lineup next season, and b) wanting to open a spot to start developing one of our prospects so that the following season we aren’t forced to play a bunch of inexperienced young guys at once. Coburn had a really bad season before redeeming himself in the playoffs while Girardi had a pretty good season before a very rough postseason; next season they’ll both be a year older and I don’t want us betting our Cup chances on them not falling off a cliff. In addition they’ll both be gone next summer and our potential replacements within the organization have little to no NHL experience.

Yeah, but that's what you would do. You phrased it as if TB is going to be looking to move Coburn, and there's just no real evidence that we have any plan to do that. Coburn's deal only has a year left, so there's no real urgency to get him off the roster, like we saw in years past with players like Purcell and Carle. I'm not saying there's no chance we move Coburn. I'm just saying there's no evidence to suggest it's "likely."

In a perfect world what I’d like us to do is to trade one of Coburn or Girardi (most likely Coburn since Girardi has a full NTC), bring in an experienced but reasonably young defenseman who can carry the bottom pairing next season before stepping up to our top four the following year, and let whichever of Coburn or Girardi remains rotate with one of our prospects in the 6D spot. That way we can get one of our young guys some experience while at the same time avoiding a Sustr-Carle situation if the prospect struggles while the veteran falls off - thanks to the new acquisition we’d only need one of the two to play well to have a solid defense for the playoffs and even if both struggled we’d at least have somebody on the pairing who can carry him. The following season the new acquisition joins Hedman, Sergachev, and possibly a resigned Stralman in our top four and the prospect plays on our bottom pairing without a safety net.

That really is a perfect world. I don't think we get overly dramatic with it. We have a couple of prospects knocking on the NHL door. Maybe Johnson or Miller bring back a D. But I think the most impactful change might be the one behind the bench. Our PP changed dramatically when we hired Todd Richards. Bowness might be to our D what Cooper/Thomas were to our PP. And, judging by some of the chaos we've seen in our own end, I would bet that's the case.

If we don’t bring somebody in then IMO we still need an upgrade over having both Coburn and Girardi in the lineup and we still need to get one of the young guys some playing time. Sustr won’t be back and we’ve already seen what we have in Dotchin, so what makes the most sense to me would be to trade Dotchin, let Koekkoek start the season on the bottom pairing opposite Girardi, and keep Coburn around as the 7D since he’s better than Dotchin and can play either side and on the penalty kill. But the problem is we can’t trust Cooper not to start Coburn over Koekkoek, so to force his hand we’d have to trade Coburn and keep Dotchin as the 7D (unless we can sign a UFA to a cheap one-year deal for that purpose.) If Koekkoek doesn’t cut it then we give Cernak or Masin a shot, but it makes sense to give Koekkoek a chance first before rushing one of those guys up.

I just don't see Yzerman carving out a perfect spot like this for Koekkoek, who somehow has managed to get worse rather than better as time goes on. We could trade a number of guys to make room for Koekkoek, or we can trade Koekkoek. I feel like the latter is more likely, but it wouldn't shock me if neither happened.

What I don’t like about sticking with the status quo is a) it didn’t work for us, b) I don’t trust either Coburn or Girardi to play well all year, much less both of them, and c) the following season if they both leave we’ll be stuck trying to fill a bunch of holes with young guys that aren’t ready. We need some fresh blood on our blue line whether it comes from outside the organization, from within, or both.

McDonagh is still fresh blood. And, again, the biggest thing we might have done is change the D coach. It's tough to say what we really have. On paper, it looks like one of the better top 4s in the league, plus a budding Sergachev.

I think we might bring in one guy, if the right offer for Johnson or Miller comes along. I just don't think we'll be actively looking to overhaul the D.

I do agree that if we’re going to trade Koekkoek I would prefer to see him as part of a package in a bigger deal rather than simply trading him alone for a mediocre pick. Maybe we trade TJ or JT for a defenseman and throw in Koekkoek as a replacement in exchange for a replacement forward. Something like that would be fine with me because it would mean we wouldn’t have a spot for him on our roster anyway; I just don’t see the point of us trading him for a mid round pick when we would gladly trade such a pick for a reclamation project with his upside.

I think that might happen. But I also wouldn't be shocked to see us use him to acquire a pick at the draft if Murray has his eye on somebody.

 

[elitepete]

Not for a guy who can’t stay on the ice. If he’s such a great player with such a great cap hit then you guys should keep him and stop making stupid threads that absurdly overrate his value.

Your posts are comedy.
The guy that made this thread isn’t a Canucks fan. Keep crying though.

 

[Flamesjustwin]

Canucks wouldn't take that. We would need an additional 2nd + prospect bare minimum. He serves as our debatable top defenceman on an already bad blueline. He is going to groom Juolevi this season which holds tremendous value to our team. Unless someone is giving us what we are asking, he won't be moved. Therefore, we will have at least another 8 months of Tanev threads around here.

And this is why Tanev would never be dealt if Benning has the same values as Canuck fans on here. If anything a late 1st is an overpayment for a one dimensional often injured D man. He is not fetching a 1st and a 2nd and a prospect, no GM is paying that. Not even close.

 

[THE Green Man]

And this is why Tanev would never be dealt if Benning has the same values as Canuck fans on here. If anything a late 1st is an overpayment for a one dimensional often injured D man. He is not fetching a 1st and a 2nd and a prospect, no GM is paying that. Not even close.

We keep him then. He still has 2 years left and provides stability to our already weak blueline. Tanev would be less injured on a better team with better possession numbers because it would mean he'd have to block less shots. We had standing deals with quite a few Leafs fans on here already for a 1st,2nd and Rasanen so accepting less would be a tough pill to swallow.