Rotting Corpse*
Registered User
I never said anything about Tanev being "expendable" or that anyone has "replaced" him. I have made my points clear and if you want to you can actually read what I said instead of putting words into my mouth.
I never said anything about Tanev being "expendable" or that anyone has "replaced" him. I have made my points clear and if you want to you can actually read what I said instead of putting words into my mouth.
I'm not remotely saying that we should target being good over the next five years at all. I'm on team tank all the way. However, I do think that there's a danger in developing a young defensive group in a structureless, chickens with their heads cut off environment that is poison in a way that it isn't for forwards. I would want to wait until at the very least Hutton looks comfortable in his top 4 role and Juolevi looks ready to step in and be a factor. Until then, trading Tanev places too much responsibility on a guy like Hutton who looks in over his head as it stands.Are you saying the play should be to rebuild and target being good in over 5 years? 3-4 years is not ludicrous for a timeline to start contending again. To be clear, I am talking about the 19/20 and 20/21 seasons to start being a contender again.
This is what our core could look like in 4 years:
C's
Bo Horvat, 25,
Brandon Sutter, 31
Markus Granlunbd, 27
W's
Loui Eriksson, 34
Sven Baertschi, 27
Jake Virtanen, 23
Brock Boesser, 22
D's
Chris Tanev, 31
Erik Gudbranson, 28
Ben Hutton, 26
Troy Stetcher, 26
Nikita Tryamkin, 25
Ollie Jouelevi, 22
G's
Jacob Markstrom, 30
Thatcher Demko, 24
While no one is going to argue there isn't some holes, especially up front, would you look at the defence and say there is one too many rock solid vets with tons of experience? A large number of defencemen don't even play their best hockey until the age of 30. The fact that we are looking at Tanev and saying he can't be a part of the teams future is absolutely insane.
If the position of strength at that time is defence, then we can deal from that point as the others might make one of Jouelevi, Stetcher, Tryamkin, Hutton expendable.
I sincerely hope that they were joking.Are you talking to me? I didn't say you said that. Someone else did in this very thread, however, say Stetcher made him expendable.
That is an absolutely garbage looking "core" to be quite honest and to me hammers home that we should be dealing Tanev for some core young pieces if we can. Tanev won't be here in 20/21 unless you can sign him to another contract which is not some given. Regardless, when we are ready to compete, then we can add the 30-year-old defenseman we need via the UFA market or trade.
Again I'm not saying Tanev is too old or can't be part of the future or whatever nonsense. Stop with these strawman arguments already. I think we will be ready to compete a lot sooner if we get the right players back in a Tanev trade and then in 3 years we can sign someone (maybe even him!) to put us over the top.
I sincerely hope that they were joking.
Because [Tanev]'s valuable ... and Stetcher can replace him. You seriously don't get it?
Wow, really?
I doubt it.
He tried really hard to be a condescending ass as well.
It's because he's apparently involved in the game at some level or whatever he claims
sbisa literally made garrison expendable. so he may not be wrong...
Sbisa didn't make Garrison expendable. They traded Garrison to make room for Sbisa lol.
Yea we still don't have anyone to replace Garrison.
That is an absolutely garbage looking "core" to be quite honest and to me hammers home that we should be dealing Tanev for some core young pieces if we can. Tanev won't be here in 20/21 unless you can sign him to another contract which is not some given. Regardless, when we are ready to compete, then we can add the 30-year-old defenseman we need via the UFA market or trade.
Again I'm not saying Tanev is too old or can't be part of the future or whatever nonsense. Stop with these strawman arguments already. I think we will be ready to compete a lot sooner if we get the right players back in a Tanev trade and then in 3 years we can sign someone (maybe even him!) to put us over the top.
Personally that's why I'd rather move gudbranson than Tanev.
First, it will be easier to replace a Gudbranson than a Tanev. Especially if Gudbranson wanted a big ufa payday. Gudbranson is cheaper this year which could help at the deadline. Tanev is signed cheap for years, no rush to trade him, his value ain't go down if he keeps playing his same steady game. If Gudbranson goes to ufa, you might get him back, you won't get an under contract tanev back.
Second, with expansion coming you should want to protect as much quality as you can. Tanev is more valuable, it I'm keeping one it is the one that maximises the 3 protection slots the most and that is Tanev.
If we do trade someone it opens up an expansion slot for a sly defensive pickup.
Oh yeah, for sure.
I'd trade RealGud in a second for McCann and 33rd overall.
florida just went full moneyball tonight and fired art howe.
it might be a good time to offer them anyone with good fancy stats,
Yeah we don't have any of those