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.
Post-Game Talk: 11/26/16 | Canucks 3 @ Avalanche 2
- Thread starter Chairman Maouth
- Start date
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
How many games has Tanev missed in the last couple of seasons?.....seems to me they've been forced to play a lot of games without him...my concern is the pounding he takes and the number of shot-blocks with his skates...and still brings next to nothing offensively....can't really understand why so many posters regard him as indispensable and untouchable.
Shareefruck
Registered User
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.
I think 3-4 years to start competing is optimistic. That would be a reasonable window if this management group started embracing the transition NOW, the ownership meddling stopped, and they started being smart about the way they handled their assets. But the way everything's going, it looks like it might be 2-3 years before this trainwreck gets sorted out and they get their heads out of their ***es.
Relying on the existing youth group, alone, I don't think is going to get you anywhere. I wouldn't expect the team that you've outlined to be much more than a 1st round and out type of team. To be a contender in three or four years probably relies on two or three home-run picks over the next three years the caliber of Horvat, and considering how little this management group leaves for the team to work with, I'm doubtful that it will go anywhere near that smoothly. Hinging on that constant stream of green lights and not taking advantage of Tanev's value at some point over the next few years would be a bad move, IMO.
I was optimistic that Tanev would be a part of the team's future a couple years back, but I think that window of optimism is closing, personally.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Technically we would be finishing bottom 5 in those years so that list doesn't account for who we will draft during that time period.
If we have a good pro scouting management group we should be able to sign some good to supplement the "core", especially when spending money isn't really a concern.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
I doubt it.
He tried really hard to be a condescending ass as well.
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
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,521
- 8,666
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,912
- 16,454
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
Sbisa didn't make Garrison expendable. They traded Garrison to make room for Sbisa lol.
Stecher makes Garrison expendable. Retroactively. He also made Forsling expendable,. And Tanev. Also, the Sedins. And the zamboni driver. He's that good.
me2
Go ahead foot
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.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,921
- 9,607
florida just went full moneyball tonight and fired art howe.
it might be a good time to offer them anyone with good fancy stats,
it might be a good time to offer them anyone with good fancy stats,
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 2 Dallas Mavericks @ Oklahoma City Thunder - OKC leads series 1-0Wagers: 5Staked: $1,505.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Colorado Avalanche @ Dallas Stars - COL leads 1-0Wagers: 14Staked: $32,982.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-