Rumor: Elias Pettersson - No Deal Imminent (Aug 3)

[Peen]

I am picking the scenarios that have happened. In reality.

when I say “yeah, not resigning tanev is reasonable” it’s not because I’m thinking he’s going to sign a cheap deal in Calgary and then we are going to trade for the OEL contract and commit 4 years to Tucker Poolman.
Like, in a vacuum letting Tanev go at his age and injuries makes sense. But compared to what we’ve ACTUALLY DONE it’s mind bogglingly stupid. I don’t know why this is hard to understand.

It isn’t. Someone is being intellectually dishonest and trying to use a post that was even keeled as a reason to call everyone freaks.

 

[F A N]

All that proves is that Hughes needs to be insulated with a babysitter and doesn't deserve a big #1D-level ticket. You can't blame Jim Benning for the fact that he was turn-styled on a nightly basis.
.

At the end of the day it’s about pairings. You can have the best QB but you need an offensive line to protect him and receivers who won’t drop perfect passes.

I think back to the old days where a prime Sandis Ozolinsh was just so dominant. I am not making a stylistic comparison here just that what Hughes can do on the ice few can do. And instead of focusing on trying to get him to improve his offensive game the focus should be on how to best support his offensive game. It’s a similar idea to not trying to turn Horvat into a shutdown C or finding a Lachance or Malik to play with Jovo.

 

[CherryToke]

What's the deal

 

[krutovsdonut]

management thread is that way guys. kthxbai.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I am picking the scenarios that have happened. In reality.

when I say “yeah, not resigning tanev is reasonable” it’s not because I’m thinking he’s going to sign a cheap deal in Calgary and then we are going to trade for the OEL contract and commit 4 years to Tucker Poolman.
Like, in a vacuum letting Tanev go at his age and injuries makes sense. But compared to what we’ve ACTUALLY DONE it’s mind bogglingly stupid. I don’t know why this is hard to understand.

they got schmidt instead of tanev. you liked that move at the time. it did not work out. those are the breaks. you do not get 20/20 hindsight takebacks now.

 

[supercanuck]

Makar won the Calder over Hughes, and Sakic decided to spend 2 2nds to acquire a perfect partner for him. That's how management could ensure their players are best positioned to succeed and reach their ceiling (especially a player as exceptional as Hughes)

 

[Luck 6]

Makar won the Calder over Hughes, and Sakic decided to spend 2 2nds to acquire a perfect partner for him. That's how management could ensure their players are best positioned to succeed and reach their ceiling (especially a player as exceptional as Hughes)

I do agree with that. Makar being a RHD sure makes it easier, but it sure would have been nice if we pulled off something similar. Hughes is 21 so there’s still some time to right that ship.

 

[Peen]

they got schmidt instead of tanev. you liked that move at the time. it did not work out. those are the breaks. you do not get 20/20 hindsight takebacks now.

I’m not sure why so many people are going at Melvin for this.

Letting go of Tanev due to injury history/age (even on a 3 year deal) - understandable.
The alternatives (Schmidt/Poolman) - bad relative to what Tanev provided in calgary last year.

I’ll give you the inverse.

Trading a potential lottery pick for JTM to try to squeak into the playoffs - terrible process

Now, would I rather have had a 20 something overall pick or JTM? No, I’d take JTM over the pick because he provided surplus value and you’d be able to trade him for a pretty sizeable package after good utility.

Do you have issue with me applying what Melvin said except inversely with the hindsight benefiting management?

 

[JAK]

I am picking the scenarios that have happened. In reality.

when I say “yeah, not resigning tanev is reasonable” it’s not because I’m thinking he’s going to sign a cheap deal in Calgary and then we are going to trade for the OEL contract and commit 4 years to Tucker Poolman.
Like, in a vacuum letting Tanev go at his age and injuries makes sense. But compared to what we’ve ACTUALLY DONE it’s mind bogglingly stupid. I don’t know why this is hard to understand.

Benning should resign Tanev!
Benning didn't resign Tanev, fire him!
Benning didn't sign Tanev to bad contract, great job!
Benning signs a cheaper, younger version of Tanev.
Benning should have signed Tanev, even though his contract is bad.


Man, the logic of Benning haters just finds new ways to argue stupidly.

 

[MS]

Every single summer, the same group of Benning trolls appear telling us we should ignore 7 years of the most incompetent management in the history of pro sports because of these new moves that haven't failed yet.

 

[JAK]

That was literally nothing like what was posted.

What was posted was the completely reasonable notion that not re-signing Tanev was fine (this part is actually agreeing with Benning) until they spent more money on worse players.

Then some Benning fans who can't read and apparently have no logical processing skills got really angry and started throwing up strawmen.

Is Tanev really better than Hamonic, Poolman, or Schenn in terms of what they can provide in terms of being a RHD defensive defensemen?

I'm not sure the gap is as big as people think.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Where have you gone, Jalen 'just like Tanev' Chatfield. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo, woo, woo.

 

[MS]

Is Tanev really better than Hamonic, Poolman, or Schenn in terms of what they can provide in terms of being a RHD defensive defensemen?

I'm not sure the gap is as big as people think.

Yes, he is.

Tanev is one of the best defensive defenders in the NHL. Hamonic is a solid #4-5. Poolman is a 3rd pairing banger. Schenn is junk.

The gap is massive.

 

[JAK]

Yes, he is.

Tanev is one of the best defensive defenders in the NHL. Hamonic is a solid #4-5. Poolman is a 3rd pairing banger. Schenn is junk.

The gap is massive.

Strange, I recall many Canucks fans calling him an offensive black hole that gets injured every time someone looks at him.

I have 3 Tanev jerseys. I love the guy.

We are in year 2 of his contract. Let's see what happens in year 3 and 4. I still stand by my word that we should not have matched the term, period.

Now, if Tanev is still healthy in year 4, I sure wouldn't mind exploring bringing him back

 

[MS]

Strange, I recall many Canucks fans calling him an offensive black hole that gets injured every time someone looks at him.

I have 3 Tanev jerseys. I love the guy.

We are in year 2 of his contract. Let's see what happens in year 3 and 4. I still stand by my word that we should not have matched the term, period.

Now, if Tanev is still healthy in year 4, I sure wouldn't mind exploring bringing him back

Most Canuck fans are totally shit at evaluating defenders.

Tanev had spent multiple years as one of the elite top-pairing shutdown defenders in the NHL and the majority opinion in this fanbase was that he topped out as a #5 because he didn't shoot the puck hard enough and was kinda skinny.

 

[JAK]

Most Canuck fans are totally shit at evaluating defenders.

Tanev had spent multiple years as one of the elite top-pairing shutdown defenders in the NHL and the majority opinion in this fanbase was that he topped out as a #5 because he didn't shoot the puck hard enough and was kinda skinny.

Yup. And that is why I don't believe anyoke shitting on Poolman just because his name sounds like Poo Man.

It's sucks that we couldn't keep Tanev, or Edler, or Ohlund, or Salo. But it's just part of the game.

 

[MS]

Yup. And that is why I don't believe anyoke shitting on Poolman just because his name sounds like Poo Man.

It's sucks that we couldn't keep Tanev, or Edler, or Ohlund, or Salo. But it's just part of the game.

I’m not saying Poolman totally sucks. I probably watched him play 15-18 times last year and what I saw was a decent, limited 3rd pairing guy who would have been an solid enough replacement for Benn on the 3rd pairing.

What I didn’t see was a top-4 guy, and one of the biggest things you don’t do in a capped league is overpay bottom-roster players, a mistake we’ve made over and over and over again.

 

[F A N]

Strange, I recall many Canucks fans calling him an offensive black hole that gets injured every time someone looks at him.

I don't recall anyone saying that Tanev was an offensive black hole. Limited offensive production who shouldn't be on the PP yes. Offensive black hole no.

Except for his last season here, Tanev being injured and playing so few games was a huge concern as he couldn't be relied upon to play enough games. It's very difficult to pay a top 4 Dman to be in the lineup a little more than half the time.

The fact is that Tanev was showing decline from his peak 1st pairing shutdown days. The fact is that Tanev was on his way to career high in games played in his last season here at age 30. Tanev then went to Calgary and missed zero games (although he was playing with a broken rib among his injuries). Tanev also had a bounce back season in Calgary. He was playing at a level not seen in Vancouver for years. If Tanev's last two seasons here was like his first season in Calgary I think most of us here would have no issues re-signing him for what Calgary gave him.

 

[lawrence]

or Ohlund, or Salo. But it's just part of the game.

Gillis tried to keep him, but we couldn't match 7 year 3 million per. Salo literally also aged out. It's unfortunate. But I agree with Tanev though. We could have kept him and Toffoli actually.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

>Will argue backwards and forwards over how valuable Brandon Sutter is to the Canucks
>Doesn't understand the value of Chris Tanev

 

[JAK]

I’m not saying Poolman totally sucks. I probably watched him play 15-18 times last year and what I saw was a decent, limited 3rd pairing guy who would have been an solid enough replacement for Benn on the 3rd pairing.

What I didn’t see was a top-4 guy, and one of the biggest things you don’t do in a capped league is overpay bottom-roster players, a mistake we’ve made over and over and over again.

It's a good thing players don't stay stagnate and actually improve, right?

 

[CanucksSayEh]

The myth that Tanev "babysat" Hughes is BS. Two of the smartest dmen in the league, who can both pass and skate, pairing well together, isn't some surprise.

Tanev babysat Edler many o seasons that's for damn sure.

 

[Melvin]

I’m not sure why so many people are going at Melvin for this.

Letting go of Tanev due to injury history/age (even on a 3 year deal) - understandable.
The alternatives (Schmidt/Poolman) - bad relative to what Tanev provided in calgary last year.

I’ll give you the inverse.

Trading a potential lottery pick for JTM to try to squeak into the playoffs - terrible process

Now, would I rather have had a 20 something overall pick or JTM? No, I’d take JTM over the pick because he provided surplus value and you’d be able to trade him for a pretty sizeable package after good utility.

Do you have issue with me applying what Melvin said except inversely with the hindsight benefiting management?

the other way of looking at this, if you don’t like my “hindsight,” is that I was just wrong. I was wrong to say letting go of tanev was a good idea. Am I allowed to admit when I’m wrong? Or, do people not like it that the few times I’ve been wrong it’s been when I’ve sided with management

I don’t really see the argument to the contrary. Tanev signed a very reasonable 3 year contract and was excellent last season, while Hughes struggled without him and we are scrambling to find a replacement.

To be fair, whoever is going after me, I cannot read their posts so I’m inferring some things here from peens post.

 

[m9]

It's a good thing players don't stay stagnate and actually improve, right?

So what's your plan then? Never evaluate players and just see what happens? And then when something happens, just disregard it because they might get better or worse anyway?

 

[m9]

the other way of looking at this, if you don’t like my “hindsight,” is that I was just wrong. I was wrong to say letting go of tanev was a good idea. Am I allowed to admit when I’m wrong? Or, do people not like it that the few times I’ve been wrong it’s been when I’ve sided with management

I don’t really see the argument to the contrary. Tanev signed a very reasonable 3 year contract and was excellent last season, while Hughes struggled without him and we are scrambling to find a replacement.

To be fair, whoever is going after me, I cannot read their posts so I’m inferring some things here from peens post.

4 years for Tanev, but it doesn't change the point.

And I agree - it's kind of crazy around this board that more people just don't admit they were wrong about some things.

It's also a good thing to change your opinion when more information becomes available. I didn't love Tanev or Toffoli at some of the numbers being thrown around originally, but then when the Canucks are burning their money on guys like Virtanen/Holtby/etc and both Toffoli/Tanev sign very reasonable contracts you have to re-assess the situation. And then when Tanev has an amazing season like he just did, you can re-assess again.

Letting Tanev go was a major mistake by the Canucks, and yet you still have posters "standing by their word" that moving on was the right move.