How has Tanev been?

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
What everyone above said is accurate. But it does make it hard to believe the comments above given all the whining and *****ing about the contract he received this summer.

Anyone who trashed the signing or voted to fire JR and Sullivan should be banned from this sub forum for an indefinite amount of time.

It'd be about 75% of the people. :laugh:
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Also, from a lot of the responses, people are kicking themselves for being wrong about the guy. Don't be. He's the kind of player you have to watch to fully appreciate. He's the kind of player that you can't use stats to value. Six years is a big contract but I think he'll hold his value throughout.

And people who bitched about the 6 years were doing so with pure emotion and not common sense.

3.5M per is peanuts in the league right now, especially for an elite bottom 6 player who can be a perfectly acceptable top 6 glue guy. Imagine what 3.5M per looks 3-4 years from now. His contract will be easily movable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riptide

Riptide

Registered User
Dec 29, 2011
38,887
6,520
Yukon
I hate looking at contracts in hindsight. At the time, it was laughably bad. He has proven a lot of of wrong, including myself, but doesn't change the fact that at the time it wasn't a good deal.

The contract is still in it's 1st year. So either it still is laughably bad and still a bad deal or how you're evaluating contracts is out of touch and way off. What you're writing would make some sense if Tanev's production changed significantly or this contract was signed several years ago and the NHL landscape changed in the meantime... but 1.5 months into the first year of the deal? No that says more about you then it does his contract.
 

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
Anyone who trashed the signing or voted to fire JR and Sullivan should be banned from this sub forum for an indefinite amount of time.

It'd be about 75% of the people. :laugh:

"Anyone who says stupid shit should be banned from this sub forum" -says person who says stupid shit

We all have bad takes. Key is to take the ribbing and move on.
 

Strakanator

Registered User
Sep 21, 2007
276
222
For the next few years he should be a staple on the 3rd line with spot treatment on line 1 or 2. How Sullivan plays him on the 4th, I have know idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoJetsGo55

TooManyHumans

Registered User
May 4, 2018
2,360
3,351
I was happy about getting him initially (based solely on what people said about his play as I had never noticed him before) and then couldn't believe the absurd length, term, and partial NTC. Dude has delivered big time and I am thrilled with him on this team and couldn't care less about the contract now. I will happily eat my crowfu (sorry, I don't eat meat).
 

Jacob

as seen on TV
Feb 27, 2002
49,342
24,740
I wanted him, but hated the contract, but I think the cap hit is more than fair. $3.5 million for a 35 ES/SH point winger, especially when he’s getting those points without Geno or Crosby. And he’s great defensively to boot.


So the only issue is the term, and it’s just more of a risk than an issue.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,407
78,003
Redmond, WA
Like others have said, Tanev has been an absolute gem here. I don't even think the term is that big of an issue at this point, having Tanev for 4 good years and 2 bad years is better than not having Tanev at all. By the time that contract may turn into an issue, the Penguins are going to be past their window of contention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHOOTANDSCORE

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,292
25,206
Right now, I love Tanev. He might be my favourite Penguin. I'd take a bullet for him.

Have to admit that when the contract was signed, I couldn't believe Rutherford had done it again. Few weeks later, after thinking about it and prodding at stats, I was confident-ish he'd do well here and justify his cap hit.

And it's been a surprise even to that how good he's been.
 

NMK11

Registered User
Apr 6, 2013
3,997
1,985
The contract is still in it's 1st year. So either it still is laughably bad and still a bad deal or how you're evaluating contracts is out of touch and way off. What you're writing would make some sense if Tanev's production changed significantly or this contract was signed several years ago and the NHL landscape changed in the meantime... but 1.5 months into the first year of the deal? No that says more about you then it does his contract.
You seem to have missed the point entirely, way to go. You present a nice false dichotomy and then write some stuff that doesn't make any sense with what I said.

I'll break it down for you: Giving Tanev that money and for that term wasn't a good idea considering his history and all the comparable contracts. We overpaid. That doesn't change because he's playing well here for 1.5 months. He's been better than I thought he would be, and I hope that continues, but that contract to that player at that time doesn't suddenly become a good decision because he's played well for less than a third of the season. Unless you think he'd be playing worse if he had signed for $2.5m and 2-3 years? There's zero indication that we were in a bidding war and needed to give him more money and term to come here. I'm capable of evaluating a player and evaluating a contract separately, maybe that's what you're missing.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,292
25,206
You seem to have missed the point entirely, way to go. You present a nice false dichotomy and then write some stuff that doesn't make any sense with what I said.

I'll break it down for you: Giving Tanev that money and for that term wasn't a good idea considering his history and all the comparable contracts. We overpaid. That doesn't change because he's playing well here for 1.5 months. He's been better than I thought he would be, and I hope that continues, but that contract to that player at that time doesn't suddenly become a good decision because he's played well for less than a third of the season. Unless you think he'd be playing worse if he had signed for $2.5m and 2-3 years? There's zero indication that we were in a bidding war and needed to give him more money and term to come here. I'm capable of evaluating a player and evaluating a contract separately, maybe that's what you're missing.

I'm pretty sure there was meant to be 10 teams interested in Tanev and very sure there was a nervous wait between "Tanev probably to Pittsburgh" and "Tanev to Pittsburgh" that was filled with "St Louis are very interested".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riptide and td_ice

66-30-33

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
62,616
15,643
Victoria, BC
I'd rather slightly overpay for Tanev rather then Caps get him. We are done by his 4th year anyway unless we get an awesome 1C somehow and Crosby/Malkin become 2C and 3C as they age more.
 

Riptide

Registered User
Dec 29, 2011
38,887
6,520
Yukon
For the next few years he should be a staple on the 3rd line with spot treatment on line 1 or 2. How Sullivan plays him on the 4th, I have know idea.

He might be listed there on the night's roster... but in terms of TOI he's playing a 3rd line role. He's 8th in ESTOI (ahead of McCann and Reese). The guys seeing closer to L4 minutes are Lafferty, Gally, Reese and Kahun (although I imagine that if I looked at his game by game TOI it would be trending up). But overall even these 4 are seeing something that's closer to L3 minutes then L4 minutes with all 4 being between 11:23-12:03 in ESTOI. Add in some PP/PK time and all are in the 12:30-14:15 range.

Basically PIT doesn't have a "4th line" right now - we have two 3rd lines if one is looking at ice time allocations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shady Machine

HandshakeLine

A real jerk thing
Nov 9, 2005
47,761
31,605
Praha, CZ
I hate looking at contracts in hindsight. At the time, it was laughably bad. He has proven a lot of of wrong, including myself, but doesn't change the fact that at the time it wasn't a good deal.

Wait, what? I'm confused. Something is turning out to be good, which means that people who said it was going to be good were wrong and those said it was bad, were right, even though they said something that was wrong. Help me out here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riptide

HandshakeLine

A real jerk thing
Nov 9, 2005
47,761
31,605
Praha, CZ
The funny part is how wrong I will be if he puts up 30 in his current usage. If he does that the contract isn’t even bad... somehow...

If he does, I think you have to change your avatar to a big ol' smilin' Macedonian man, eating some delicious bantitsa.

Street-food-Ohrid.jpg
 

NMK11

Registered User
Apr 6, 2013
3,997
1,985
Wait, what? I'm confused. Something is turning out to be good, which means that people who said it was going to be good were wrong and those said it was bad, were right, even though they said something that was wrong. Help me out here.
I think, and people may disagree which is fine, that a) a player, b) a player plus his contract, and c) whatever deal brought the player here can all be different things and can be evaluated differently. Just because something works out well in the end, to me, doesn't make the original deal better. Evaluate a player in the present, but evaluate a trade/signing in the past.

It's easier to look at with trades, so example: JR manages to trade ZAR to Anaheim for two first round picks. Crazy? Maybe, but pretend that ZAR ends up scoring 30-40 goals for the next 5 years while playing good two way hockey. Now, this is an extreme example, but clearly five years down the road ZAR may be a superstar and you could argue is worth two firsts particularly if they were late firsts. But at the time, trading two firsts for a fourth liner is bad. Analyzing it retrospectively doesn't change that fact to me. The counter example would be if JR trades Malkin for two firsts (say this happened a few years ago), but then Malkin goes elsewhere and puts up 30-40 pts (not goals) for the next 5 years. Any team would have made that trade because it's a good deal. Just because he plays poorly doesn't mean the trade at the time was poor.

Tanev has been good for us, I hope that continues, and if he keeps playing like this it's going to be and awesome signing. I'm comfortable in saying I was wrong about what he could do here. But I don't think the signing was good at the time and still need to see if it's going to hold up. It's probably a bit esoteric of a stance, but that's how I look at things.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
"Anyone who says stupid **** should be banned from this sub forum" -says person who says stupid ****

We all have bad takes. Key is to take the ribbing and move on.

You're a clown dude. I rarely even post around here precisely because the "takes" are reactionary and largely based on emotion.

Other than me holding Murray to the same f***ing standard Fleury got around here (which was brutal) I literally have never had a bad take on the Pens, players or coaches. And why? Because I don't make decisions and form opinions based on emotion. It works, you should try it.

I am hard on Murray because many here proclaimed him the 2nd coming after 2017 and since then he hasn't even had a resume that looks like a starting goalie, especially when you consider we're trying to win before 87 and 71 hit their golden years. When MAF was here he rightfully deserved A LOT of flak. People were brutal and at times he deserved it. I was right there with everyone. But now I literally watch those same people make the same tired excuses the facebook and casual Pens fans would for MAF. "Defense", "daddy passed away 2 years ago", "injuries", blah, blah, blah. If you think that equates "says stupid shit" then I don't know what else to tell ya bub.

I find it comical that another blowhard, pixies would hit the "like" button on your nonsense when he/she literally started a thread clowning a few people about Rust. As if that is mature. :rolleyes: I considered starting a like thread about Tanev who was trashed by you (plus pixies who probably had about 500 posts on the subject) and most of the rest of the board before the ink had even dried on his deal.

But the worst was enduring and reading the crap about JR and Sullivan. JR literally got into the HOF precisely because of what he's done here. You know fixing the massive shit show that Shero left. And he did it relatively quickly and is still largely hitting home runs as a GM. Sure, he's had a few bad signings/trades but that is true of any GM, ever. Most don't have his resume. In the history of hockey. Let THAT sink in.

And yet the masses wanted him shot into the sun because we didn't win Cup 3 and 4 in a row.
 

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
You're a clown dude. I rarely even post around here precisely because the "takes" are reactionary and largely based on emotion.

Other than me holding Murray to the same ****ing standard Fleury got around here (which was brutal) I literally have never had a bad take on the Pens, players or coaches. And why? Because I don't make decisions and form opinions based on emotion. It works, you should try it.

I am hard on Murray because many here proclaimed him the 2nd coming after 2017 and since then he hasn't even had a resume that looks like a starting goalie, especially when you consider we're trying to win before 87 and 71 hit their golden years. When MAF was here he rightfully deserved A LOT of flak. People were brutal and at times he deserved it. I was right there with everyone. But now I literally watch those same people make the same tired excuses the facebook and casual Pens fans would for MAF. "Defense", "daddy passed away 2 years ago", "injuries", blah, blah, blah. If you think that equates "says stupid ****" then I don't know what else to tell ya bub.

I find it comical that another blowhard, pixies would hit the "like" button on your nonsense when he/she literally started a thread clowning a few people about Rust. As if that is mature. :rolleyes: I considered starting a like thread about Tanev who was trashed by you (plus pixies who probably had about 500 posts on the subject) and most of the rest of the board before the ink had even dried on his deal.

But the worst was enduring and reading the crap about JR and Sullivan. JR literally got into the HOF precisely because of what he's done here. You know fixing the massive **** show that Shero left. And he did it relatively quickly and is still largely hitting home runs as a GM. Sure, he's had a few bad signings/trades but that is true of any GM, ever. Most don't have his resume. In the history of hockey. Let THAT sink in.

And yet the masses wanted him shot into the sun because we didn't win Cup 3 and 4 in a row.

Lol. Take a joke dude.

And yes, you have had several overly emotional bad takes on Murray. Sorry you can't handle it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->