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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
oh so you haven't heard how McDavid has always wanted to be a Pen?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.
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.
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 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...
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.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.
"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 ****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. 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.