Should the Canucks trade Tanev?

[M2Beezy]

So big talk on the radio today about the Canucks making a trade of Tanev to get assets and that his NTC kicks in July 1 so if we are going to trade him it MUST happen before July 1. They suggest taking on even a bad contract to get an even sweeter future package (pick prospect etc).

We finished 28th and 29th the last two seasons WITH Tanev so if we lose him we lose a mentor and competing hard with Vegas and the Avs for 30th next season which leaves a pretty bad losing atmosphere for our young guys so SHOULD we do it? If we lose him the depth is bad esp if Sbisa is lost to Vegas

Edler Stecher
Hutton Biega
McEneny Gudbranson
Pedan Subban

So youd gotta think wed make a move for a dman thru signing or trade or even in the same trade for Tanev

That grouping also makes you appreciate how lucky Benning is he got Stecher for free

Click to read more...

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Depends entirely upon the return.

For the 8th OA pick, I would do it.

For Kapanen + 16 - depends on who is there.

For Drouin - maybe, I don't know what the scuttlebutt is on his character, and his contract demands.

For Landeskog - yes.

In any event the Canucks would have to find a decent depth defenseman to help hold the fort so that Juolevi, Stecher and Hutton aren't shellshocked next season.

You would assume if Drouin or Landeskog is the return, that one of Goldobin/Granlund/Baertschi is traded for a youngish decent defenseman.

 

[VanJack]

So big talk on the radio today about the Canucks making a trade of Tanev to get assets and that his NTC kicks in July 1 so if we are going to trade him it MUST happen before July 1. They suggest taking on even a bad contract to get an even sweeter future package (pick prospect etc).

We finished 28th and 29th the last two seasons WITH Tanev so if we lose him we lose a mentor and competing hard with Vegas and the Avs for 30th next season which leaves a pretty bad losing atmosphere for our young guys so SHOULD we do it? If we lose him the depth is bad esp if Sbisa is lost to Vegas

Edler Stecher
Hutton Biega
McEneny Gudbranson
Pedan Subban

So youd gotta think wed make a move for a dman thru signing or trade or even in the same trade for Tanev

That grouping also makes you appreciate how lucky Benning is he got Stecher for free

Gotta' deal Tanev when his market value is at its highest.....would it make us worse over the short term?...undoubtedly......but in terms of trade value, there's nowhere for Tanev to go but down.....with the number of serious injuries he's picked up, I wonder what he'll be like once he's post-30....but of course all that assumes you're got confidence in Jimbo to pull the trigger on the right deal.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

No, they should explore the trading possibilities with Edler first.

 

[Free Edler]

No, they should explore the trading possibilities with Edler first.

Someone needs to create a bot that only posts this in trade threads: Edler will not waive his NTC.

 

[M2Beezy]

No, they should explore the trading possibilities with Edler first.

I would agree but two issues.

1) This team is a dumpster fire. Tanev has higher value and will return a better package

2) Edler wont wave his NTC

If Benning cant trade Tanev by July 1st Id be open to putting more pressure on Edler to wave but apparently he wont do it

 

[ginner classic]

Depends entirely upon the return.

For the 8th OA pick, I would do it.

For Kapanen + 16 - depends on who is there.

For Drouin - maybe, I don't know what the scuttlebutt is on his character, and his contract demands.

For Landeskog - yes.

In any event the Canucks would have to find a decent depth defenseman to help hold the fort so that Juolevi, Stecher and Hutton aren't shellshocked next season.

You would assume if Drouin or Landeskog is the return, that one of Goldobin/Granlund/Baertschi is traded for a youngish decent defenseman.

The reason teams are paying a premium for D in trades is because there are none available. If we trade Tanev, we won't be able to find a NHL calibre defender for even the third pairing in a trade or free agency.

My expectations would be sky high or I would not move him.

Tampa Bay - 14th, 45th, 48th, Jason Garrison, Matt Spencer

Buffalo - 8th pick, 37th pick

Toronto - 17th pick, 50th pick, Kapanen

 

[supercanuck]

The reason teams are paying a premium for D in trades is because there are none available. If we trade Tanev, we won't be able to find a NHL calibre defender for even the third pairing in a trade or free agency.

My expectations would be sky high or I would not move him.

Tampa Bay - 14th, 45th, 48th, Jason Garrison, Matt Spencer

Buffalo - 8th pick, 37th pick

Toronto - 17th pick, 50th pick, Kapanen

Did his play drop off a lot last year? He could be a cap dump for Tampa, but still be a usable top 4 dman for Vancouver and also a PP point shot.

 

[earl grey]

He's a must trade! Anyone saying otherwise doesn't understand what it takes to complete a rebuild.

Obvious market value should net you a couple high picks (1st rounds / 2nd round ) and / or a couple quality prospects.

Obviously you don't trade him if there is no market but lets be clear a dman like Tanev will have high demand. Damn foolish not to move him.

 

[MS]

No. They shouldn't trade Tanev or Edler.

In order to develop young defenders, you NEED quality veterans to pair them with and guide them along. If you don't have that, you end up as a total cesspool like Edmonton of 3-5 years ago or Colorado this year where nothing develops.

Look what happened to Schultz/Petry/Marancin in Edmonton and how those players' development was destroyed on a bad blueline with no stabilizing influences.

Look how Hutton improved when taken away from Gudbranson this year.

Look how much Edler helped Stecher along as a rookie.

Trading Tanev (and/or Edler) is the dumbest thing we could possibly do, if you ever want Juolevi/Hutton/Stecher to develop as quality top-4 defenders here. I know everyone wants ALL KIDS! AS MANY KIDS AS POSSIBLE! MORE YOUNG ASSETS! but it's a formula for disaster.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Not yet. Trade Edler this summer, maybe not as much value as Tanev but still should get something decent back. Re-***** our defensive situation in 2 years when he is about to enter his last contract year, no reason his value will be any less then compared to now. If we are ready to start to compete at that point with a younger defensive core then he would be great to keep around. If not, he would be a perfect candidate to trade at that point for futures and help the rebuild along.

 

[DL44]

Yes. Most definitely.

This should be his highest value point as well.. bring back the best forward option you can find.

 

[ginner classic]

No. They shouldn't trade Tanev or Edler.

In order to develop young defenders, you NEED quality veterans to pair them with and guide them along. If you don't have that, you end up as a total cesspool like Edmonton of 3-5 years ago or Colorado this year where nothing develops.

Look what happened to Schultz/Petry/Marancin in Edmonton and how those players' development was destroyed on a bad blueline with no stabilizing influences.

Look how Hutton improved when taken away from Gudbranson this year.

Look how much Edler helped Stecher along as a rookie.

Trading Tanev (and/or Edler) is the dumbest thing we could possibly do, if you ever want Juolevi/Hutton/Stecher to develop as quality top-4 defenders here. I know everyone wants ALL KIDS! AS MANY KIDS AS POSSIBLE! MORE YOUNG ASSETS! but it's a formula for disaster.

There are ways around that. If you can bring in cap dump contracts for veterans that can still contribute meaningful minutes (Garrison), you might be able to get away with it. Edler for Garrison, Spencer and the 14th might be the kind of deal that could work out OK for us. Trading Tanev is a massive risk which would require massive payment from another party.

 

[ginner classic]

Did his play drop off a lot last year? He could be a cap dump for Tampa, but still be a usable top 4 dman for Vancouver and also a PP point shot.

His offence has certainly dropped off. He is a cap dump for sure, but a guy that can still contribute for another year. Maybe longer on a small renewal of his contract. He's not that old.

 

[Donuts]

YES. We all like him but he is not part of the young core going forward. Trade him while his value is high; dont wait til hes older and has ntc. Obviously try to trade other vets first like edler, gudbranson, eriksson, sbisa but tanev is bennings best trading chip atm.

One of these will do:
-package tanev for drouin or puljujarrvi
- for pick between #7 - 12 oa this draft.
- middle 2018 draft pick.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Someone needs to create a bot that only posts this in trade threads: Edler will not waive his NTC.

Burrows will not waive his NTC, they said.

Hansen will not waive his NTC, they said.

Hamhuis will not waive his NTC, they said.

Well...

 

[Nuckles]

I would only consider moving him for a severe overpayment. Also, I don't get why we need to move him right now, he's signed for three more years.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Burrows will not waive his NTC, they said.

Hansen will not waive his NTC, they said.

Hamhuis will not waive his NTC, they said.

Well...

Yeah, Bieksa and Garrison too. Now that we are in a full-scale rebuild, perhaps Edler can be convinced. Tampa is a nice place, and Hedman is there.

I'd rather trade Edler for less and keep Tanev, unless a sweetheart deal is out there for Tanev.

Both have injury troubles now, but I think you can only trade one, as our defensive depth is already putrid.

Losing Tryamkin magnifies it all too.

 

[y2kcanucks]

There are ways around that. If you can bring in cap dump contracts for veterans that can still contribute meaningful minutes (Garrison), you might be able to get away with it. Edler for Garrison, Spencer and the 14th might be the kind of deal that could work out OK for us. Trading Tanev is a massive risk which would require massive payment from another party.

This.

I would certainly look to move Tanev if we could get a very good return for him. Tanev for Drouin and Garrison would be ideal.

The main reason for me is that Tanev is approaching the point where he's going to start regressing, plus with all the injuries he sustains on a yearly basis that decline could be sharper than one might expect. If he could stay healthy I would probably advocate for keeping him around a few more years to develop the young kids, but he's missed an average of 18 games over the past 4 seasons which is about a quarter of a season. His career high is 70 games played.

I wouldn't move him for garbage though, which is what I expect Benning will end up doing.

I also would look to find a way to dump Gudbranson too as I don't want him anywhere near our young defensemen. He ruined Hutton's first half of this season. I don't want him ruining anyone else.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

No. They shouldn't trade Tanev or Edler.

In order to develop young defenders, you NEED quality veterans to pair them with and guide them along. If you don't have that, you end up as a total cesspool like Edmonton of 3-5 years ago or Colorado this year where nothing develops.

Look what happened to Schultz/Petry/Marancin in Edmonton and how those players' development was destroyed on a bad blueline with no stabilizing influences.

Look how Hutton improved when taken away from Gudbranson this year.

Look how much Edler helped Stecher along as a rookie.

Trading Tanev (and/or Edler) is the dumbest thing we could possibly do, if you ever want Juolevi/Hutton/Stecher to develop as quality top-4 defenders here. I know everyone wants ALL KIDS! AS MANY KIDS AS POSSIBLE! MORE YOUNG ASSETS! but it's a formula for disaster.

One doesn't preclude the other.

I usually agree with you about most things but you're way off-base here. The Canucks should absolutely move Tanev to the highest bidder before his NTC kicks in.

The kind of veteran D you describe we can take as cap dumps - Eg, Garrison in TB, Fayne in EDM, Hamhuis in DAL, Emelin in MTL, etc. There are buy-low FAs available like Hainsey, Franson, Liles.

I'd agree keeping Edler for now makes the most sense. Him and Stecher worked well together, and I doubt we'd get much of a bidding war going with his unwillingness to leave and NTC.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Doesn't really matter at this point. Cant get anymore bottom than bottom and dropping draft spots too.

 

[lawrence]

I'm down for it if we are literally adding another pretty high 1st rounder or a very high end prospect.

 

[earl grey]

No. They shouldn't trade Tanev or Edler.

In order to develop young defenders, you NEED quality veterans to pair them with and guide them along. If you don't have that, you end up as a total cesspool like Edmonton of 3-5 years ago or Colorado this year where nothing develops.

Look what happened to Schultz/Petry/Marancin in Edmonton and how those players' development was destroyed on a bad blueline with no stabilizing influences.

Look how Hutton improved when taken away from Gudbranson this year.

Look how much Edler helped Stecher along as a rookie.

Trading Tanev (and/or Edler) is the dumbest thing we could possibly do, if you ever want Juolevi/Hutton/Stecher to develop as quality top-4 defenders here. I know everyone wants ALL KIDS! AS MANY KIDS AS POSSIBLE! MORE YOUNG ASSETS! but it's a formula for disaster.

Absurd. They can sign vet defensemen on 1 year deals that can show the kids how to be a pro and then flip them at the deadline for a pick if it works out that way....

 

[Chubros]

Tanev is young enough that he might still be good when the team turns the corner, so I have no problem with the team holding on to him.

However, if something really good is offered, then you consider it - essentially it would be a full re-build tanking sort of move.

Edler on the other hand is at the point age-wise that he will be too old by the time team can hope to be good again. I would pressure him to waive his NTC and move him. If he refuses, then just hardcore insult him so he changes his mind.

Maybe tell him his mother was a hamster and that his father smelt of elderberries or something in that vein. That would infuriate him to the point where he would definitely demand a trade.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

I see MS's point, but I also think that with Green coming in (plus Lidster and Willie D leaving) Tanev might have a huge bounce-back year and actually improve our team too much in what should be a tank season. I don't want him bailing out Jim Benning's trash for 30 mins a night. I want this team to suck.

Much like the Leafs gained by trading Kessel in the sense that subtracting his 30+ goals helped them snag Matthews, I think the Canucks should trade their only elite d-man to help them draft Rasmus Dahlin this time next year.