Should the Canucks trade Tanev?

Status
Not open for further replies.

elitepete

Registered User
Jan 30, 2017
8,127
5,438
Vancouver
Never mind what Leaf fans say. If you think Leaf management will part with their first round pick and Liljegren for Tanev you are deluding yourself.
You are the one that is deluding themself if you think its in the best interest of the Canucks to trade Tanev for some mediore trash
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Nah, worth more to the team than he'll get in terms of market value. His durability will yield even less results in the rental market and will give leverage on an extension. Is our best defensmean and the only one capable of ACTUALLY sheltering our young defensmen. His injuries are obviously a concern but even if he plays and average of 60 games a season for us for the next 5 years I'd still rather have him at 4 million easy.

with all that said, deteriorating play and changes in the market obviously make this a dynamic/changing situation so we'll just see what ends up happening closer to the deadline (and subsequent season)

I don’t understand how Tanev can possibly be worth more to a team with no realistic playoff aspirations for another 2-4 years than to a team that he could legitimately help to win a Cup.

“Sheltering” young defensemen is of small value. If you can play, you can play. If you need sheltering, chances are you shouldn’t be in the NHL yet. The best way to build a good defense is to acquire good young defensemen, which can be accomplished by trading Tanev, not sheltering by mediocre ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krnuckfan

2011 still hurts

imagine posting on a hockey forum
Feb 10, 2016
1,293
1,468
I don’t understand how Tanev can possibly be worth more to a team with no realistic playoff aspirations for another 2-4 years than to a team that he could legitimately help to win a Cup.

“Sheltering” young defensemen is of small value. If you can play, you can play. If you need sheltering, chances are you shouldn’t be in the NHL yet. The best way to build a good defense is to acquire good young defensemen, which can be accomplished by trading Tanev, not sheltering by mediocre ones.
I didn't say he's more valuable to us right now than a contending team, that's obviously arguable depending on what team he goes to etc. It's pretty obvious that Tanev compensates for the mistakes/growing pains of the younger defensmen pretty consistently and helps them be a bit more comfortable. To some that sort of help during the development of players is invaluable but to some it's relatively immaterial because they could also be in the minors/overseas developing their game without needing a vet partner to not be a liability to their team.

If Tanev does get us a good young defenseman I'd be more eager to, it's just as I said his market value just isn't as high as it should be. I'm open to moving him depending on the context of said hypothetical transaction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: travis scott

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
I didn't say he's more valuable to us right now than a contending team, that's obviously arguable depending on what team he goes to etc. It's pretty obvious that Tanev compensates for the mistakes/growing pains of the younger defensmen pretty consistently and helps them be a more comfortable. To some that sort of help during the development of players is invaluable but to some it's relatively immaterial because they could also be in the minors/overseas developing their game without needing a vet partner to not be a liability to their team.

If Tanev does get us a good young defenseman I'd be more eager to, it's just as I said his market value just isn't as high as it should be. I'm open to moving him depending on the context of said hypothetical transaction.

Fair enough, but I would assume the “market value” is going to be set by contending teams rather than bottom feeders like us. Certainly there is *some* value to the role you describe for Tanev (sheltering, teaching) but that is only of value if we have promising defensemen to shelter/teach. It’s probably wasted if the best young D we have is Hutton or Stecher who are limited more by their own ability than how they are developed. Now if we had a potentially high end prospect (say a Boqvist or Hughes) then maybe that changes the equation a bit. On the other hand if Tanev can *get* us another potentially valuable young D then I think that is the more valuable outcome of the two.

I agree it’s debatable though, just depends on how you weight the value of the outcomes in question. I tend to value talent more than mentorship so that’s where I lean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2011 still hurts

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
Absolute nonsense.

1) Who gives a **** about right side/left side when the team as a whole sucks. (It's like worrying about windshield wipers on a car that doesn't run)

Ummmm.........defensemen that predominantly play the left side, and defensemen that predominantly play the right side. You realize that’s an actual important thing right?

2) It's common knowledge at this point one should always draft BPA, never for a position, and even less so for a such a specific one. It takes the low % of getting a great player even lower. It's stupid.

I agree with this line of thought for the most part, but again......take a look at the Canucks right defense outside of Tanev. Guds (who will likely get moved), along with Stecher and Biega who are barely NHL caliber defensemen.....if that. If you move Tanev and Gudbranson, do you really want Troy Stecher on your top pairing? And if he goes down with injury? Biega? Let’s not check our brains at the door.

3) Almost all of your posts you cite EDMONTON OILERS! EMEGERB, IF WE DO THAT WE"LL BE THE OILERS!!!!!1!!!1! No. Their **** show is a miraculous piece of work. Trading Tanev would not do this.

It’s not just the Oilers. They are the worst case scenario. There are numerous teams and examples out there that never seem to get ahead primarily due to the following reason:

They rush their kids and place them into positions that they are too green for, without adequate veteran support.

If you move Tanev and Gudbranson like many on here suggest, it would impact ALL of Stecher, Hutton, Juolevi, Demko, etc.,......and likely not in a positive way. Al of a sudden, our young defense get placed into roles that they either aren’t good enough for or are too green for.

All of a sudden, you bring up Demko and expect him to develop behind what would be the weakest defense corps in the NHL.

THAT IS NOT HOW YOU DEVELOP YOUR EXISITING PROSPECTS. Period.

Could the Canucks trade Tanev for a guy like Liljegren and could it work out? Possibly.....but the likelier case is that it wouldn’t.

Keeping Tanev and Edler is imperative for this organization, as it allows our young defensemen in the system to grow comfortably in 2nd and 3rd pairing roles, while Edler and Tanev shoulder the main responsibilities.

When the kids prove themselves ready for higher duty (which if we’re being honest, they haven’t), THEN you look at moving Edler and/or Tanev.

Trading Tanev would be a disservice to our prospects in the system and would likely set us back even further.

A guy like Juolevi needs time to develop on the 3rd pairing. Stecher shouldn’t be playing any higher than a 3rd pairing D. Hutton should only play on a 2nd pairing if he’s playing with a solid top 4 guy like Tanev. Anything above and beyond for an extended period of time will lead to trouble for his team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7even

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Ummmm.........defensemen that predominantly play the left side, and defensemen that predominantly play the right side. You realize that’s an actual important thing right?



I agree with this line of thought for the most part, but again......take a look at the Canucks right defense outside of Tanev. Guds (who will likely get moved), along with Stecher and Biega who are barely NHL caliber defensemen.....if that. If you move Tanev and Gudbranson, do you really want Troy Stecher on your top pairing? And if he goes down with injury? Biega? Let’s not check our brains at the door.



It’s not just the Oilers. They are the worst case scenario. There are numerous teams and examples out there that never seem to get ahead primarily due to the following reason:

They rush their kids and place them into positions that they are too green for, without adequate veteran support.

If you move Tanev and Gudbranson like many on here suggest, it would impact ALL of Stecher, Hutton, Juolevi, Demko, etc.,......and likely not in a positive way. Al of a sudden, our young defense get placed into roles that they either aren’t good enough for or are too green for.

All of a sudden, you bring up Demko and expect him to develop behind what would be the weakest defense corps in the NHL.

THAT IS NOT HOW YOU DEVELOP YOUR EXISITING PROSPECTS. Period.

Could the Canucks trade Tanev for a guy like Liljegren and could it work out? Possibly.....but the likelier case is that it wouldn’t.

Keeping Tanev and Edler is imperative for this organization, as it allows our young defensemen in the system to grow comfortably in 2nd and 3rd pairing roles, while Edler and Tanev shoulder the main responsibilities.

When the kids prove themselves ready for higher duty (which if we’re being honest, they haven’t), THEN you look at moving Edler and/or Tanev.

Trading Tanev would be a disservice to our prospects in the system and would likely set us back even further.

Don’t you say this about every veteran we’ve ever considered trading? Burrows? Hansen? Hamhuis?

At what point does the need to “shelter” players become secondary to simply acquiring better players?

Are we going to be better off “sheltering” Hutton into his 4th, 5th, and 6th NHL season? Or are we better off trying to find a better defenseman than Hutton?

You can polish a turd all you want but in the end it is still just a turd. How far are we going to get by trying to shelter mediocre players rather than by trying to upgrade those players to someone better, more talented?

I mean, Tanev has been here the entirety of Hutton’s career so far and he doesn’t look any better for it compared to the day he first made the team out of camp. Maybe sheltering and mentorship is overrated?
 

2011 still hurts

imagine posting on a hockey forum
Feb 10, 2016
1,293
1,468
Fair enough, but I would assume the “market value” is going to be set by contending teams rather than bottom feeders like us. Certainly there is *some* value to the role you describe for Tanev (sheltering, teaching) but that is only of value if we have promising defensemen to shelter/teach. It’s probably wasted if the best young D we have is Hutton or Stecher who are limited more by their own ability than how they are developed. Now if we had a potentially high end prospect (say a Boqvist or Hughes) then maybe that changes the equation a bit. On the other hand if Tanev can *get* us another potentially valuable young D then I think that is the more valuable outcome of the two.

I agree it’s debatable though, just depends on how you weight the value of the outcomes in question. I tend to value talent more than mentorship so that’s where I lean.
Yeah, I'm hopeful for Boqvist/Dahlin so to me it'd be more than worth having an ideal guy like Tanev around that they can be placed with.
 

valkynax

The LEEDAR
Sponsor
May 19, 2011
9,888
10,549
Burnaby
I personally think this is not an easy question to answer.

On one hand, as WTG and some others mentioned, Tanev is the only strip of duct tape that's holding this team's D corps. As soon as he's gone, our "defense" will vaporize. We will become the sad mutated clone of that Albertan team, with no defense, and no forwards to make up for the lack of defense.

That being said, it seems standard to at least listen to offers if other teams are interested. If an overpaid package is being offered, one that involves multiple first round picks and prospects, then it could be beneficial for the team to trade Tanev. But this requires a GM who knows what the hell he's doing, something this team does not have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: travis scott

ChilliBilly

Registered User
Aug 22, 2007
7,081
4,329
chilliwacki
Confused ... what is there to discuss. Hopefully dimiim gets an offer he can't refuse. In other words an overpayment. If not , we do not trade. A first a prospect and a player. If the 1st is not a lottery pick, than its not that valuable. then the prospect had better be impressive. Sorry, it needs to be a clear indication that part of the future shines brighter than Tanev. Or not worth while otherwise.
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Confused ... what is there to discuss. Hopefully dimiim gets an offer he can't refuse. In other words an overpayment. If not , we do not trade. A first a prospect and a player. If the 1st is not a lottery pick, than its not that valuable. then the prospect had better be impressive. Sorry, it needs to be a clear indication that part of the future shines brighter than Tanev. Or not worth while otherwise.

You mean the future of Tanev aged 28-31 vs the future of this pick/prospect from ages 17-31, right? We don’t get Tanev aged 21-27 again.
 

CanucksSayEh

Registered User
Apr 6, 2012
5,641
1,892
Tanev is the only good defenseman we have left from 2011, and we haven't come by any new ones since. I don't like our odds of finding another, or the 2+ needed to contend. How long does Vancouver plan on sucking? 1 more year? 2? 3? We will need him when the time comes to compete again, otherwise we're just wasting the primes of Horvat, Boeser ect. if our D is still trash. Those 3 guys are our best players, and will be at their best this season and the next few + . Keep him and try to re-sign him, if he wants to leave then, make a good TDL deal.

Not worried about the injuries, broken teeth and fingers are hardly concussions and hip surgeries. Hell be just fine, remember how Salo was our only healthy dman that year...
 
  • Like
Reactions: travis scott

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,019
2,855
victoria
I'd only move Tanev for an overpayment, like the deals listed above. I wouldn't move him just for "the best offer" but if I can get a future top 4 piece + a 1st, I'd do it. If I can't get that, I revisit it in the summer. There is value imo to have Tanev spend time with Juoevi next season, so there's no pressing reason to move Tanev, but he should be available for the right price.
 

ATypicalCanadian

Registered User
Apr 30, 2015
4,868
2,645
Canada
It’s not about mentoring... It’s about sheltering younger defensemen and preventing the team from being an Edmonton or 2017 Colorado level disaster.
It doesn't have to be Tanev sheltering the younger defencemen though.Whoever the GM is could hammer out a Tanev trade during the two day period of the draft(like the Hamonic trade) and scope out veteran Dmen at the same time before Free Agency opens during the week before when all the pre signing period posturing happens.

You sign two or three guys to fill the Tanev and Gudbranson spots and if Juolevi, Holm or whoever else earns a spot you ease them in.
 

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
Don’t you say this about every veteran we’ve ever considered trading? Burrows? Hansen? Hamhuis?

No. In the case of Burrows and Hansen, I was in favor of moving them because we had a reasonable (I use this term loosely) amount of depth up front. The players that would be replacing Burrows and Hansen wouldn’t be vastly inferior to them, and could justify being in those positions.

I was against moving Hamhuis however, as I didn’t feel comfortable with our lack of depth back there.......although if I recall correctly, it was a moot point as Benning traded for Gudbranson later while some of our young D took unexpected leaps to warrant being placed in a 3rd pairing role.

At what point does the need to “shelter” players become secondary to simply acquiring better players?

When a young player is equal to or better than said vet (I.e. Baertschi replacing Higgins). Vets in the final year of their contracts should also be moved if a team is rebuilding.

Are we going to be better off “sheltering” Hutton into his 4th, 5th, and 6th NHL season? Or are we better off trying to find a better defenseman than Hutton?

Better off trying to find a better defenseman than Hutton as I’ve suggested.

As for your last comment, mentorship and sheltering aren’t overrated at all. Teams that ignore this philosophy often take 7-10+ years rebuilding as opposed to 5-7 (ie the track the Benning has us on).

Moving Tanev might be a shrewd move, but I think the far more likely scenario is that it proves to be disasterous. Outside of Edler and Tanev, none of our defensemen are even close to being ready for top pairing duty. Juolevi needs more time to develop, while Tree is in the KHL.

Furthermore, we don’t have anyone on the RIGHT side that can play top pairing.

At this deadline, the Canucks should trade Vaenk for a prospect. Maybe a few others like Del Zotto, Gagner, etc., If there are any takers.

In the Summer, IF the Canucks can sign a Mike Green or a John Carlsson, THEN you consider moving Tanev for a prospect or a pick.

YOU CANNOT MOVE TANEV IF THERE ARE NO OTHER DEFENSEMEN ON THE ROSTER THAT CAN PLAY ON THE TOP PAIRING.

Doing this leads to more problems than growth as far as prospects go.
 

elitepete

Registered User
Jan 30, 2017
8,127
5,438
Vancouver
I don’t understand how Tanev can possibly be worth more to a team with no realistic playoff aspirations for another 2-4 years than to a team that he could legitimately help to win a Cup.

“Sheltering” young defensemen is of small value. If you can play, you can play. If you need sheltering, chances are you shouldn’t be in the NHL yet. The best way to build a good defense is to acquire good young defensemen, which can be accomplished by trading Tanev, not sheltering by mediocre ones.
Edmonton ruined multiple young defensemen by having them play too high in the lineup when they weren’t ready to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stampedingviking

elitepete

Registered User
Jan 30, 2017
8,127
5,438
Vancouver
It doesn't have to be Tanev sheltering the younger defencemen though.Whoever the GM is could hammer out a Tanev trade during the two day period of the draft(like the Hamonic trade) and scope out veteran Dmen at the same time before Free Agency opens during the week before when all the pre signing period posturing happens.

You sign two or three guys to fill the Tanev and Gudbranson spots and if Juolevi, Holm or whoever else earns a spot you ease them in.
You can’t just sign any defensemen to replace a top pairing defensemen. The team will be trash if we don’t get a guy that can play adequately in that role, and it’s almost impossible to get a player like that.
 

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
Edmonton ruined multiple young defensemen by having them play too high in the lineup when they weren’t ready to.

Actually I'm not sure that was really an issue. As the crew pointed out on TSN, the truth is they just lacked good defenders period. The list of highly regarded prospects that have played there is exceedingly short. Only Schultz was developed poorly, and much of that experience can be blamed on the player.

I think Edmonton just never had the talent on the back end. You could make the same argument for the forwards though and I would tend to agree.
 

elitepete

Registered User
Jan 30, 2017
8,127
5,438
Vancouver
Actually I'm not sure that was really an issue. As the crew pointed out on TSN, the truth is they just lacked good defenders period. The list of highly regarded prospects that have played there is exceedingly short. Only Schultz was developed poorly, and much of that experience can be blamed on the player.

I think Edmonton just never had the talent on the back end. You could make the same argument for the forwards though and I would tend to agree.
Schultz is perfect example of a player getting ruined by playing top pairing minutes when he wasn’t ready to. He’s lucky he got traded to a team that is good a developing d, and has been able to salvage a respectable career.

Petry is another player that I think would have ended up much better if he started out being sheltered on a deeper d core.

Jordan Oesterle playing well on Chicago now.

There are others that I can’t think of right now.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
Like who?

Name some names. And define “ruined” while you’re at it.

Justin Schultz
Martin Marincin
Jeff Petry

By 'ruined' - players who showed substantial initial promise, were rushed into playing top-pairing shutdown minutes because there was nobody else available, got destroyed and completely lost their confidence, and were eventually dumped by the organization for nothing. And then recovered to an extent in better organizations. Klefbom was going that direction as well until they picked up Larsson for him to play with.

The value that Tanev could provide as a partner to a developing Juolevi - as an example - is immense.
 

Tak7

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
12,623
4,094
GTA or the UK
Those “future assets” might not develop properly if they don’t have good veterans on the team.

Yeah our team is not supposed to be good during a rebuild.

But it’s also not supposed to be a pathetic joke that gets blown out every night like Edmonton during their rebuild because then the young players will be in a toxic environment where they don’t develop.

You can get good cheap veterans with experience and good habit in free agency.

Keeping a marketable asset because of his "veteranness" is the type of short-sighted, brainless move that gets organizations into trouble in the first place.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
You can get good cheap veterans with experience and good habit in free agency.

Keeping a marketable asset because of his "veteranness" is the type of short-sighted, brainless move that gets organizations into trouble in the first place.

You can get good cheap patchwork veteran #5 defenders in free agency.

You can't get guys who can carry a pairing and shelter a young player for cheap in free agency.

Tanev should only be traded if we can score a massive home run. Trading him for the #25 overall pick and a B-level prospect is absolutely braindead.
 

Tak7

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
12,623
4,094
GTA or the UK
You can get good cheap patchwork veteran #5 defenders in free agency.

You can't get guys who can carry a pairing and shelter a young player for cheap in free agency.

Tanev should only be traded if we can score a massive home run. Trading him for the #25 overall pick and a B-level prospect is absolutely braindead.

He's Chris Tanev.

He's not Drew Doughty.

You have to temper expectations on what he is, and not forget who he's playing for - he's playing for a poor organization, and that will naturally hurt a player's value the longer he remains on a struggling team.

For a team that is hurting for top-end talent, as long as the return is reasonable, then you move him. Holding onto him doesn't benefit you at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->