Green Blank Stare
Drance approved coach
- May 16, 2019
- 1,318
- 1,612
Should the team trade Tanev now or let this thing ride out?
- Thread starter Green Blank Stare
- Start date
- Status
CanuckleBerry
Benning Survivor
Split on this. I like Tanev a lot, don't want to lose him. I wouldn't trade him for the sake of trading him no, but if a good deal is out there somewhere then yes I seriously consider it. Losing Tanev because of a trade makes me sad, losing Tanev to free-agency because we can't afford him with so much expensive filler in our bottom-six makes me furious. If you can get a 2nd-rounder or better for him, I probably pull the trigger. If not then hold, and hope to god that the cap can be fixed somehow in the off-season.
I can’t recall a playoff bound team that traded one of their top 3 D at the TDL. It’s an interesting theoretical discussion but there is no way in hell that it’s actually happening unless the team is outside of the playoffs by the TDL.
I believe he’s worth a first +. I would definitely look to trade him, we aren’t winning anything this year
Probability of falling out of the 8th spot by 8 points by the TDL seems extremely unlikely. That’s where they would have to be for Benning to even consider trading him.
Out by 4/5 points and Benning still keeps him like he has all other key ufas.
playoffs are divisional based. Honestly, anyone in the pacific could get to the final 4 so long as they get in. Vancouver would be best to avoid Winnipeg in the WC cause they can’t seem to beat them.
canucks can’t make the playoffs without Tanev.
It'll probably take $6m a season to bring him back on July 1st, and there's absolutely no way the Canucks could ever afford that. So his career in Canuck-land is probably winding down.
Better to deal him before the deadline when playoff bound teams are desperate for blueline depth. But if history is any guide, Jimbo will go the same route as he did with Hamhuis, whom he couldn't trade and then lost for nothing.
Would the Canucks be worse off without Tanev for the stretch drive? Possibly. Although Tanev is overdue for some sort of injury that usually keeps him out for weeks. But in terms of asset management it's a no-brainer to trade him.
Better to deal him before the deadline when playoff bound teams are desperate for blueline depth. But if history is any guide, Jimbo will go the same route as he did with Hamhuis, whom he couldn't trade and then lost for nothing.
Would the Canucks be worse off without Tanev for the stretch drive? Possibly. Although Tanev is overdue for some sort of injury that usually keeps him out for weeks. But in terms of asset management it's a no-brainer to trade him.
DL44
Status quo
DL44
Status quo
If we get into the playoffs...
It could be in round 1:
Van vs Cgy... It should be close, like our chances
Van vs Edm... It should be close, like our chances
Van vs Az... It should be close, like our chances
Van vs VGK... It should be close, don't like our chances as much
Then maybe in round 2...
Van fresh off 4 wins vs one of the above teams.
With some match up luck of avoiding the 8th seed, they could win a playoff round for the first time in 9 yrs.
Maybe two.
I like our chances of winning a little something this yr.
So don't trade Tanev.
If they are trading a defender at this years deadline, it will hopefully be Stecher. Unless of course we go off the skids between now and the deadline. Then you should definitely look at moving Tanev. If we are looking like we will make the playoffs, you have to keep Tanev (and hopefully resign)
CanuckleBerry
Benning Survivor
I would trade him for a first without much thought, but I really think the time has come and gone where the market would have paid that for him.
It’s moronic. The team is making the playoffs and they can’t trade their 3rd best defensmen. What kind of message does that send to the players in the locker room? A horrible message. Good luck bringing any of the free agents back next year. Complete slap in the face to Elias, Bo etc.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,315
- 20,150
The time to trade Tanev was a few seasons ago.
If they are truly in a playoff spot they have to keep him. But if it's like past trade deadlines and we're out of it, but perhaps not mathematically, they should look to move him. Especially if he's indicating he isn't coming back next season or that he'll price himself out of our cap space.
I'm pretty torn on it though because clearly he's having a positive impact playing with Hughes, but this season is an anomaly in an injury prone career. I don't have any faith in the team to adequately replace him through trade/free agency either.
If they are truly in a playoff spot they have to keep him. But if it's like past trade deadlines and we're out of it, but perhaps not mathematically, they should look to move him. Especially if he's indicating he isn't coming back next season or that he'll price himself out of our cap space.
I'm pretty torn on it though because clearly he's having a positive impact playing with Hughes, but this season is an anomaly in an injury prone career. I don't have any faith in the team to adequately replace him through trade/free agency either.
I didn't like the wording of either option so didn't vote, but Tanev would be on the block for me. Wouldn't trade him just to trade him, and wouldn't move him for futures. As great as Tanev is, I'm always worried each game could be his last for a while, so I'd be okay moving him for a medium to long term piece. Something similar to JT Miller type piece...young enough to be around awhile and locked up for a few more years at a fair AAV.
Prefer if a deal brought back a defenseman, but logistics there are pretty tough.
Prefer if a deal brought back a defenseman, but logistics there are pretty tough.
strattonius
Registered User
Simple yes or no option would have been nice so fans can try to justify their position. Instead we are left with 2 wordy options that corner the vote to thinking one way.
These two posts highlight the conundrum.
Tanev is important, but hes also a valuable asset to potentially acquire future assets.
Are the playoffs this year more important for this group than a 1st?
Even though I don’t think it is, I also see how winnable a few rounds are. It’s for this reason I think they should probably make a bigger push this deadline than they had planned on.
Bringing it back to Tanev; I don’t think it makes sense to bring Tanev back at market value beyond this season anyways. He’d need to be on something similar to what he’s on and I see no reason for him to take less than Myers just got.
I think they’ll hold on to him through the deadline and he’ll leave as a UFA.
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
From September 10 2019 31 thoughts:
16. When Chris Tanev hits the ice in Vancouver, word is it will be with custom-made shin pads and gloves, created by the team’s trainers. He’s missed too much time because he plays hard and refuses to bail out on the ice. In 2019–20, it will be with greater protection.
Trading him simply sends the wrong message, whether we are winning it all this year or not. Those who think it is a good idea to trade guys like Markstrom and Tanev this season are delusional, this is not an acceptable management strategy. They should be looking at re-signing both of these players, and if the contract demands are too high, try to trade their rights in the offseason. Alternatively, if some sort of window opens to wheel and deal in such a way where we can trade our 1st and a prospect for a good defenseman in a hockey deal, then flip Tanev for a 1st, I'm fine with something like that.
It would really depend who's coming back....if it's a legit top-six forward, then you have to pull the trigger. Adding more scoring punch is hardly a 'slap in the face' to Elias and Bo. It means they wouldn't have to carry the entire load night after night.
As far as Tanev is concerned....he's always been decent in his own zone, although lately it seems even that part of his game has been spotty. But he generates next to nothing in terms of offense.
So no, nobody on the Canucks rosters should be 'offended' if Benning elects to short up his offense up front.
They simply don't have the defensive depth to have a hope at the playoffs without him. We've seen what a train wreck Myers is when he's had to fill Edler's role, and it would be more of the same if Tanev was traded. Sometimes you have to hold on to a player even if it means you lose him for nothing after the season.
And yes, even if the Canucks aren't even close to contenders, I'd rather they made the playoffs sooner rather than later. Don't want the young players to develop in a losing culture. The playoffs, even a 4 game sweep, would be a good learning tool for them.
And yes, even if the Canucks aren't even close to contenders, I'd rather they made the playoffs sooner rather than later. Don't want the young players to develop in a losing culture. The playoffs, even a 4 game sweep, would be a good learning tool for them.
CanuckleBerry
Benning Survivor
If this really is what made the difference why on earth wasn't this done years ago... and for Edler as well.
Decimate the D to add scoring. Last time I checked we can score but we can’t defend. Makes no sense
Any matchup against AZ/EDM/CAL in the playoffs is a coin toss for either side. Vegas, coaching change, so see what that does given that the Canucks had a hard time against Gallant's style of team. Winnipeg would be the final option if the Canucks won the division. Despite their less than spectacular D, they manage to get the better of the Canucks. So LV and WIN are not good matchups for the Canucks.
Canucks could miss the playoffs or they could even get to the final 4 given the match ups. It's that wide open. No STL/BOS/WAS calibre team leading their division.
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
I find hockey people to be 2 things.
1. very traditional (closed to new ideas), and
2. dumb
Oh, wait . . . I am hockey people.
- Status
