Should the team trade Tanev now or let this thing ride out?

[Cupless44]

Minus the Eriksson albatross contract and the Luongo re-capture penalty, the Canucks easily re-sign Markstrom, Tanev and maybe even Tofoli.

LOL there are no mulligans in the NHL. The 6 million dollar albatross is in fact reality and it is Benning's doing. It is not going away to meet our signing fantasies.

 

[F A N]

HELL NO to 5 years for Tanev unless it's 3 mill per or less. I love the guy but he's the exact kind of player whose game falls off a cliff shortly. I would be very leery of anything over 3 years.

That's fair. Whether to re-sign Tanev is one of the more hotly debated topics for a reason. He's not signing for $3M AAV. If you're signing him to a 4 year deal at FMV, I think it's worth considering giving him a 5 year deal and try and knock the AAV down.

I personally think that if Tanev can stay healthy, his game might age gracefully since he isn't slow to begin with and relies a lot on his instincts and positioning.

 

[VancouverJagger]

That's fair. Whether to re-sign Tanev is one of the more hotly debated topics for a reason. He's not signing for $3M AAV. If you're signing him to a 4 year deal at FMV, I think it's worth considering giving him a 5 year deal and try and knock the AAV down.

I personally think that if Tanev can stay healthy, his game might age gracefully since he isn't slow to begin with and relies a lot on his instincts and positioning.

Yeah I dunno........He's had sooo many injuries and I have a hard time believing he's going to age gracefully but that's a crap shoot. I really think he might take a 3 x 5 or 5.5 or something like that as he's been here a while and that's proven in the past to be worth something for a lot of guys.

 

[tyhee]

Surely if Tampa, in a cap crunch, gets a 1st + 3rd for Miller, we can at the very least get a 1st, negotiating more from a position of strength, for Tanev.

I'm a fan of your posts, but on reading this one am finding it hard to understand how it is possible to compare the value of four years of J.T. Miller with the value of two or three months of Chris Tanev.

 

[David71]

time to let him go. maximize the return on tanev.

 

[valkynax]

Ideally, I would like us to trade Tanev for some assets, and without promising anything, tell him that we're open for his return after this season should he wish to do so.

But, as the team's direction is to make a serious playoff/cup push, something I don't entire agree with, what's likely to happen is they will work out an extension and that's that. Benning bringing in a player like Toffoli shows that this is the direction the team will likely go with.

Realistically, since playoff is very likely, they should make for a playoff push as an experience run, instead of shooting for the cup which I think the team is still not ready for yet.

 

[VanJack]

If Jimbo and the Canucks luck holds.....they'll hang on to Tanev, and the first game post-deadline, he takes a slapper off his foot and is shelved for the season....then walks in the off-season because his money will go to re-sign Markstrom.

You can almost book it.

 

[ManoWarrior]

That's fair. Whether to re-sign Tanev is one of the more hotly debated topics for a reason. He's not signing for $3M AAV. If you're signing him to a 4 year deal at FMV, I think it's worth considering giving him a 5 year deal and try and knock the AAV down.

I personally think that if Tanev can stay healthy, his game might age gracefully since he isn't slow to begin with and relies a lot on his instincts and positioning.

Seems like Tanev is taking a lot less punishment now that he doesn't have to be relied on as a primary puck mover on the pairing. The ability to get the puck to Hughes early as opposed to getting nailed on the boards could really help his longevity.

 

[Green Blank Stare]

Obviously they're not going to trade Tanev. They're all-in on the playoffs. But looking at these deadline defenseman prices...it seems plausible Tanev would return a first-round pick straight up (or more).

If they could get a first for Tanev, I would do that no questions asked. They'd be short a RHD for the stretch run but they'd just have to figure it out. It's not like they aren't already bleeding shots against on a nightly basis.

 

[strattonius]

If they could get a first for Tanev, I would do that no questions asked. They'd be short a RHD for the stretch run but they'd just have to figure it out. It's not like they aren't already bleeding shots against on a nightly basis.

Whether we want to admit it or not, there are politics involved in trading players - and trading a vital piece like Tanev for futures in a playoff run is a huge 'F YOU' to the players.

Like I said, you can choose to believe that or not I'm not going to pretend you'll get it.

 

[Green Blank Stare]

Whether we want to admit it or not, there are politics involved in trading players - and trading a vital piece like Tanev for futures in a playoff run is a huge 'F YOU' to the players.

Like I said, you can choose to believe that or not I'm not going to pretend you'll get it.

I agree with you but I also agree with others that Hughes is carrying that pairing and would carry whoever was on that line with him.

 

[VanJack]

Whether we want to admit it or not, there are politics involved in trading players - and trading a vital piece like Tanev for futures in a playoff run is a huge 'F YOU' to the players.

Like I said, you can choose to believe that or not I'm not going to pretend you'll get it.

After tonight's action, the Canucks are now third in the Pacific and only two points clear of the final wildcard and three points from being out altogether. And of all the teams they're competing against, you could argue that right now the Canucks are playing the worst of all of them.

So you do realize that they could hold on to Tanev and STILL miss the playoffs. And that would be a huge 'F YOU' to the fans of this team.

 

[strattonius]

After tonight's action, the Canucks are now third in the Pacific and only two points clear of the final wildcard and three points from being out altogether. And of all the teams they're competing against, you could argue that right now the Canucks are playing the worst of all of them.

So you do realize that they could hold on to Tanev and STILL miss the playoffs. And that would be a huge 'F YOU' to the fans of this team.

Yes I realize the playoff landscape and the way the Canucks have played the last 6 or so games....

How is that relevant to trading Tanev? The players are making a push and sending that message to them is a crippling move - not to mention we dont have the depth on defense to support losing Tanev.

 

[strattonius]

I agree with you but I also agree with others that Hughes is carrying that pairing and would carry whoever was on that line with him.

I'm actually an advocate for not re signing Tanev as I think we are in too much cap trouble - that is a different matter than trading him at the deadline.

 

[SillyRabbit]

I'm actually an advocate for not re signing Tanev as I think we are in too much cap trouble - that is a different matter than trading him at the deadline.

So instead of receiving assets for Tanev, you'd rather let him walk for free just so we have a 5% better chance at possibly making the playoffs or winning a single round?

Seems like a lot of short term thinking.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I'm a fan of your posts, but on reading this one am finding it hard to understand how it is possible to compare the value of four years of J.T. Miller with the value of two or three months of Chris Tanev.

Fair. How about a conditional 1st, if the receiving team resigns Tanev?

 

[strattonius]

So instead of receiving assets for Tanev, you'd rather let him walk for free just so we have a 5% better chance at possibly making the playoffs or winning a single round?

Seems like a lot of short term thinking.

And as I've stated 2x now - I think trading Tanev in our current situation would be a big 'FU' to our locker room. Unless you are getting a solid defender back for Tanev I dont think making a trade makes sense.

How is that short-sighted?

Also, 5% what are you talking about stop making up numbers.

 

[SillyRabbit]

And as I've stated 2x now - I think trading Tanev in our current situation would be a big 'f*ck y**' to our locker room. Unless you are getting a solid defender back for Tanev I dont think making a trade makes sense.

How is that short-sighted?

Also, 5% what are you talking about stop making up numbers.

Yet you said you'd let him walk in the summer so we can free up cap space since Benning has mismanaged it so badly.

So which is it?

 

[F A N]

So instead of receiving assets for Tanev, you'd rather let him walk for free just so we have a 5% better chance at possibly making the playoffs or winning a single round?

Seems like a lot of short term thinking.

You must either think Tanev is a marginal top 4 Dman or the Canucks have quite a bit of depth on the back end if you think keeping Tanev gives the team only a 5% better chance of possibly making the playoffs or winning a single round.

 

[SillyRabbit]

You must either think Tanev is a marginal top 4 Dman or the Canucks have quite a bit of depth on the back end if you think keeping Tanev gives the team only a 5% better chance of possibly making the playoffs or winning a single round.

Even if he gave the Canucks a 300% chance at making the playoffs or winning a single round, if he is going to walk for free in the summer, we should get assets for him, plain and simple.

If we are going to re-sign him, only then should we keep him.

 

[strattonius]

Yet you said you'd let him walk in the summer so we can free up cap space since Benning has mismanaged it so badly.

So which is it?

I think currently the Canucks should hold on to Tanev.

I dont think the Canucks have the CAP to re sign him and if given a choice I'd rather have Markstrom and Toffoli.

If we lose Tanev for nothing its Bennings error from all the bad signings we have made but that doesn't mean we should trade him for futures right now.

 

[SillyRabbit]

I think currently the Canucks should hold on to Tanev.

I dont think the Canucks have the CAP to re sign him and if given a choice I'd rather have Markstrom and Toffoli.

If we lose Tanev for nothing its Bennings error from all the bad signings we have made but that doesn't mean we should trade him for futures right now.

Why? So we have a better team for the next 2 months? That's more important than getting assets that can help the team for a much longer period of time?

 

[strattonius]

Why? So we have a better team for the next 2 months? That's more important than getting assets that can help the team for a much longer period of time?

You are in the camp that doesnt acknowledge that there are politics in trading players from your locker room; depending on the situation.

The situation is that Tanev is a good defenseman helping us make the playoffs for the first time in 5 years

 

[David71]

I think currently the Canucks should hold on to Tanev.

I dont think the Canucks have the CAP to re sign him and if given a choice I'd rather have Markstrom and Toffoli.

If we lose Tanev for nothing its Bennings error from all the bad signings we have made but that doesn't mean we should trade him for futures right now.

agreed!. Its only a lose lose situation from here on out. people will still complain. OMG why didn't we trade tanev for assets.. or we signed him for too long. hes's too injury prone. might be healthy for only 40 games for whatever amount of money/contract he signed. "fire benning" terrible move awful signing etc. reasons go on and on.

 

[F A N]

Even if he gave the Canucks a 300% chance at making the playoffs or winning a single round, if he is going to walk for free in the summer, we should get assets for him, plain and simple.

If we are going to re-sign him, only then should we keep him.

I don't disagree. I much prefer recouping a first for Tanev if Tanev is going to walk anyways but they already made the Toffoli deal. I'm not sure that it even makes sense to trade Tanev for a better return that what we gave up for Toffoli and then extend Toffoli. Seems like a sideways move that is a downgrade in the short term but then we can see what Rafferty is all about.