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

[Bertuzzzi44]

No, Tanev is a clutch player. The type of defenceman that wins you games in the playoffs. Too valuable to move.

 

[PM]

No, Tanev is a clutch player. The type of defenceman that wins you games in the playoffs. Too valuable to move.

I’m a huge Tanev fan and don’t want to trade him. But does he actually win you games in the playoffs? It’s been so long since we were there that I don’t think we can say that with him.

 

[nuck]

Why would he have more value to another playoff club than to the club he is on? Without the playoffs that makes some sense but this just creates a hole. Zero chance Tanev is moved. Imagine if the bandaid replacement didnt work.
Now resigning him is a different discussion because now he will be an 82 game player and not a glass figurine The playoffs.may decide that.

 

[tyhee]

No, Tanev is a clutch player. The type of defenceman that wins you games in the playoffs. Too valuable to move.

I sometimes have problems telling when a post is serious and when it is making fun of things said by other posters, so I apologize if I'm reading this post seriously when it wasn't intended that way.

Aside from the value of a player in one or two playoff series compared with the future value of whatever the return might be, Tanev has played 16 career playoff games, 6 won by the Canucks, 10 lost, the last played when he was 25 years old.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

I sometimes have problems telling when a post is serious and when it is making fun of things said by other posters, so I apologize if I'm reading this post seriously when it wasn't intended that way.

Aside from the value of a player in one or two playoff series compared with the future value of whatever the return might be, Tanev has played 16 career playoff games, 6 won by the Canucks, 10 lost, the last played when he was 25 years old.

Do you actually think this management group will trade Tanev for future value? C’mon man we all know that’s not happening (it 100% should). If Tanev is traded it would be for an immediate upgrade (Barrie) and we’d probably be giving up future assets on top. Knowing this is the likely scenario I’d rather keep Tanev.

 

[I am toxic]

I sometimes have problems telling when a post is serious and when it is making fun of things said by other posters, so I apologize if I'm reading this post seriously when it wasn't intended that way.

Aside from the value of a player in one or two playoff series compared with the future value of whatever the return might be, Tanev has played 16 career playoff games, 6 won by the Canucks, 10 lost, the last played when he was 25 years old.

Well, in my case . . . well . . . you know

 

[tyhee]

Do you actually think this management group will trade Tanev for future value? C’mon man we all know that’s not happening (it 100% should). If Tanev is traded it would be for an immediate upgrade (Barrie) and we’d probably be giving up future assets on top. Knowing this is the likely scenario I’d rather keep Tanev.

Ah, moving the goalposts.

No, I don't think this team is going to trade Tanev, but what you said was he's clutch, the type of player that wins you games in the playoffs and is to valuable to move. In fact he's been in 6 playoff wins and 10 playoff losses, you've given no basis for thinking he's "clutch" in the sense of playing better in important situations than other situations or that he's too valuable to move.

While it would make sense to move him from a player asset standpoint, the Canucks can't be seen to be giving up on a playoff team, so simply can't do it right now no matter how much sense it makes.

Your statement made no sense. There was a reason why I wasn't sure if your post was serious or poking fun at people who would actually say those things.

 

[VanJack]

I’m a huge Tanev fan and don’t want to trade him. But does he actually win you games in the playoffs? It’s been so long since we were there that I don’t think we can say that with him.

The chances of Tanev staying healthy for a long playoff run are just about 'zero' imo. The physical play ramps up; d-men are forced to block shots like crazy and teams are playing every second night.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Ah, moving the goalposts.

No, I don't think this team is going to trade Tanev, but what you said was he's clutch, the type of player that wins you games in the playoffs and is to valuable to move. In fact he's been in 6 playoff wins and 10 playoff losses, you've given no basis for thinking he's "clutch" in the sense of playing better in important situations than other situations or that he's too valuable to move.

While it would make sense to move him from a player asset standpoint, the Canucks can't be seen to be giving up on a playoff team, so simply can't do it right now no matter how much sense it makes.

Your statement made no sense. There was a reason why I wasn't sure if your post was serious or poking fun at people who would actually say those things.

Clutch in that he always seems to make the right plays in tight games. Has made excellent plays when defending leads in the last couple of minutes of a game and has scored or assisted on some big goals in close games (and in overtime). Seems to raise his game when more is on the line, granted he’s only shown this in the regular season, but it should translate effectively to playoff hockey. Tanev is too valuable to move for some of the rumoured players that could come our way. I’d definitely keep Tanev over Barrie with the current make up of this team, if we didn’t have Hughes then a deal like that would make sense. If we trade Tanev for a “perceived upgrade” we’ll likely be giving up future assets as well.

 

[timw33]

Do you actually think this management group will trade Tanev for future value? C’mon man we all know that’s not happening (it 100% should). If Tanev is traded it would be for an immediate upgrade (Barrie) and we’d probably be giving up future assets on top. Knowing this is the likely scenario I’d rather keep Tanev.

I don't think Barrie is an upgrade on Tanev here. Barrie's sole value is in his ability to be a PP1 QB, which frankly he hasn't even been able to do very successfully in Toronto (on a PP with Matthews Tavares Marner) with only 10PPP on the season. There's no role for a PP1 utility guy here with that position already filled by Quinn Hughes (22PPP).

And then when you look at ES production you realize that his 19 ESP is only 2 more than Tanev's 17 ESP in addition to Tanev's steady defensive play/PK ability, it's really not much of an upgrade (if at all).

 

[Green Blank Stare]

O/U 4.5 games until he gets injured, especially with Marky out?

 

[tradervik]

Leafs extend Muzzin for 4 x $5.625. First year has NMC protection, then it converts to a 10 team no-trade list.

 

[VanJack]

Tanev is now officially a 'rental' along with Tofoli.....they certainly couldn't sign Tanev to the same money as Muzzin and it wouldn't be smart to give a 30-year old d-man who's had only one healthy season out of the past three, a long-term contract anyway.

My guess is that Rafferty replaces Stecher; and Tryamkin, who can play either side, replaces Tanev.

 

[Green Blank Stare]

Now he's gone for nothing.

 

[timw33]

Now he's gone for nothing.

So now the only expiring asset we've recouped a pick on in 6 seasons is.....Alex Burrows with Jonathan Dahlen (then flipped for Linus Karlsson)

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Now he's gone for nothing.

Ah so we should have traded him and ruined our cup run? Makes sense