Yea Edler is still the huge liability he's always been. Doesn't even put up points anymore. Had a pretty decent 14/15 campaign where he limited his brain farts, still, he was awful before that and wasn't any better than average last season. Tanevs greatest accomplishment is making people still think Edler is good. NHL babysitter.
Speculation: Article: Should and will the Canucks trade Tanev?
- Thread starter M2Beezy
- Start date
FOurteenS inCisOr
FOS COrp CEO
The numbers say otherwise. His ES production is roughly the same as it's ever been, and he makes no more mistakes than the average D who plays the minutes he does. He's not as steady defensively as Tanev, but he's a an effective member of that pair, not a passenger.
The "babysitter theory" is an absolute myth—Edler's maintained a high level of play during the stretches Tanev's been injured.
There's a small contingent of Canucks fans who made up their minds about Edler years ago when he was inconsistent and then never turned into that hard-hitting "next Lidstrom" that some hoped for early on. He's instead turned into a very steady, physical D who can eat 23-25 minutes a game and chip in 30 points—unfortunately that's not enough to sway those he offended.
PetterssonSimp
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2008
- 7,374
- 918
The only knock I truly have against Eddie is his passive nature. If he had the fight of even an Alex Biega I'd consider him the best defenceman. But the lack of physicality when he has all the size in the world you just have to wonder why? Those flashes during the first LAK series when he sent DoughBoy flying, best Edler moment I can think of.
Rex Banner
Custom User Title
- Aug 22, 2013
- 1,914
- 3
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either. Same thing when Garrison was a Canuck. He's huge and built like a tank, but it'll be a cold day in hell before he finishes a check.
I actually think they should trade him. IMO his value will never be higher. He could, if Benning is patient/selective, bring back a very large return. Some ideas:
Toronto - they get Rielly his partner. Would cost Nylander/Marner plus small add I think.
Arizona - loaded with young Fs, need to find a D partner for OEL. Maybe something like Dvorak+Chchyrun? A stretch to trade inside the division, I know
Islanders - Hamonic plus a prospect like Bellows? They get back a similar player (slightly worse IMO) and add a prospect like Bellows/Ho Sang/Beauvillier.
I guess my feeing is that Canucks should rebuild. Moving Tanev for prospects would be a big first step. I think we all know the fanbase is ready to tear it down. Just my opinion. They have Horvat/Boeser/Virtanen/Juolevi/Demko as a young core...if they move Edler and Tanev for prospects and picks they could suddenly have a very impressive young core.
Toronto - they get Rielly his partner. Would cost Nylander/Marner plus small add I think.
Arizona - loaded with young Fs, need to find a D partner for OEL. Maybe something like Dvorak+Chchyrun? A stretch to trade inside the division, I know
Islanders - Hamonic plus a prospect like Bellows? They get back a similar player (slightly worse IMO) and add a prospect like Bellows/Ho Sang/Beauvillier.
I guess my feeing is that Canucks should rebuild. Moving Tanev for prospects would be a big first step. I think we all know the fanbase is ready to tear it down. Just my opinion. They have Horvat/Boeser/Virtanen/Juolevi/Demko as a young core...if they move Edler and Tanev for prospects and picks they could suddenly have a very impressive young core.
Nucklehead Supreme
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 4,387
- 2,377
Yah, I think this is a product of those bogus suspensions, he is afraid to hit anybody, because Gary and Co. will suspend him indefinitely.
Nucklehead Supreme
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 4,387
- 2,377
I hope your prepared to get flamed by leafs fans for this. I don't disagree with you but they will.
No way the Islanders add to Hamonic for Tanev it would be a straight swap and kind of pointless for both sides.
If we're rebuilding (which we aren't) Tanev is the last guy we would trade.
He's only 26, and will be a veteran leader when our core prospects would be hitting their prime. Reverse logic..
Would be typical move if they changed philosophies now.
Trade young assets for gudbranson and then turn around and deal tanev.
Tanev is the better of the two d, so even if you think what tanev returns is better than McCann and the picks given up, you still have to factor in that the canucks downgraded their backend between tanev to gudbranson.
3 year age difference between the two is minimal given the skater difference which will still allow tanev to be effective into his 30's. Whereas gudbranson's game could be impacted should the NHL game get even faster.
He's fine now with the size of the CA teams the canucks have to face, but time will tell how the makeup if those teams changes in the coming years.
PetterssonSimp
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2008
- 7,374
- 918
Out of all the players I've wanted I've never been as disappointed in the hype of a player when the Canucks signed Garrison. I was a big pusher of him too, God that skating is just awful.
IMHO trading McCann and a 33rd overall should not have garnered close enough to a Top5 pick quality prospect in which I'd be searching for in any Tanev deal. So the loss/gain value to me seems to be you sacrifice defence for better young offensive potential. Kind of the opposite of what I want, but I was also one to concede that the need for young defence at the draft would probably outweigh our need for more potential scoring when we haven't even seen what we have from what we got.
As it stands id prefer to play this season with the 6 NHL defenceman we have and hope for some quality starts from our tenders again. Otherwise this team won't score enough to play its way out of the Top10 of the next draft. We've broken even with expected point projection with players lost and gained and only real improvements are hopeful healthy seasons from injured guys this past season.
Before Dallas signed hammer and canucks signed Eriksson they should have committed to a full rebuild and dealt Edler+Tanev to Dallas
Alright this might be one of the worst, most uninformed posts I've seen this summer! Congrats!
PetterssonSimp
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2008
- 7,374
- 918
With these pieces you must be discussing Edler. As this doesn't come close to Chris Tanev.
Alexander Edler
Registered User
As a Wings fan who is a huge fan of Dekeyser, and who sees Tanev as a Dekeyser Plus, I would fully be on board with trading both guys.
Maybe it's the Wings fan in me speaking - the one who waited for a Peak Brad Stuart to complete the Wings puzzle and a Prime Niklas Kronwall to hold down the 2nd pairing of a should-have-been back-to-back Championship team. Maybe it's someone who has grown to notice the nuances of hockey after watching two decades sort of hockey. But either way, Tanev isn't the bottom-brick guy. He's an add-on.
In other words, Tanev isn't going to be the first guy people point to on a Cup team. He's not going to be the Conn Smythe winner. He's not going to be the team's identity. What he's going to be is the missing piece to an already assembled Broadway-calibre cast. He's going to be the steady second-mate to an All Star boss who is so dynamic that he takes turns playing hero and villain season-to-season.
I get that he has beautiful advanced stats, but Vancouver should be smart and profit from that hype if the profit is to be made. That's not to say Tanev should be on the block unequivocally, but if the Larsson/Hall market is there, as a rebuilding, upstart, or no-man's-land team, the chips should be in the table.
Maybe it's the Wings fan in me speaking - the one who waited for a Peak Brad Stuart to complete the Wings puzzle and a Prime Niklas Kronwall to hold down the 2nd pairing of a should-have-been back-to-back Championship team. Maybe it's someone who has grown to notice the nuances of hockey after watching two decades sort of hockey. But either way, Tanev isn't the bottom-brick guy. He's an add-on.
In other words, Tanev isn't going to be the first guy people point to on a Cup team. He's not going to be the Conn Smythe winner. He's not going to be the team's identity. What he's going to be is the missing piece to an already assembled Broadway-calibre cast. He's going to be the steady second-mate to an All Star boss who is so dynamic that he takes turns playing hero and villain season-to-season.
I get that he has beautiful advanced stats, but Vancouver should be smart and profit from that hype if the profit is to be made. That's not to say Tanev should be on the block unequivocally, but if the Larsson/Hall market is there, as a rebuilding, upstart, or no-man's-land team, the chips should be in the table.
leaflover
Stanley Cup 2022
If it happens it's unwarranted IMO. If Toronto was further ahead in the rebuild and the bulk of their prospects had been assessed over a reasonable length of time it might make a great deal of sense to make a move for somebody like Tanev. Right now it's too early to tell though so further patience is still the right direction.
Bosnyi
Bruins-islanders
Nucklehead Supreme
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 4,387
- 2,377
Wasn't trying to get in a pissing match about value, because that's silly and completely subjective. I was just trying to say I'd give up quite a bit for him.
Roof Daddy
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2008
- 13,201
- 2,387
Let's do a hypothetical based on a similar valued package. Let's say the Oil are hovering around a playoff spot midway through the season, and the Nucks are in the basement. Let's also assume that Yakupov - now getting ample time in the top 6 and in a better dressing room environment with the removal of Hall - is having a bounce back year and is on pace for 25ish goals and 50 points. Would this package do it...
Yak + Reinhart + 2017 1st?
thepuckmonster
Professional Winner.
No. Needs to be quality over quantity for us to move Tanev. Even if Yak rebounds he needs to prove its not a flash in the pan at this point. Playing with McDavid isn't enough for me.
Literally next to 0 interest in Reinhart.
