The only way I would trade Tanev is in a 1 for 1 trade for an exceptional young talent in return. Not saying quite Taylor Hall for Larsson value but that is the only kind of trade I would personally consider. It needs to be a pure quality trade otherwise I would prefer to keep the better player, partially due to the lack of high-end players in our organization.
OK, NAME this player please... Not one of you has thrown out a useful "1-for-1" proposal.
Yes, of course.
But it is worrisome when a player who's very good at everything else is so bad at finishing and just doesn't produce even secondary points. To play Tanev's minutes and barely crack 20 points is almost embarrassing.
When a player lacks any real offensive game, it's more of a concern that they'll become totally useless if they lose a step or their D declines for whatever reason.
Look at Staal and Girardi on NYR.
Not that either are the skater that Tanev is, but Staal was a TOP defensive player until the freak injuries derailed his career, and Girardi was a clear top-4 D, even a top-pair D for a while with his defensive effort and ~30 point contributions (10 more points than Tanev's career-high).
More importantly, it wasn't that long ago that 5.7M and 5.5M were the market values for those players on long-term deals. They both lost a step, and they're both very bad contracts now and it's not like they're 36-37. They're 29 and 32 respectively.
I'm not sure Tanev at age 29-32 is going to be as revered as he is right now. He'll be 27 in two months. He's a pretty skater and a smart, quick defensive player.
No player hides from Father Time, but guys with only one dimension to their game are simply less valuable than those who excel at both ends.
The thing is, Girardi was never actually good at suppressing shots so that's a bad example.
Staal sadly had 3 concussions and damaged orbital all in about 2 years. That's a pretty rare chain of events. had they not happened, Staal would still be a bona-fide #2 dman.
Neither one was ever quick on their feet, and Girardi especially was always horrendous at passing in general, so using them as a comparable to Tanev is apples to oranges.
Instead you should be comparing guys like Vlasic, Stralman, Ellis, etc.
There's only three teams in the world where Tanev is a 3D (or lower) - Sweden, Canada, and the LA Kings.
And yes, most forwards have peaked by 25.
Star players have peaked around 25 (see Crosby). Some players do not peak at 25. Nearly all have peaked by 29, unless again you're a late blooming star player.
Of course he could.
But then let's afford Kreider (who's almost 2 years younger) the same benefit: he could score 55-60 points easily if he's able to bring the effort consistently.
Chris Tanev is a blackhole:
1 goal and 4 primary assists at 5on5 all season.
Elite!
1D!
Woohoo!
PLEASE, stop using point production to judge how good a defensive defenseman is. The idea is that you'd put him with elite playmaker like Yandle, Ekblad, McDonagh, Subban, etc... That's where he would shine immensely. He'd probably have more point totals too
Tanev is very good and smart about blocking shots. Normally you need to take blocked shots with a grain of salt (more shots against more chances to block cough *russell* cough) but if a player is good at shot suppression then blocking shots is also a good thing. Tanev is good at both.
Over the last 3 years (big enough sample) he's 11th in FA/60 in some good company (Vlasic is 12th). Relative to team he is a clear first in the NHL.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...amid=0&type=fenwick&sort=A60RelTM&sortdir=ASC
He's an elite defensive defenseman but he's not an elite attacker. If you wanted to go after him I'd go after his offense side. The team generates a bit less offense with him than without, though a his big defensive boost outweighs it by a lot.
Thank you, some sound analysis here.
