Rumor: Benning shoots down current Tanev rumors; won't guarantee he won't be traded

[Trapper]

Completely different situation.

Perhaps different situation, Different player, different value, different return, not different from what the person asked.
Shooting down rumours but will move for the right deal.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

my point was that since he doesn't provide much offense, his defense has to make up for that.

For instance, Jonas Brodin. Good player, no offensive upside. Once he starts to decline defensively, he'll be as good as a traffic cone.

Why should we assume his defense would decline? He is not a physical player, so that won't effect him, and couldn't you really use that argument for any player in the league?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Perhaps different situation, Different player, different value, different return, not different from what the person asked.
Shooting down rumours but will move for the right deal.

Subban apparently did not get along with the coach, or other players. His NMC kicked in on July 1st. Those are the reasons he got moved no? Sounds like a completely different situation to me.

 

[WTG]

Such deals rarely happen. Subban for Weber was lopsided no matter how you slice it. Jones for Johansen was a Defenseman<-->Forward swap

YOu trade Tanev you're going for a high end forward and some assets. You'd have to make another package of a forward + futures into a trade to get your Tanev replacement

Either way, not a single Canucks fan has provided what they would consider an "overpayment"... Really on the ball here guys!

The Oilers set the market for Tanev.

If the canucks were to trade Tanev we'd want something like a Hall. Or else he won't get moved.

Hall or Miller aren't even close to the same level as Hall so no we wouldn't be ecstatic. Vancouver would hang up almost instantly.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I just don't understand how you look at these moves on one page, see how the team has performed and somehow not come out disappointed with both the direction and style of moves.

This feeling that moves have to be "crippling" before it's valid to point out how bad they are, seems unusual to me.

Vrbata and Hamhuis both point to a group that's not got their fingers on the pulse of both the team and what's going on around them.

That's a terrible assessment of Garrison.

Agree about Bieksa ... that was a decent return.

I don't like the move for Gudbranson, not so much for the value alone, but because he targeted a player that's no longer that effective in the league. That said, there are a lot who still feel as you do, so we'll see how it plays out. I'll be very pleased to be wrong on this one.

Another thing you've missed, is that Benning bleeds assets in almost every single deal he makes. He overpays for everything, and for a guy that's all about drafting, he's traded away more high picks than any previous management team while leading it to the bottom of the league.

I find it bizarre that Benning still has supporters.

1. He was the definition of inconsistent, not really a bad assessment.

2. Decent return? LOL the guy is a capdump now and we got a 2nd rounder for him seems like a pretty good return to me.

3. He was a top 4 dman for the Panthers last year, played a lot of minutes in the playoffs for them. He also played in a completely different conference, how about we actually watch him play for the Canucks before we write him off as ineffective, because you know advanced stats are the not the be all end all.

4. Benning is a good player evaluator, if he feels like a player will work on this team and gives away literal lottery picks to get said player is it really that bad?

5. We were a playoff team until March last year when we went on the worst losing streak of the year and lost our two best dmen, which speaks to how bad our depth was last year on the Blue line, something Benning addressed with the Gudbranson deal. We are not a bottom of the league team, it will show next year.


Has Benning been perfect? Far from it, has he been as terrible as some would make it seem? No.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

4. Benning is a good player evaluator, if he feels like a player will work on this team and gives away literal lottery picks to get said player is it really that bad?

That depends. If the lottery pick has an expected value of, say, two dollars, and you're trading it for a one dollar player, then yes, it's bad.

 

[PM]

What are you expecting? I'm not saying Tanev is old, but he will be 27 in November, his contract takes him to 31 years old (which in a vaccuum could be seen as a positive), but there is a risk his game takes a nosedive since he does not produce offensively (which is OK, but he needs to have very good defense for a long time to come if he doesn't produce offensively).

As a rangers fan, I offered a top 6 winger, a top 9 center, and a draft pick for Tanev and a better draft pick. That's pretty good for a top 4 shutdown defenseman, and about as close as you'll get to a Hall for Larsson swap. Kreider is a top 6 winger NOW, even if he tops out as a 50-55 point guy.

Unfortunately, I can't see Tanev bringing in Trouba (like some others stated) unless you add another high profile prospect like Virtanen--Winnipeg's GM is cheap and doesn't like to trade picks, just players, and he likes to rip people off (Benning might actually be his target, lol)

Tanev is probably the second last player in our organization I would trade, slightly behind Horvat. A top-6 winger and top-9 center doesn't event move the dial for me. I'd rather not trade him at all, on a team full of players I barely care about he is one of the few reasons I still watch this train wreck of an org since Benning and friends took over.

 

[NYVanfan]

I just don't understand how you look at these moves on one page, see how the team has performed and somehow not come out disappointed with both the direction and style of moves.

This feeling that moves have to be "crippling" before it's valid to point out how bad they are, seems unusual to me.

Vrbata and Hamhuis both point to a group that's not got their fingers on the pulse of both the team and what's going on around them.

That's a terrible assessment of Garrison.

Agree about Bieksa ... that was a decent return.

I don't like the move for Gudbranson, not so much for the value alone, but because he targeted a player that's no longer that effective in the league. That said, there are a lot who still feel as you do, so we'll see how it plays out. I'll be very pleased to be wrong on this one.

Another thing you've missed, is that Benning bleeds assets in almost every single deal he makes. He overpays for everything, and for a guy that's all about drafting, he's traded away more high picks than any previous management team while leading it to the bottom of the league.

I find it bizarre that Benning still has supporters.

didnt say i was a supporter, just dont prescribe to the milbury hyperbole
and yes, he bleeds assets, not a fan of that for sure.
garrison always looked like a slightly better version of Alberts to me. Look at his usage charts from his best (and only) full year -- he was just better than Weber

Calling gubby "a player that's no longer that effective in the league" is the kind of hyperbole im talking about

 

[TheTakedown]

Tanev is probably the second last player in our organization I would trade, slightly behind Horvat. A top-6 winger and top-9 center doesn't event move the dial for me. I'd rather not trade him at all, on a team full of players I barely care about he is one of the few reasons I still watch this train wreck of an org since Benning and friends took over.

Completely understandable. I'd assume you'd want a huge upgrade at Forward. Kreider + Hayes is a pretty legitimate combo for Tanev. Could totally understand more being needed, but I would think that's at least a start

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

That depends. If the lottery pick has an expected value of, say, two dollars, and you're trading it for a one dollar player, then yes, it's bad.

The highest draft pick he has given away was a 2nd rounder, which historically has a 13% chance of even being an NHL regular. Not really earth shattering.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Completely understandable. I'd assume you'd want a huge upgrade at Forward. Kreider + Hayes is a pretty legitimate combo for Tanev. Could totally understand more being needed, but I would think that's at least a start

You said upgrade. Kreider while pretty good, is a lot of what we have. 2/3 line tweeners with 45-60 point potential depending on player.
Canucks are looking for a guy like a TJ Oshie who is a fairly consistent 50 point RW with 65 point potential depending on health and luck. Chris Tanev brings that much value to the roster so we wouldn't want a collection of lesser pieces.

 

[Nine to Five]

I'm always puzzled by how highly regarded Tanev is. He's excellent in his own end and doesn't do much offensively. Striking parallels to Larsson (from what I gather, I dont profess to watched enough of the Devils to adequately assess).

Yet most of the board seems to agree that Hall was overpayment Larsson also has the 4th OA pedigree (even though that shouldn't be a factor in talent)
And lastly Larsson is a few years younger than Tanev.

What am I missing here? Using that to support Tanev netting a Hall like return seems like a bit of a reach to me. Yet, i'm surprised that even opposing fanbases seem to setting his value at that high of a price. And I'm a canucks fan

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Would...

Tanev


For

Nichushkin
Johns
Honka

...work for either side?

 

[WinterEmpire]

I'm always puzzled by how highly regarded Tanev is. He's excellent in his own end and doesn't do much offensively. Striking parallels to Larsson (from what I gather, I dont profess to watched enough of the Devils to adequately assess).

Yet most of the board seems to agree that Hall was overpayment Larsson also has the 4th OA pedigree (even though that shouldn't be a factor in talent)
And lastly Larsson is a few years younger than Tanev.

What am I missing here? Using that to support Tanev netting a Hall like return seems like a bit of a reach to me. Yet, i'm surprised that even opposing fanbases seem to setting his value at that high of a price. And I'm a canucks fan

Larsson isn't as good as Tanev, I wouldn't say Larsson is excellent in his own end yet, closer to adequate with upside. Statistically Tanev is one of the better #2 defencemen in the league, Larsson is not but has the tools to grow into that.

 

[Soups On]

I'm always puzzled by how highly regarded Tanev is. He's excellent in his own end and doesn't do much offensively. Striking parallels to Larsson (from what I gather, I dont profess to watched enough of the Devils to adequately assess).

Yet most of the board seems to agree that Hall was overpayment Larsson also has the 4th OA pedigree (even though that shouldn't be a factor in talent)
And lastly Larsson is a few years younger than Tanev.

What am I missing here? Using that to support Tanev netting a Hall like return seems like a bit of a reach to me. Yet, i'm surprised that even opposing fanbases seem to setting his value at that high of a price. And I'm a canucks fan

Tanev is excellent defensively but he also has a good transition game and first pass (I guess that adds to his defensive prowess).

Larsson is younger, yes, but he isn't better. If a team wants Tanev, the team is likely wanting to shoot for the cup and downgrading in talent to get a younger player doesn't seem like the best move there.

That Hall for Larsson trade was crazy, but like others have said, it really set the market for top pairing defensemen. I get that it seems like a reach because in a vacuum, I think it is. But the market is so volatile that it can put things in perspective.

 

[M2Beezy]

Would...

Tanev


For

Nichushkin
Johns
Honka

...work for either side?

Id very serious consider that i like all those young pieces its a lot to like coming back. But Tanman is a top dman only getting better so its a toughy

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

again, what are you expecting? You're not getting Trouba or Matthews for Tanev alone.

In any case, I'm sorry a top 6 winger, who could become a top 3 winger in the next year, isn't enough for your top pairing defenseman.

We wouldn't want to move him, and if we do, it's only for an offer that knocks our socks off. Look at what Larsson just returned. Why would we do it for Kreider + ? It's not a knock on Kreider, but it doesn't address our team's needs at all and why would we trade him for a package with some good pieces rather than just one really great piece?

 

[AustonsNostrils]

lol why on earth would the Canucks trade Tanev? They're hanging on to two 36 year forwards and they're going to trade a great 2D? Lunacy. Hanging on to the Sedins is dumb as ***** but I understand the loyalty/sentimentality behind it.

Taylor Hall or his equivalent doesn't put them any further ahead if they're losing Tanev.

Nucks need every prospect(Boeser,Juolevi,Demko) and youngster(Horvat,Virtanen) they have to hit close to their ceilings if they are to avoid a loooooooooong spell of mediocrity ... or worse.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

I'm always puzzled by how highly regarded Tanev is. He's excellent in his own end and doesn't do much offensively. Striking parallels to Larsson (from what I gather, I dont profess to watched enough of the Devils to adequately assess).

Yet most of the board seems to agree that Hall was overpayment Larsson also has the 4th OA pedigree (even though that shouldn't be a factor in talent)
And lastly Larsson is a few years younger than Tanev.

What am I missing here? Using that to support Tanev netting a Hall like return seems like a bit of a reach to me. Yet, i'm surprised that even opposing fanbases seem to setting his value at that high of a price. And I'm a canucks fan

Tanev >>> Larsson

Larsson is one of the best #3 defensemen / slightly below average #2 defenseman
Tanev is one of the best #2 defensemen / slightly below average #1 defenseman

Just because Larsson is younger doesn't mean he is better. Larsson doesn't have crazy potential beyond what he's already shown.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Id very serious consider that i like all those young pieces its a lot to like coming back. But Tanman is a top dman only getting better so its a toughy

You're right, Tanev is a top pairing shutdown dman.

That is why, IMO, Dallas would make the deal.

Vancouver makes the deal because they get futures for a top player, that at the time of contention, he won't fit with the core.

And as far as value goes, I'd say its pretty solid.

 

[Soups On]

You're right, Tanev is a top pairing shutdown dman.

That is why, IMO, Dallas would make the deal.

Vancouver makes the deal because they get futures for a top player, that at the time of contention, he won't fit with the core.

And as far as value goes, I'd say its pretty solid.

It's a deal I would grudgingly make but with how this management operates (erratic as ****), I have no idea if Benning and friends would.

Really good offer, though this team really shouldn't be trading Tanev

 

[PetterssonSimp]

You're right, Tanev is a top pairing shutdown dman.

That is why, IMO, Dallas would make the deal.

Vancouver makes the deal because they get futures for a top player, that at the time of contention, he won't fit with the core.

And as far as value goes, I'd say its pretty solid.

Dallas is probably one of the few teams that can make that deal and just dust off their shoulders knowing they got a compete now top pairing defenceman.
Though I have to feel it'd be a lesser offer, just for realities sake

 

[PM]

Completely understandable. I'd assume you'd want a huge upgrade at Forward. Kreider + Hayes is a pretty legitimate combo for Tanev. Could totally understand more being needed, but I would think that's at least a start

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.

 

[KreiderHouseRules*]

Why should we assume his defense would decline? He is not a physical player, so that won't effect him, and couldn't you really use that argument for any player in the league?

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.

 

[Skirbs1011]

Would...

Tanev


For

Nichushkin
Johns
Honka

...work for either side?

I would consider it, If it was Lindell instead of Johns I would probably like it a bit more. Gives a LH and RH D prospect. Does seem like a lot going to Van maybe they have a small add in a lesser prospect.