Proposal: Bos - Van

[Nucklehead Supreme]

where have I devalued Tanev?

take you own advice, and go back and read the thread before commenting and making yourself look so silly there bud.

oh, and this is were you compared him to a #1:

Tanev's value is that of a top paring dman, they did a poll most agreed on here

talk about making oneself look silly there bud......

'meh.... an HF poll said so... it has to be true'.

Cool, I may have mistaken you for another poster, my bad.


I should have been more clear, we see him as a #2, which is top paring but obviously not #1.

I said that wasn't the be all end all, its just part of it. The praise he received during the World Championships as being the unsung hero is also part of it, which I included in a previous post.

 

[PB37]

Who is also an amazing transition defenseman, and if we didn't have such a tire fire, would have had plenty more assists. Yea he isn't Erik Karlsson, but he's Lidstrom without the offense. Still a number 2 defenseman at worst, on an amazing contract. I'd never trade a player like him for a winger like Marchand, especially one 1 year away from free agency

" Lidstrom without the offense "

" A number 2 at worst "

Like I said, the overrating of Tanev is hysterical.

 

[BrockBoeser6]

" Lidstrom without the offense "

" A number 2 at worst "

Like I said, the overrating of Tanev is hysterical.

The real fool is the one who listens and responds to a comment like that

 

[skyo]

Value for Tanev has been set. (2) 2nd round picks; see Johnny Boychuk

lol how's that? Chiarelli made a bad trade and the bruins were in salary cap woes back then, plus boychuk was about to be a UFA the following offseason.

This thread feels like 2011 again, the ego's and hate are still strong.

 

[bb_fan]

lol how's that? Chiarelli made a bad trade and the bruins were in salary cap woes back then, plus boychuk was about to be a UFA the following offseason.

This thread feels like 2011 again, the ego's and hate are still strong.

Which trade was the bad one?

Boychuck for two seconds (and Boychuck was a better player at the time of that trade than Tanev is now) or the Hall trade?

 

[Oates2Neely]

lol how's that? Chiarelli made a bad trade and the bruins were in salary cap woes back then, plus boychuk was about to be a UFA the following offseason.

This thread feels like 2011 again, the ego's and hate are still strong.

Well we do have a championship dvd we can pop in late nights with popcorn.

Boychuk at the time was a better player than Tanev is now. Bruins had other moves to make to move cap. You're all pointing to the Hall/ Larsson trade as evidence. Larsson has a pedigree Tanev doesn't have. Larsson is 3 years younger and has more upside. And he's already scored more points than Tanev in a single season. Tanev is closer to (2) 2nds than he is a Taylor Hall (or Brad Marchand for that matter).

 

[Cogburn]

Not that I don't love hearing about how Canucks fans are wrong in how they value their players, but our usually loosely associated group of fanatics have been pretty cohesive in our interest in trading Tanev, and his value to us. That's to say minimal and as a top line D.

It doesn't matter what Boston fans would give up for him: We don't care. Full stop.

You have some great players and prospects, but none of the ones who would improve our team and provide value are being offered....so why should we play ball here?

Every single damn Tanev thread has the same underlying premise: "I really want this guy, they don't want to move him to other teams for what they, the other teams, think is fair....but I am (we are) special!"

If you're willing to give it up, we likely don't want it.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Not that I don't love hearing about how Canucks fans are wrong in how they value their players, but our usually loosely associated group of fanatics have been pretty cohesive in our interest in trading Tanev, and his value to us. That's to say minimal and as a top line D.

It doesn't matter what Boston fans would give up for him: We don't care. Full stop.

You have some great players and prospects, but none of the ones who would improve our team and provide value are being offered....so why should we play ball here?

Every single damn Tanev thread has the same underlying premise: "I really want this guy, they don't want to move him to other teams for what they, the other teams, think is fair....but I am (we are) special!"

If you're willing to give it up, we likely don't want it.

You're a fool if you think Marchand won't improve your team. Not that the Bruins would offer Marchand for Tanev. That's gross overpayment.

 

[Pip]

You're a fool if you think Marchand won't improve your team. Not that the Bruins would offer Marchand for Tanev. That's gross overpayment.

today we might be improved (although we are much weaker on the backend) but going forward I doubt it especially since I don't think Marchand would resign here.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

today we might be improved (although we are much weaker on the backend) but going forward I doubt it especially since I don't think Marchand would resign here.

Fair point. Probably true.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Which trade was the bad one?

Boychuck for two seconds (and Boychuck was a better player at the time of that trade than Tanev is now) or the Hall trade?

Pure rubbish.

Boychuck was never as good as Tanev is now.

 

[Legend123]

today we might be improved (although we are much weaker on the backend) but going forward I doubt it especially since I don't think Marchand would resign here.

Assuming he gets a good year and considering how much money MB threw at Lucic and how much he values grit and toughness over skills, the Habs will make a serious push at him.

 

[Legend123]

Pure rubbish.

Boychuck was never as good as Tanev is now.

he was actually better.

 

[Cogburn]

You're a fool if you think Marchand won't improve your team. Not that the Bruins would offer Marchand for Tanev. That's gross overpayment.

If it was a dead addition, yes, anyone would be stupid to say no.

Would he improve our team at the expense of losing Tanev? No. We become incredibly unbalanced, our D, which has already been downgraded this offseason, gets weaker, and our forward group, while having a defined top winger beside the Sedins, still has a logjam of players we can use in that role (Eriksson, Hansen, Sutter, Burrows). Again, not to say they're similar players or will put up similar results, but I assume anything other then a top line role would be wasting Marchand.

Marchand is swell, but this was said regarding a similar player, with a similar role, who had a similar season (Burrows): He has had one great season, at 28, and has a huge level of intangible qualities, and he isn't worth as much to others as he is to the Bruins. If it was true then, it's true now.

 

[Legend123]

If it was a dead addition, yes, anyone would be stupid to say no.

Would he improve our team at the expense of losing Tanev? No.

Marchand is swell, but this was said regarding a similar player, with a similar role, who had a similar season (Burrows): He has had one great season, at 28, and has a huge level of intangible qualities, and he isn't worth as much to others as he is to the Bruins. If it was true then, it's true now.

Marchand wouldnt make the team that scored the second to fewest goals in the NHL at the expense of Tanev?? I cant even...

 

[Cogburn]

Marchand wouldnt make the team that scored the second to fewest goals in the NHL at the expense of Tanev?? I cant even...

Do you honestly believe he'd get close to 37 goals when even the freaking Sedins had a bad year with no support? Or the team that fostered Vrbata's 31 goal season then suddenly helped him underachieve with 13 goals would be a great place for Marchand to keep those numbers up?

Tanev reduced the number of shots and goals a great deal more then he's given credit for. He's not some middle pairing turd, he's an elite shutdown defender. We add 37 goals to our total (assuming everything went just as well for Marchand here as it did in Boston last year), dropping Hamhuis and Tanev for Gudbranson means a hell of a lot more goals then that will get scored. It might make us more exciting, but not a better team.

 

[PB37]

Marchand is a very good top sixer, I would love to have him on the Canucks, I have never said otherwise.

Not at the expense of Tanev though.

By this same token you could say that Marchand is very similar to Alex Burrows, produces in all ends, very good two way player, 30 goal scorer.

I would never have said that Burrows is worth more than a #2/3 Dman. I especially would not have said that whatever players value is not in the same stratosphere as Burrows either.

Look we as a fanbase see Tanev as a #2 dman (whether bruins fans agree or disagree) and yes top pairing by no means #1, but in reality the only thing holding him back from that is his lack of offense.

As I have said this trade makes no sense for either team, we are happy to keep Tanev, the Bruins are happy to keep Marchand.

Burrows: .474 PPG / .239 GPG

Marchand: .634 PPG / .337 GPG

Not " very similar " at all.

 

[skyo]

If it was a dead addition, yes, anyone would be stupid to say no.

Would he improve our team at the expense of losing Tanev? No. We become incredibly unbalanced, our D, which has already been downgraded this offseason, gets weaker, and our forward group, while having a defined top winger beside the Sedins, still has a logjam of players we can use in that role (Eriksson, Hansen, Sutter, Burrows). Again, not to say they're similar players or will put up similar results, but I assume anything other then a top line role would be wasting Marchand.

Marchand is swell, but this was said regarding a similar player, with a similar role, who had a similar season (Burrows): He has had one great season, at 28, and has a huge level of intangible qualities, and he isn't worth as much to others as he is to the Bruins. If it was true then, it's true now.

Bruins fans, just see the bolded part please/thanks.

Our defense was in shambles last season, we need all the defensive help we can get, CONTRACTS and history aside, losing Tanev while gaining Marchand the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Tanev is definitely a 2nd pairing D. That said, trading him for one year of Marchand would be a dumb move.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Tanev is definitely a 2nd pairing D. That said, trading him for one year of Marchand would be a dumb move.

He's just about to enter his prime given his age. His defensive capabilities alone make him a top pairing dman on some teams, especially if paired with an offensive, roaming dman. His advanced stats and shot suppression just highlight what Canucks fans are seeing in him; we're not crazy, he's that good and valuable to us. You have to watch a lot of games to pinpoint how good he is, just like Hamhuis.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

hahahahahah.

Yeah Boston isn't doing that, and yeah, we aren't doing that.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

hahahahahah.

Yeah Boston isn't doing that, and yeah, we aren't doing that.

Thank God. Trading a young top pairing dman on a cheap contract for an impending UFA top 6 forward, cheap shot, dirty forward would be brutal. This team has already iced a prime Cooke, Ruutu, Burrows, Kesler, Lapierre, and Torres. We don't need to add Marchand to that list.

 

[PB37]

You're right, I see the illogical nature of my argument. Thank you and I apologize for not contributing anything of substance to this thread

No problem and don't worry about it.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Thank God. Trading a young top pairing dman on a cheap contract for an impending UFA top 6 forward, cheap shot, dirty forward would be brutal. This team has already iced a prime Cooke, Ruutu, Burrows, Kesler, Lapierre, and Torres. We don't need to add Marchand to that list.

Agreed, but boston don't do that cause Marchand had way more value than Tanner.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

" Lidstrom without the offense "

" A number 2 at worst "

Like I said, the overrating of Tanev is hysterical.

Fwiw, that first comment is nearly on the money. Tanev is a sensation without the puck.