Proposal: Bos - Van

[Frankie Blueberries]

I don't validate my existence through a hockey fan lense, so no. Marchand is the more valuable piece, but would be terrible on so many levels to have in Vancouver, and specifically, a Sedin-lead team.

Explain how he's more valuable after coming off a great season and as an impending UFA, he's due for a hefty raise. Watch what he gets from Boston and tell me he's more valuable (let alone him even re-signing and not just following the money).
Tanev plays a more valuable position, especially given our team's needs. And is on a very fair contract right now.
I'm hoping when you made your post, you weren't thinking of contract status and team needs. Because those are the two main reasons that this makes zero sense for Vancouver.

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

Oh great, you reposted it.
I am really interested to hear your reasoning on how Marchand is more valuable.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Explain how he's more valuable after coming off a great season and as an impending UFA for a hefty raise?
Tanev plays a more valuable position, especially given our team's needs. And is on a very fair contract right now.
I'm hoping when you made your post, you weren't thinking of contract status and team needs. Because those are the two main reasons that this makes zero sense for Vancouver.

Regarding the last statement, yeah I really wasn't. But in a vacuum, scoring is more valued than not scoring. The reason why guys who are up for the Selke get paid categorically less than guys up in the goals scored column.

Seriously, it ain't rocket science. And I have no idea why in a city where goals got scored at a smaller rate 28 other teams out of 29, goals aren't more valued.

We are about to pay 3 defenseman $13 million a year collectively to do the opposite of score goals, and fans like yourself will wonder why we don't score more goals. It would be hilarious to someone like me, if it weren't my team also.

Seriously, most of our fans are pretty dumb.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Regarding the last statement, yeah I really wasn't. But in a vacuum, scoring is more valued than not scoring. The reason why guys who are up for the Selke get paid categorically less than guys up in the goals scored column.

Seriously, it ain't rocket science. And I have no idea why in a city where goals got scored at a smaller rate 28 other teams out of 29, goals aren't more valued.

We are about to pay 3 defenseman $13 million a year collectively to do the opposite of score goals, and fans like yourself will wonder why we don't score more goals. It would be hilarious to someone like me, if it weren't my team also.

Seriously, most of our fans are pretty dumb.

Quite the logical leap to make that, because I value Tanev and what he contributes, I believe that defensive players should be prioritized over offensive ones.
You need both defensively capable dman and PMD. Obviously having an all-around dman is preferred, but defensive dman still play an important role. Pretty much every team that has won the SCF recently has had both types of dman.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Quite the logical leap to make that, because I value Tanev and what he contributes, I believe that defensive players should be prioritized over offensive ones.
You need both defensively capable dman and PMD. Obviously having an all-around dman is preferred, but defensive dman still play an important role. Pretty much every team that has won the SCF recently has had both types of dman.

Maybe too harsh on you, there.

great name, btw.

I just think our hate for all things Bruins clouds us a bit here. Goal scorers are valued much higher than goal preventers, not to take anythign from Tanev.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Maybe too harsh on you, there.

great name, btw.

I just think our hate for all things Bruins clouds us a bit here. Goal scorers are valued much higher than goal preventers, not to take anythign from Tanev.

Dumb way to avoid a contradiction that you believe in.
A defensive player who is at the top of his game can be just as vital as a goal scorer. For the stat junkies here, I'm sure you could find two defencemen that match each other for goals for and goals against which basically provides the same outcome for their team. You know, when you take one over the other, you're basically selling a sword that can pierce any shield against a shield that is impenetrable from any sword. Dumb reason to believe in something that goes against logic.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Dumb way to avoid a contradiction that you believe in.

True, but why does Stamkos make more than Tanev? And why did Crosby make more than Datsyuk?

You get the same answer, so why try combat perception, even if it's stupid? (and it usually is)

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

True, but why does Stamkos make more than Tanev? And why did Crosby make more than Datsyuk?

You get the same answer, so why try combat perception, even if it's stupid? (and it usually is)

I'm not arguing that goal scoring isn't more desirable, entertaining, sexy, etc. Now you're introducing outside variables such as team marketing. Stamkos and Crosby are the faces of their franchises, and yes they score goals and are more fun for fans to watch and sell jerseys and whatnot.

This has no relevance to what we were talking about. We were originally discussing value to a team, in the sense of winning games. This is off topic now.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I'm not arguing that goal scoring isn't more desirable, entertaining, sexy, etc. Now you're introducing outside variables such as team marketing. Stamkos and Crosby are the faces of their franchises, and yes they score goals and are more fun for fans to watch and sell jerseys and whatnot.

This has no relevance to what we were talking about. We were originally discussing value to a team, in the sense of winning games. This is off topic now.

So I guess being face of the franchise for scoring goals is meaningless?

You write your own rebuttals, not that you hear them.

Must be comforting knowing your own exit button is projecting being OT.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

So I guess being face of the franchise for scoring goals is meaningless?

You write your own rebuttals, not that you hear them.

Must be comforting knowing your own exit button is projecting being OT.

No, we were discussing players that were valuable to their respective teams (Tanev & Marchand).
Let alone the jump you're making going from Marchand to Crosby and Stamkos for offensive players.

 

[skyo]

No, we were discussing players that were valuable to their respective teams (Tanev & Marchand).
Let alone the jump you're making going from Marchand to Crosby and Stamkos for offensive players.

aha salute to 50 sheas of grey for holding his/her own vs the 20k post veteran reverend mayhem.

 

[tony d]

I would think Vancouver would add to the OP's proposal. Marchand's one of the better LW's in the game.

 

[BruinLVGA]

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.

There's other stuff I would have liked to investigate in this post, but that has been already addressed after.
However, re the bolded & underscored part, do note that this thread wasn't started by a Bruins fan - I believe - and there's no Bruins fan here saying that "we really want" Tanev. 100% of Bruins fans simply commented that Marchand is too much for Tanev.

Regarding the last statement, yeah I really wasn't. But in a vacuum, scoring is more valued than not scoring. The reason why guys who are up for the Selke get paid categorically less than guys up in the goals scored column.

Seriously, it ain't rocket science. And I have no idea why in a city where goals got scored at a smaller rate 28 other teams out of 29, goals aren't more valued.

We are about to pay 3 defenseman $13 million a year collectively to do the opposite of score goals, and fans like yourself will wonder why we don't score more goals. It would be hilarious to someone like me, if it weren't my team also.

Seriously, most of our fans are pretty dumb.

Good post.

I would think Vancouver would add to the OP's proposal. Marchand's one of the better LW's in the game.

That's all that Bruins fans in this thread have been saying.

 

[kdog82]

Good grief is Tanev overrated around here.

If Marchand is traded, I'd expect a T.J. Brodie type coming back. Just my opinion.

 

[clunk]

Good grief is Tanev overrated around here.

If Marchand is traded, I'd expect a T.J. Brodie type coming back. Just my opinion.

TJ Brodie for a 28 year old UFA winger?

 

[kdog82]

TJ Brodie for a 28 year old UFA winger?

An extended Marchand obviously.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

An extended Marchand obviously.

And yet Canucks fans are called out for their value of Tanev in this thread. #PotKettle

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Tanev is untouchable barring an absurd overpayment. This isn't just fan hyperbole either. Management has outright echoed essentially the same. Tanev gets severely underrated because he isn't a high event type player nor a scorer, but he's an excellent defensive, defenseman. As we have no one close to replace his skill set, we simply cannot afford to move him, especially at his age.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Give us a comparison? Larsson was a 4th overall pick and is 3 years younger than Tanev. Chiarelli gambled on Larsson's potential.

I can't think of a defensive dman who has the value of a 37 goal 70 point winger.

And? Larsson hasn't really lived up to the potential thus far. Tanev's advanced stats put him in leagues with Keith, Doughty and other top tier players. He just lacks their offensive output. Age doesn't quite hold the same value when both players are still fairly young. At 26, Tanev still has close to a decade of high quality play and may even become better given how defensemen typically develop late.

So yes, right now Tanev and Larrson are easily comparable in terms of value.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

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.

One year of Marchand is an overpayment for a #2/3 Dman that is signed for multiple years on a decent contract?

I know people say we are over rating Tanev, there might be some truth to that, but comments like this are absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

And? Larsson hasn't really lived up to the potential thus far. Tanev's advanced stats put him in leagues with Keith, Doughty and other top tier players. He just lacks their offensive output. Age doesn't quite hold the same value when both players are still fairly young. At 26, Tanev still has close to a decade of high quality play and may even become better given how defensemen typically develop late.

So yes, right now Tanev and Larrson are easily comparable in terms of value.

But, But Larrson was drafted higher, and he has put up more points, and he was drafted higher, and Chia says he believes he has more upside so that automatically makes him more valuable no?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

An extended Marchand obviously.

It's great that you think that, your wrong though.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

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).

If we can't compare Tanev to Larrson due to situation and other factors than you can't compare Boychuck to Tanev, you had to trade him, hence why he got such a low return.

Oh and I would love to hear why exactly Boychuk was better at the time? Points? Boychuks career high was 3 points more than Tanev's. Defense? What makes Boychuk better?


People keep saying Tanev is overrated by us, posters like this prove that he is in fact severely underrated.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

There's other stuff I would have liked to investigate in this post, but that has been already addressed after.
However, re the bolded & underscored part, do note that this thread wasn't started by a Bruins fan - I believe - and there's no Bruins fan here saying that "we really want" Tanev. 100% of Bruins fans simply commented that Marchand is too much for Tanev.



Good post.



That's all that Bruins fans in this thread have been saying.

Honestly as good as Marchand is do you really think he puts up any where close to 37 goals playing on our second line?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Burrows: .474 PPG / .239 GPG

Marchand: .634 PPG / .337 GPG

Not " very similar " at all.

Oh stats they tell the whole story right?

 

[NFITO]

Can't believe this argument is still going.

Tanev is overrated by Canucks fans... he's underrated by Bruns fans.

Marchand is overrated by Bruins fans... he's underrated by Canucks fans.

So there's no deal to be made here.

As a Canuck fan I wouldn't consider moving Tanev unless the return *combined* with his loss helps the team. This deal doesn't because Tanev is the *only* reliable defender this team has (on either left or right side). There is no replacement for him and downgrading from Tanev to Gudbransen as the team's top right side defender is a much much bigger drop then going from Marchand to Daniel Sedin.

The Canucks aren't a much worse team having Daniel in the top LW spot over Marchand. They are a significantly worse team dropping Tanev to the next best option.

So we can agree to disagree on the real value of these players... but you have no clue to the impact of Tanev and what his loss would mean given the lack of quality and depth at that position if you really think this helps the Canucks at all.

And that doesn't even touch on the real value of players when contracts and free agency leverage come into play.

Simply put even if you consider their values equal even considering contracts, for the Canucks Tanev is worth more even if you ignore the contract status.