Value of: Chris Tanev

[CM-]

I know this sounds crazy, but how about something around Horvat and Tanev (+/-) for Subban (+)? Tanev would be a great complement to Nashville, and they get a young two way centre. Johansen and Horvat would be great long term along with Neal and Forsberg. Subban would be the #1 d-man to build around for Vancouver with Gudbranson, Juolevi, etc. long term.

if we had had a lot of up and comers forward prospects. We could consider that. (ie. Benning gets the okay trades Edler for multiple good prospects, Manages to move the Sedins for multiple good prospects and we end up with Nolan Patrick (who manages to become a top 9 C from the start) Right now we have some struggling prospects that everyone some promising ones in NCAA, and CHL(ish) non that look to be able to carry a team by themself. Otherwise we are moving back towards the team we were at the end of last season that gives up a tons of goals all the time. (still might if our Goaltending levy breaks)

 

[DeltaSwede]

I think his point was your post was basically useless. Here, let me compare Tanev to Gardiner. I believe that Tanev's value can be gauged by looking at his points because that's where he's most valuable. Then, I am going to state that any prospect of any value is off the table. Here, you can choose from our B-rated asset pool.

This guy get's it.

 

[JTmillerForA1stLOL]

I will give you Juoleiv and Boeser , Goaltenders are wild cards high picks don't mean crap when it comes to Goal tenders

Point everyone is missing is that Our Prospects despite being behind Matthews, Nylander, Marner(Elite prospects) don't make then second rate. Most teams do not have Elite Prospects let a lone 3 of them. Kapanen, Lespic could very well be other teams number 1 or 2 prospects

So you're basing the value of your b prospects off the weaker prospect pools of different teams?

So because Gaunce isn't as good as Boeser, he becomes more valuable because somebody else's prospect pool sucks?

And on what team do either of those guys become a top rated prospect?

You're offering peanuts for a top defensive defenceman. You keep saying how he doesn't produce point so you feel his value is low... so why do you even want him? You're either trolling the thread or you feel he makes your team better. If he makes your team better then prepare to pay a price for that. That's how trades work bud. A decent prospect who hasn't proved anything and a 2nd round pick isn't going to get you a guy like tanev.

 

[Canadian Jesus]

Chris Tanev


David Desharnais
Dalton Thrower
Joel Hanley

 

[Addison Rae]

Chris Tanev


David Desharnais
Dalton Thrower
Joel Hanley

alex galcnehyuk



luca sbisa
cole cassels
nikita tryamkin

 

[SensNation613]

Cody Ceci + Matt Puempel + 3rd Round Pick 2017 for Chris Tanev
Curtis Lazar + Chris Wideman + 2nd Round Pick 2019 for Chris Tanev

 

[Omac13]

if we had had a lot of up and comers forward prospects. We could consider that. (ie. Benning gets the okay trades Edler for multiple good prospects, Manages to move the Sedins for multiple good prospects and we end up with Nolan Patrick (who manages to become a top 9 C from the start) Right now we have some struggling prospects that everyone some promising ones in NCAA, and CHL(ish) non that look to be able to carry a team by themself. Otherwise we are moving back towards the team we were at the end of last season that gives up a tons of goals all the time. (still might if our Goaltending levy breaks)

So you're basing the value of your b prospects off the weaker prospect pools of different teams?

So because Gaunce isn't as good as Boeser, he becomes more valuable because somebody else's prospect pool sucks?

And on what team do either of those guys become a top rated prospect?

You're offering peanuts for a top defensive defenceman. You keep saying how he doesn't produce point so you feel his value is low... so why do you even want him? You're either trolling the thread or you feel he makes your team better. If he makes your team better then prepare to pay a price for that. That's how trades work bud. A decent prospect who hasn't proved anything and a 2nd round pick isn't going to get you a guy like tanev.

First of all yes he does add to the Toronto Maple Leafs because the leafs already have 3 good point producing two way d men. Adding Tanev would give one of them a good solid partner. Tanev is NOT a guy you build your D corps around , however he can certainly make your team better. So yes we will have to pay to get that, but not the price your fan base has come up with because its not realistic. I know everyone with a good young d man seen the Oilers Devils trade and thinks they can get Taylor Hall for their young D men. That was a stupid trade , Hall will be the better player the rest of his career no question not even close. You will not see a trade like that again. I know you would like to use the Johansson Jones deal as a comparison but Jones is a highly rated young D man who's ceiling is a lot higher than Tanev. Wait and see what Trouba goes for that will give you something, then knock a few pieces off it and you have Tanev.

I offered 2 second round picks, Leispic , Young NHL player(Brown or Carrick) and potentially another young quality prospect in Bracco(who was a 2nd rounder on his own)

That is a quality haul with lots of assets coming your way. If you don't see it like that well that's fine but if your going to start a rebuild , that is a hell of a start

 

[Hockey 4 Life]

I still think van could flip jvr for say a first cap dump and prospect.
So Jvr + kapanen and leafs 2017 2nd.
If van trades jvr to the ducks the deal turns into
Anaheim 1st Toronto 2nd Montour kapanen and stoner.
Great value for a rebuilding team.

 

[Nuckles]

I still think van could flip jvr for say a first cap dump and prospect.
So Jvr + kapanen and leafs 2017 2nd.
If van trades jvr to the ducks the deal turns into
Anaheim 1st Toronto 2nd Montour kapanen and stoner.
Great value for a rebuilding team.

Why would we do Toronto a favor when we could just trade Tanev for futures?

 

[Randy Randerson]

I still think van could flip jvr for say a first cap dump and prospect.
So Jvr + kapanen and leafs 2017 2nd.
If van trades jvr to the ducks the deal turns into
Anaheim 1st Toronto 2nd Montour kapanen and stoner.
Great value for a rebuilding team.

If JVR was worth Montour, Anaheim's 1st and stoner I would prefer to just do that and groom Montour for being a top 4 RHD

Why would we do Toronto a favor when we could just trade Tanev for futures?

Think you could do better than that for Tanev on his own? That's a ridiculous haul. I'm a leaf fan and I don't think there's any chance the JVR portion of that gets Montour+Ana's 1st, even with Stoner included

 

[Hockey 4 Life]

Why would we do Toronto a favor when we could just trade Tanev for futures?

Your not doing Toronto any favors if and when we trade jvr we will get a solid return and if we can't aquire Tanev at that time I'd be disappointed but so be it. The leafs will still be OK without the aquisition of Tanev just as VAN will be not dealing Tanev to the leafs. I was just showing that a jvr based deal just doesn't center around what he brings to the Canucks on the ice.

 

[DeltaSwede]

First of all yes he does add to the Toronto Maple Leafs because the leafs already have 3 good point producing two way d men. Adding Tanev would give one of them a good solid partner. Tanev is NOT a guy you build your D corps around , however he can certainly make your team better. So yes we will have to pay to get that, but not the price your fan base has come up with because its not realistic. I know everyone with a good young d man seen the Oilers Devils trade and thinks they can get Taylor Hall for their young D men. That was a stupid trade , Hall will be the better player the rest of his career no question not even close. You will not see a trade like that again. I know you would like to use the Johansson Jones deal as a comparison but Jones is a highly rated young D man who's ceiling is a lot higher than Tanev. Wait and see what Trouba goes for that will give you something, then knock a few pieces off it and you have Tanev.

I offered 2 second round picks, Leispic , Young NHL player(Brown or Carrick) and potentially another young quality prospect in Bracco(who was a 2nd rounder on his own)

That is a quality haul with lots of assets coming your way. If you don't see it like that well that's fine but if your going to start a rebuild , that is a hell of a start

That's a quantity haul, not quality.

Give up, you are clearly not familiar enough with Tanev.

 

[Tryamkin]

alex galcnehyuk



luca sbisa
cole cassels
nikita tryamkin

 

[34]

Tanev does not even get you a look at JVR. Keep dreaming.

 

[Addison Rae]

rielly does not even get you a look at loui eriksson. keep dreaming.

 

[Hally BlackWood]

rielly does not even get you a look at loui eriksson. keep dreaming.

you forgot the .

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

you forgot the .

The person he's replying to forgot the

 

[CS95]

Would rather keep Tanev around for the eventual rebuild. He's on a great contract and is worth more to the Canucks than he is to other teams in a trade. He's the type of D-man that ages well and could be a very stabilizing presence on the blue line as the Canucks try to bring up more young players. Someone like Juolevi would benefit a lot learning from Tanev.

 

[Addison Rae]

you forgot the .

bruh...

 

[Cogburn]

I wasn't asking specifically about JVR, just about the state of the Canucks and the idea of waiting.

And I do think you're losing games for lack of talent. The Sedins were good enough to be your franchise players into their mid 30's but, predictably, that's coming to an end. Eriksson, Granlund, Sutter are alright players, but not good enough to be the scoring engines of a good team

JVR is also not a middle six player on your team, he's top six. Since joining the leafs he's a 29.1 goal/58.8 point per 82 game player, often as the second best player on his line and sometimes as the best player on his line, I don't recall a time where he was the 3rd best on his line which has typically been the top line. He's a top line winger by definition, he's in the same production range since joining the leafs as Landeskog, Cammalleri, Palat and Forsberg which is good for being a top 15-20 LW in the league, there are 30 "top line" spots so the best 30 are top liners. Your interpretations of him are selling him short, objectively speaking

I don't think JVR fixes the Canucks problems either, you need franchise level talent, which you either have to draft incredibly well or incredibly high to get. So waiting to make a move to start a rebuild until your management is changed I think only devalues tradable assets where they could bring good return now

Not JVR specifically, no, but I don't think it is a talent issue so much as a grotesque misuse of talent, bordering on neglect. Daniel, Henrik, Burrows and Eriksson are all 30 goal scorers in the last few years, and Horvat and Sutter are 20 goal scorers. There isn't a lack of talent there. Baertschi and Granlund, and God willing Virtanen, have a chance at hitting that in the near future (I can't in good conscience try to even type "this year"). Eriksson is having a rough start, Sutter is coming off almost a full year of being injured, the Sedins and Burrows have regressed, the kids are hit and miss, but on paper that should be a fine mix of offense. It hasn't been. The use of these pieces is what the problem is. Our defense and goaltending has been good enough to usually stop all but one or two goals, so we aren't having to out score our problems, but routinely getting 30-40 shots a game and not scoring once is what our problem is. Outside shots, simply being "robbed", not being able to recover when getting a rebound, it varies as to why, but there is no reason all 9 of those guys, with whom JVR would be competing, would be shut out, again routinely, unless it is something from the coaching side of things.

Franchise level talent is the one thing that could help us over come this level of incompetence. JVR isn't close to what we need, and frankly that level of offense won't be available. Tanev gives us, even in a single dimension, that level on defense. He is young enough to be useful during a rebuild, and frankly we have 0 reason to trade him. JVR doesn't do more for our future or our present, so there is no reason to trade down to JVR+ from Tanev. If it was Tanev+ for a young game breaking forward, yes, we could/should/would do that trade. If it was a considerable prospect(s) who had the potential to pull Vancouver out of it's tailspin it seems to be flying into, then yes, we could/should/would make the trade.

Tanev to hold down the fort, provide leadership, take the edge off getting accustomed to the game for players like Tryamkin or Juolevi to do their thing, or simple to trade off when we finally, finally, finally ditch Lindenning/Desjardins/Aquilini, those are all worth far more to us then JVR.

It really depends on the direction the franchise is going. I've heard mixed responses about this; some say Vancouver is rebuilding, some say they are retooling, some say they are still trying to go for it.

If you are rebuilding: trading your best players is the best thing to do, it assures you will be bottom feeders, and not middle of the pack (which is the worst).
For example; Trading phaneuf and kessel for mediocre returns pretty much gave us Matthews. If Phaneuf or even Kessel was still on the leafs there is no way we'd finish last place. Sometimes its addition by subtraction.

If you guys are still trying to go for it: By all means trading Tanev is stupid.

There is no direction. Our pilot is drunk and the ship is listing. Management is saying we're "going for it", but if Benning says anything of the sort after...9?...straight losses, he needs to be flogged. I trust that idiot to do a "Toronto-style" rebuild as much as I trust a dog to not eat a pizza on the floor I will be leaving in my empty apartment all weekend. Pressure from ownership will force him to try to make lemonaid from this roster, and he will comply. He overpays for players he likes, and simply dumps players that don't fit the mold, instead of trying to maximize value. Trading Tanev fits into the later style move.

The "sell off the lot" style rebuild (man that is wordsier then "Toronto-style") is a huge risk. This year especially...I mean Nolan Patrick and Liljegren and the like, people are talking like they would have been 4th or 5th or 6th in previous drafts. Not a bad pick to be sure, but not a Matthews or McDavid, who frankly Benning should have tanked for last year (if not for our late season winning streak, we would have had fine odds for 1st overall).

 

[Randy Randerson]

Not JVR specifically, no, but I don't think it is a talent issue so much as a grotesque misuse of talent, bordering on neglect. Daniel, Henrik, Burrows and Eriksson are all 30 goal scorers in the last few years, and Horvat and Sutter are 20 goal scorers. There isn't a lack of talent there. Baertschi and Granlund, and God willing Virtanen, have a chance at hitting that in the near future (I can't in good conscience try to even type "this year"). Eriksson is having a rough start, Sutter is coming off almost a full year of being injured, the Sedins and Burrows have regressed, the kids are hit and miss, but on paper that should be a fine mix of offense. It hasn't been. The use of these pieces is what the problem is. Our defense and goaltending has been good enough to usually stop all but one or two goals, so we aren't having to out score our problems, but routinely getting 30-40 shots a game and not scoring once is what our problem is. Outside shots, simply being "robbed", not being able to recover when getting a rebound, it varies as to why, but there is no reason all 9 of those guys, with whom JVR would be competing, would be shut out, again routinely, unless it is something from the coaching side of things.

Franchise level talent is the one thing that could help us over come this level of incompetence. JVR isn't close to what we need, and frankly that level of offense won't be available. Tanev gives us, even in a single dimension, that level on defense. He is young enough to be useful during a rebuild, and frankly we have 0 reason to trade him. JVR doesn't do more for our future or our present, so there is no reason to trade down to JVR+ from Tanev. If it was Tanev+ for a young game breaking forward, yes, we could/should/would do that trade. If it was a considerable prospect(s) who had the potential to pull Vancouver out of it's tailspin it seems to be flying into, then yes, we could/should/would make the trade.

Tanev to hold down the fort, provide leadership, take the edge off getting accustomed to the game for players like Tryamkin or Juolevi to do their thing, or simple to trade off when we finally, finally, finally ditch Lindenning/Desjardins/Aquilini, those are all worth far more to us then JVR.

I think you're overrating your top end talent, The Sedins are 36 and its been 5 years since Burrows was a 20 goal scorer and 7 since he was a 30 goal scorer. Sutter has scored 20 goals once and is well below .5 ppg for his 8 NHL season career, Horvat hasn't ever scored 20 goals so I think you're overselling them

I won't disagree that it seems that like the team is mismanaged, but your core doesn't look like its good enough from the outside unless the Sedins return to being top 20 players and Eriksson returns to form, and even then I don't think you'd hang in with the top teams in the west

It looks like its time for the Canucks to rebuild. Tanev might be young enough to ride it out, but the reason that JVR might be on the block isn't because we don't want him, it's because he's on the bubble as to whether he's young enough to be productive on the other side of our rebuild. Tanev is a year younger than JVR and our rebuild is at least a couple ahead of yours if you start today, so I think you'd be gambling on him being very good into his early 30's by holding on to him

 

[Cogburn]

I think you're overrating your top end talent, The Sedins are 36 and its been 5 years since Burrows was a 20 goal scorer and 7 since he was a 30 goal scorer. Sutter has scored 20 goals once and is well below .5 ppg for his 8 NHL season career, Horvat hasn't ever scored 20 goals so I think you're overselling them

I won't disagree that it seems that like the team is mismanaged, but your core doesn't look like its good enough from the outside unless the Sedins return to being top 20 players and Eriksson returns to form, and even then I don't think you'd hang in with the top teams in the west

It looks like its time for the Canucks to rebuild. Tanev might be young enough to ride it out, but the reason that JVR might be on the block isn't because we don't want him, it's because he's on the bubble as to whether he's young enough to be productive on the other side of our rebuild. Tanev is a year younger than JVR and our rebuild is at least a couple ahead of yours if you start today, so I think you'd be gambling on him being very good into his early 30's by holding on to him

Clearly I am over estimating their abilities, we're 4-8-1. Our former top line is on the decline our young players aren't there yet...what's the point here? Where does James Van Riemsdyk come into play? How is he of ANY benefit to a team trying to compete now (that can't score as a collective) versus a player that is at least suppressing scoring chances at an elite level? How is someone a year older then Tanev going to help our rebuild? How is he anything more then another decision that shows management can't pick a damn lane? These are the questions I'm asking. How is JVR better for Vancouver then Tanev?

He doesn't fit our rebuild either. He is a warm body, and won't contribute in the present any more then Tanev will, or even the players we already have. Mismanagement of our roster will extend to JVR if he is traded here. You're last paragraph is coming across as "he's not being used to his full extent there, so give him to us". All the reasons that make JVR a movable piece to Toronto make has him hold no value to Vancouver. You seem to mistake my argument as saying "we shouldn't trade Tanev to Toronto" instead of "JVR isn't a return that makes any sense for Vancouver".

 

[Randy Randerson]

Clearly I am over estimating their abilities, we're 4-8-1. Our former top line is on the decline our young players aren't there yet...what's the point here? Where does James Van Riemsdyk come into play? How is he of ANY benefit to a team trying to compete now (that can't score as a collective) versus a player that is at least suppressing scoring chances at an elite level? How is someone a year older then Tanev going to help our rebuild? How is he anything more then another decision that shows management can't pick a damn lane? These are the questions I'm asking. How is JVR better for Vancouver then Tanev?

He doesn't fit our rebuild either. He is a warm body, and won't contribute in the present any more then Tanev will, or even the players we already have. Mismanagement of our roster will extend to JVR if he is traded here. You're last paragraph is coming across as "he's not being used to his full extent there, so give him to us". All the reasons that make JVR a movable piece to Toronto make has him hold no value to Vancouver. You seem to mistake my argument as saying "we shouldn't trade Tanev to Toronto" instead of "JVR isn't a return that makes any sense for Vancouver".

This convo wasn't about Vancouver acquiring JVR, you said that you wanted to wait until your current management was gone and I said I did't think that was a good idea because you're adding a year or two to the rebuild time and devaluing your tradeable assets

I did point out that you undervalue JVR when you called him a 20 goal scorer when he's very nearly a 30 goal scorer for the duration of his leaf's career and better than a 25 goal scorer for his entire career counting the Flyer's portion. Production wise he would be your 3rd best forward, and maybe better depending on what the Sedins have left in the tank. The reason JVR is tradeable from Toronto is that we have one of the deepest farm systems in the league and most of our high upside prospects are wingers, that doesn't appear to extend to Vancouver. As for the sentiment that JVR would be mismanaged there and not be able to score...doesn't that also extend to any other player or prospect that Vancouver would acquire? Sounds like no trades will be made to Vancouver because the value of the acquired assets disappears when they get there, so why bother...?
And I acknowledge that adding him and removing Tanev does not make Vancouver a better team. That was the extent of my commentary on JVR to Vancouver

 

[StevenB]

Kapanen++ anything not Matthews, Nylander, Marner, 2017 First

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

bruh...

Tanev doesn't get you JVR not the way JVR is playing