Keep Tanev or Toffoli?

[Horse McHindu]

Keep Toffoli, and trade Boeser for a 1st and a good prospect (to clear cap space + recoup the first lost in the Miller deal + recoup the prospect lost in the Madden deal).

Let Tanev walk, and sign Joel Edmundson.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

We see plenty of both scenarios with Tanev on the team too. What about Tanev and Baumgartner or Toffoli and someone competent coaching D systems?

In an ideal scenario I'd like to have both Tanev and a competent coaching group. If the same coaching department is back next season then it would be an absolute train wreck without Tanev.

 

[Kryten]

In an ideal scenario I'd like to have both Tanev and a competent coaching group. If the same coaching department is back next season then it would be an absolute train wreck without Tanev.

I agree and in an ideal scenario both Tanev and Toffoli are back

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Trymkin > Tanev. + by - imo. Keep TT.

 

[604]

Keep both, compliance buyout Eriksson, trade or compliance buyout Suter.

 

[bossram]

Unfortunately, I think Tanev has lost his effectiveness somewhat. I love him, but given this choice, Toffoli is the more impactful player and I would re-sign him. Given our cap situation, it is highly unlikely we can keep all (or even 2) of Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffolo.

And we're still going to need to upgrade the blueline at the end of the day.

 

[F A N]

Oh man... such a tough choice. I voted for Toffoli.

I think on a short term deal Tanev offers greater value. Even if we're paying Tanev $6M he figures to be a top 4 Dman when healthy. $6M for Toffoli is a lot of money for a guy who you are betting on averaging 23-26 goals and about 50 points unless he has a JT Miller type run with the Canucks.

But Tanev will be turning 31 in December. With his injury history a long term contract to Tanev could turn out to be an albatross. There's less downside with Toffoli who will be turning 28. A 5 year contract ends when Toffoli is 32. A 5 year contract for Tanev ends when he is 35. Not an insignificant difference. Of course age isn't the end all be all. Lucic hardly aged better over the past few years compared to Eriksson despite their age difference.

 

[VanJack]

Unfortunately, I think Tanev has lost his effectiveness somewhat. I love him, but given this choice, Toffoli is the more impactful player and I would re-sign him. Given our cap situation, it is highly unlikely we can keep all (or even 2) of Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffolo.

And we're still going to need to upgrade the blueline at the end of the day.

I worry about Tanev, particularly if he and his agent are holding out for a longer-term deal. Because of all the injuries he might be one of those guys who hits the wall as he moves into his 30's.

So unless it's a very 'team-friendly' deal, I'd pass.

 

[racerjoe]

You take Tanev all day everyday.

our defence is so bad especially without him, there is no point having Toffoli, his positive value to the team would be wiped out by not having a good defense. You need to have another deal set up to bring in another top 4 dman before I would change my mind here.

 

[F A N]

You take Tanev all day everyday.

our defence is so bad especially without him, there is no point having Toffoli, his positive value to the team would be wiped out by not having a good defense. You need to have another deal set up to bring in another top 4 dman before I would change my mind here.

I agree that we should improve the defense but will re-signing Tanev just be treading water? I've brought this up for discussion before. Obviously Tanev had a relatively healthy season, but previously the team's defense was bad with Edler, Tanev, Stecher and Hutton in our top 4. Hughes is obviously a huge upgrade over Hutton but the fact remains that Edler isn't getting younger and Tanev isn't going to get better and still has questionable ability to stay healthy.

This team needs long term options on D. We need to acquire players on D who pan out as well as Miller and Pearson and not Benn and (name the D that Benning has acquired).

 

[racerjoe]

I agree that we should improve the defense but will re-signing Tanev just be treading water? I've brought this up for discussion before. Obviously Tanev had a relatively healthy season, but previously the team's defense was bad with Edler, Tanev, Stecher and Hutton in our top 4. Hughes is obviously a huge upgrade over Hutton but the fact remains that Edler isn't getting younger and Tanev isn't going to get better and still has questionable ability to stay healthy.

This team needs long term options on D. We need to acquire players on D who pan out as well as Miller and Pearson and not Benn and (name the D that Benning has acquired).

I agree keeping Tanev is just treading water, we need a long term solution. Having said that not signing him is as I said just going to kill us defensively. It’s so sad how bad our defence is.

 

[mathonwy]

Unfortunately, I think Tanev has lost his effectiveness somewhat. I love him, but given this choice, Toffoli is the more impactful player and I would re-sign him. Given our cap situation, it is highly unlikely we can keep all (or even 2) of Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffolo.

And we're still going to need to upgrade the blueline at the end of the day.

Yep. One of these days, ol Jimbo is gonna learn how to properly evaluate defensemen.

I believe that.

 

[rypper]

Yep. One of these days, ol Jimbo is gonna learn how to properly evaluate defensemen.

I believe that.

In that case we'd better just keep Tanev because my belief in Benning finding a replacement defender is non existent.

 

[F A N]

I agree keeping Tanev is just treading water, we need a long term solution. Having said that not signing him is as I said just going to kill us defensively. It’s so sad how bad our defence is.

Agreed. But it's not like we have an Edler situation here where we can sign Tanev to a 2 year contract as a stop gap. Signing Tanev to a long term contract because the defense isn't very good today is not the type of signings you want to make. It's understandable if that's the way the Canucks go of course. There's a lot to like about Tanev if he can stay healthy and not suffer a massive drop off in play.

 

[Nabrules]

For me pretty easily Toffoli. For one I think it’s pretty easy to assume he’ll stay a top 6 forward longer than Tanev will a top 4 D, he’ll decline fast with his style of play.

Furthermore, you can’t trust Tanev with his injury history which could get worse as he ages. Plus Vancouver can’t trade a good prospect like Madden and a fairly high pick for a rental, that’s awful managemnt and Benning knows it

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

For me pretty easily Toffoli. For one I think it’s pretty easy to assume he’ll stay a top 6 forward longer than Tanev will a top 4 D, he’ll decline fast with his style of play.

Furthermore, you can’t trust Tanev with his injury history which could get worse as he ages. Plus Vancouver can’t trade a good prospect like Madden and a fairly high pick for a rental, that’s awful managemnt and Benning knows it

Benning might feel that way, but no one else should be using that as justification to re-sign Toffoli. We're likely going to lose one of Tanev/Toffoli to free agency, the assets we gave up for Toffoli doesn't change that we're still losing one of those players. I would never justify a contract extension based on what the team gave up to acquire a player; you justify it based on if the player is worth the money that they are asking for, and if they fill a team need. I do agree that Toffoli fits the age group of the team better, and has a better injury history. But without Tanev (or an adequate replacement), our defence is going to be awful next year, and I think our playoff chances go down a fair bit.

 

[mathonwy]

Benning might feel that way, but no one else should be using that as justification to re-sign Toffoli. We're likely going to lose one of Tanev/Toffoli to free agency, the assets we gave up for Toffoli doesn't change that we're still losing one of those players. I would never justify a contract extension based on what the team gave up to acquire a player; you justify it based on if the player is worth the money that they are asking for, and if they fill a team need. I do agree that Toffoli fits the age group of the team better, and has a better injury history. But without Tanev (or an adequate replacement), our defence is going to be awful next year, and I think our playoff chances go down a fair bit.

Sunk cost bias? Nah... not THIS front office.

In the scenario of Tanev not being on this roster next season, the onus will be on Myers to not be hungover and to play consistent 2-way defensive hockey along the lines of Sami Salo, Dan Hamhuis and Chris Tanev.

IE. Be responsible and focused on being good at your profession.

Based on what I saw from Tyler this past season, the probability of this occurring IMO is very low.

The reason why I believe it's low is because I don't get the feeling that Tyler really wants to work all that hard here. He's a good defensemen when he WANTS to be but he's no Tanev who is a good defensemen all the time.

And unfortunately, Alex showed some major wear and tear this season so counting on Alex to shore up the hole Tanev potentially leaves behind isn't an option either.

Which leaves... Greener riding Quinn Hughes into injury land.

Tryamkin could be the wild card though but that's all he is at this point of time (which might actually be just enough for a fanboi to gamble on).

 

[Fatass]

Sunk cost bias? Nah... not THIS front office.

In the scenario of Tanev not being on this roster next season, the onus will be on Myers to not be hungover and to play consistent 2-way defensive hockey along the lines of Sami Salo, Dan Hamhuis and Chris Tanev.

IE. Be responsible and focused on being good at your profession.

Based on what I saw from Tyler this past season, the probability of this occurring IMO is very low.

The reason why I believe it's low is because I don't get the feeling that Tyler really wants to work all that hard here. He's a good defensemen when he WANTS to be but he's no Tanev who is a good defensemen all the time.

And unfortunately, Alex showed some major wear and tear this season so counting on Alex to shore up the hole Tanev potentially leaves behind isn't an option either.

Which leaves... Greener riding Quinn Hughes into injury land.

Tryamkin could be the wild card though but that's all he is at this point of time (which might actually be just enough for a fanboi to gamble on).

If we do get a compliance buyout, clearly it’s Loui we use it on. But if we get two, would it be wise to buyout Myers and then use that 6 million to sign Tanev? We could use Loui’s six million to sign Tofoli. Then we get to keep both?

 

[mathonwy]

If we do get a compliance buyout, clearly it’s Loui we use it on. But if we get two, would it be wise to buyout Myers and then use that 6 million to sign Tanev? We could use Loui’s six million to sign Tofoli. Then we get to keep both?

It would be wise to get a real competent GM that can properly evaluate our roster and has complete and 100% autonomy to do whatever he wants to do to try to fix this clusterf***.

There's no easy solution when you got so much salary cap tied up in trash players.

 

[mathonwy]

Tanev leaving absolutely decimates our PK.

I can see Markstrom having a really bad time next year if Tanev leaves.

 

[Fatass]

It would be wise to get a real competent GM that can properly evaluate our roster and has complete and 100% autonomy to do whatever he wants to do to try to fix this clusterf***.

There's no easy solution when you got so much salary cap tied up in trash players.

Totally agree. Would love if our owner swallowed his pride and hired an experienced and proven successful GM, and then give that new guy complete autonomy in hockey decisions. Lou Lam, after he left TO would have been nice.

 

[mathonwy]

Totally agree. Would love if our owner swallowed his pride and hired an experienced and proven successful GM, and then give that new guy complete autonomy in hockey decisions. Lou Lam, after he left TO would have been nice.

Lou would give the Canucks instant credibility.

Too bad Vancouver is way out in butt f*** nowhere (comparatively to Toronto speaking).

At least we have two riots under our belt!

 

[dbaz]

assuming cbo both can be kept as neither will likely see large pay raises due to cap not going up.
-6mil eriksson (cbo)
-2mil benn
-3.5mil ferland ((ltir)ability to go over)
-2mil baertschi(assuming for example we take a player back like connor carrik in the deal)

thats 13.5mil in addition to the 18mil we currently are projected to have
you could then retain a mil on sutter and flip creating 16.5mil
tons of room to play wtih

 

[Peter10]

assuming cbo both can be kept as neither will likely see large pay raises due to cap not going up.
-6mil eriksson (cbo)
-2mil benn
-3.5mil ferland ((ltir)ability to go over)
-2mil baertschi(assuming for example we take a player back like connor carrik in the deal)

thats 13.5mil in addition to the 18mil we currently are projected to have
you could then retain a mil on sutter and flip creating 16.5mil
tons of room to play wtih

Thats a flawed assumption. The only way compliance buyouts are introduced is if the cap significantly drops, so most likely any (most) cap saving from compliance buyouts would be wiped away by a lower cap.

 

[dbaz]

Thats a flawed assumption. The only way compliance buyouts are introduced is if the cap significantly drops, so most likely any (most) cap saving from compliance buyouts would be wiped away by a lower cap.

Its not flawed. Its more than likely their best case scenario.

The other 2 scenarios are, 1. drop in cap (say 5mil) and a cbo. That would still leave them 26.5mil to 29.5mil free cap. Or 2. A flat cap with no cbo. Here they have to hang onto Eriksson, leaving them 25.5mil to 28.5mil cap if they make the same moves.

Why are these moves doable? Because the Canucks are at a point where they have too many players/prospects competing for a small number of spots. Look at the #6 and #7 D spots. You realistically have Benn, Stecher, Tryamkin, Rafferty, and say 1 more prospect (Rathbone) competing. Benn is tradeable with a 5th or 6th attached to him. 1 of Stecher/Tryamkin can be included with someone like Baertchi or Sutter to create a better return/ reduce loss of prospects/picks in the deal.