So... What Was With All The Hatred And Derision Toward The Tanev Signing?

[Its not your fault]

This is a weird take, you're not even acknowledging what the criticism was about with this take.

No one (I hope) would have complained about a 1 year x 4.5M extension for Tanev. The people who were complaining about 7 years for Tavares ended up being right, despite people making the same type of thread you are making in year 1 of his contract when he scored 47 goals as a second line center.

What's Tavares stat line? Vs any other FA signing in those years?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Nobody was concerned about this year. The concern is signing for 6 years until he's 40.

 

[DitchMarner]

Nobody was concerned about this year. The concern is signing for 6 years until he's 40.

I think they purposefully made it a long-term deal to reduce the average.

I do think they could have gotten him for three or four years, but he would have wanted more per season in that case, and they didn't have a ton of cap space to begin with. The strategy (in my opinion) was to get him when a guy like him was really needed and be prepared for the possibility of retirement or a career-ending injury before the end of the contract.

If he's solid to good for three years and then gets hurt and struggles in year four and calls it a career, it'll have been a good move. If he starts to decline significantly as soon as next year and hangs around for a few more years and they have to buy him out, then the signing will be considered a failure but won't be franchise-crippling.

The important thing is that it was never about the last two years. It's a question of how good he can be for the next three or four.

 

[Maple Leaf]

You have to think about the synergy with rielly and the last chance for the core with this group to make a hail mary for tanev

 

[HellasLEAF]

Tanev is exactly what we needed. His big pillowy body and steady unbothered play are the calming presence we have needed back there. Would have been nice to get him at the trade deadline he would have made a difference in the playoffs.

 

[Smif]

Love the player but it's quite obvious it's too much money for too long.

 

[Mr_Fun]

I'm not sure how all of this works so pardon my ignorance, but is there any way they could have put the majority of his money up front for like the first 3 or 4 years and then hope he retires after that?

 

[keonsbitterness]

I'm not sure how all of this works so pardon my ignorance, but is there any way they could have put the majority of his money up front for like the first 3 or 4 years and then hope he retires after that?

That's kind of what they did: Chris Tanev | 6yrs x 4.500M (TOR)

 

[LeafEgo]

I'm not sure how all of this works so pardon my ignorance, but is there any way they could have put the majority of his money up front for like the first 3 or 4 years and then hope he retires after that?

They can front load compensation but not the AAV so there's no cap advantage.

A retirement would be an exceptional event. He won't retire with 9-13.5M on the table. If he brakes he will sit on LTIR island and collect his cheque's and the Leafs will facilitate that. They hope for the best but if the best doesnt come all parties know what the deal is. A difference of opinion would result in dumping him at a cost.

It's a great deal on the whole.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I think they purposefully made it a long-term deal to reduce the average.

Would have been nice to get a reduced average then, instead of the same average that he was paid on his prime UFA contract.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Outstanding piece of work by Bradley. I just wish we had Chris sooner like Bradley had wanted.

 

[CincoHolio]

Tanev is exactly what we needed. His big pillowy body and steady unbothered play are the calming presence we have needed back there. Would have been nice to get him at the trade deadline he would have made a difference in the playoffs.

Pillowy??? lol

 

[Nineteen67]

The concerns are still:
The term.
And is he what they at this stage or someone a little younger?

 

[seanlinden]

As others have mentioned... the concern with Tanev is solely the number of years.

People would have lauded a 3 year, $4.5m deal as "the signing of the summer". Heck, there would have probably been equal praise had it been $6m x 2 years. There's nothing Tanev can really do this year to dispel the "problem" with his deal.

 

[thewave]

Nobody was concerned about this year. The concern is signing for 6 years until he's 40.

Well I agree with you on this for sure. I think all complaints were age vs term

 

[hotpaws]

fans weren't paying attention where the ufa market was with num 5-6-7 type D's like Edmundson getting 3.85 x 4 and Lyubushkin signing for 3 x 3.25 and thought Tre gave to much term

 

[NJG]

So Barring injury you expect Tanev to play into his 50's? since you just stated Age will not be a reason he declines only should he run into injuries.

What a stupid and unintelligent question... Do I really need to reply to this?

I’m not comparing the caliber of players of Brodie and tanev, I’m trying to say that players fall off hard and quick. From memory, Brodie didn’t have any injury as a catalyst.

Rielly is worth more because he is better, I don’t know how you can say that. Rielly plays more, is always the better player on his pair and transitions the puck at an elite level. Tanevs most minutes ever are 21 and riellys had that beat 7 times. Moreover tanev is almost always the supporting player on the pairing, whether it’s Hughes on the canucks, Heiskanen/Harley on the stars, or Hanafin on the flames, tanev excels at being the supporting piece to the pairing. His pairing with McCabe is breaking that notion, but he still plays less than Rielly.

Rielly is not better. He might play a different style but he is not better. I'd take Tanev over Rielly any day.

If Tanev was worth 8M a year he'd be making 8M per year.
Giordano was also a steady rock his entire career, until father time caught up to him. He was unusable last season.

I hope Tanev works out here but the Leafs D core scares me with how old they all are.

So the best defensive d-man in the league is not worth $8M. But a mediocre offensive d-man (who doesn't even really provide offense). And is horrible defensively is worth $7.5M? Sounds about right.

 

[Aashir]

What a stupid and unintelligent question... Do I really need to reply to this?


Rielly is not better. He might play a different style but he is not better. I'd take Tanev over Rielly any day.


So the best defensive d-man in the league is not worth $8M. But a mediocre offensive d-man (who doesn't even really provide offense). is worth $7.5M? Sounds about right.

Can you back your claim up with anything? I guess it’s an opinion which everyone can have, but usually they are backed up by something

I gave you some very basic stats, so was wondering what about him makes him “better” on your eyes.

 

[NJG]

Can you back your claim up with anything? I guess it’s an opinion which everyone can have, but usually they are backed up by something

I gave you some very basic stats, so was wondering what about him makes him “better” on your eyes.

Yeah Tanev is the best defensive d-man in the league and has been for a long time and he's 34 years old. Rielly is a mediocre "offensive" d-man who barely even provides offense, he's horrible on the powerplay and is horrible defensively...

So I mean the choice is obvious do I want the best d-man in the league or a fringe offensive d-man who doesn't really do anything.

There's a reason pretty much every team was in on Tanev at the trade deadline and in free agency.

 

[Leafsfan74]

I remember the deal was basically universally panned on the main boards. It was criticized and mocked vehemently. I didn't get it then. I still don't get it.

He's been a good addition so far. It's definitely possible that things go south or he gets hurt and this thread is bumped mockingly. The point is that the signing was always about this season and the next two, not the last two or three.

I recall fans of other teams calling the Leafs a soft team during last year's playoffs. I commented saying they weren't soft in the sense that they had a bunch of midgets that were pushed around and dominated physically. They threw a lot of hits and some guys who were willing to get involved physically. Their softness was more between the ears.

Nonetheless, the prevailing notion was that the team was soft. Tanev was praised for his play in last year's playoffs. You would think his signing would be considered a sensible move and upgrade on a guy like Lyubushkin. Instead, there were all kinds of comments along the lines of, "OMG LULZ WUT A KLOWN ORGANIZATION! WHY SIGN AN OLD DEFENSEMEN TILL HE'S 40 LULZ WTF?!!!"

I didn't bother getting into lengthy, heated arguments. Here are comments I made at the time:

"Meh... obviously they gave him long term in exchange for a lower average per season. I think he can be solid for the next couple of years and then decent for the next one or two. After that, who cares?"

"Obviously he's not expected to be good for the duration of the contract. They gave him six years so he could get the money he wanted and they wouldn't have to pay more than an average of $5 mil per season. He probably won't be playing by the sixth year."

"Anyway, even if you do question the contract, he is still a good player. People were gushing about him in this year's playoffs."

"It's really a question of how good he'll be in the next three to four years. Defensemen who play his style can fall off a cliff quickly. He's good now and I'm sure he will be an upgrade next year. If he's good for two years and then decent for the next year two and then he sucks and/or..."

I know "sending players to Robidas Island" is frowned upon and considered unsportsmanlike, but it's entirely plausible he gets hurt and retires before the contract expires. At any rate, who knows what the cap will be and what options will be available for upgrades on defense three or four years down the road. The worst case scenario is they buy him out or scratch him regularly and keep him around as a mentor or shelter him on the bottom pairing. I maintain that this signing was and is about this season and the immediate future.


As an aside, I didn't have a strong opinion on the OEL signing, but he is an upgrade on Edmundsson and Booch as well and playing quite well.

I wasn't against it. You cannot replace character in sport. When I wrestled long ago, even qualifying (but deciding not to go) for Canadian Nationals, I saw time and again less talented wrestlers win matches due to their will.

Think of how critical Muzzin was to the Leafs. So important in fact, that I believe Gallagher said that once Muzzin was injured the Habs knew they were going to win the series.

So, even if you only get 3 years of top minutes, you have immense value both on the ice and with the intangibles. Intangibles are critical come playoffs. Being in a Canadian market, you generally also have to pay slightly more for top talent. Not always, but often. In his case it was in term and I'm ok with that.

If he gets injured the way Muzzin did, he is placed on LTIR and you recoup his cap space. If he is still playing, well you get a player willing to sacrifice in his late 30s. D Men are in fine shape in their late 30s, I've seen it time and again and with all of the resources the Leafs place on health, treatment, diet etc, he will be in the best hands of any team in the league.

When Giordano came here in his late 30s, much older than Tanev is now; no one knew he would be a great addition and the best partner Lilly would have for the first few months they were together. I might argue that a D Man is like a fine wine if he is a smart, positional D Man who eats pucks.

It is the high flying defensemen who go end to end who decline fastest. The legs go first in any sport.

 

[MCR74]

I remember the deal was basically universally panned on the main boards. It was criticized and mocked vehemently. I didn't get it then. I still don't get it.

The main boards is a cesspool comprised of the most clueless individuals on the internet. There's your answer.

 

[I am Canadian]

What a stupid and unintelligent question... Do I really need to reply to this?


Rielly is not better. He might play a different style but he is not better. I'd take Tanev over Rielly any day.


So the best defensive d-man in the league is not worth $8M. But a mediocre offensive d-man (who doesn't even really provide offense). And is horrible defensively is worth $7.5M? Sounds about right.

I'm also not the biggest fan of Rielly, but he puts up pretty consistent 50+ seasons. Defense only players don't get paid as much, that's just fact. This internal market thing is why the Leafs are in this mess in the first place anyway.

 

[ponder]

I like Tanev a lot, but still think it’s a very questionable signing given his age and the 6 year term. He turns 35 in a month, and has had a very injury prone career. Dropping off hard in your mid-to-late 30s is the norm for NHLers, wouldn’t be surprising at all to see this deal go south in a hurry.

I think it’s a given he’ll be bad in years 5 and 6, he’ll be 39 for the majority of year 5, 40 for the majority of year 6, basically no NHLers are worth $4.5 mil AAV at 39/40. The real question is how he does in years 3 and 4, where he’ll mostly be 37 and 38. Most guys are cooked by then, but there’s a chance he’s still worth $4.5 mil.

I think if we get 4 good years, 2 bad years, this deal is fine. But if it’s 2 good years, 4 bad years, then the deal sucks. And IMO just 2 good years is fairly likely given his age and injury history, though hopefully I’m wrong about that!

 

[ULF_55]

I like Tanev a lot, but still think it’s a very questionable signing given his age and the 6 year term. He turns 35 in a month, and has had a very injury prone career. Dropping off hard in your mid-to-late 30s is the norm for NHLers, wouldn’t be surprising at all to see this deal go south in a hurry.

I think it’s a given he’ll be bad in years 5 and 6, he’ll be 39 for the majority of year 5, 40 for the majority of year 6, basically no NHLers are worth $4.5 mil AAV at 39/40. The real question is how he does in years 3 and 4, where he’ll mostly be 37 and 38. Most guys are cooked by then, but there’s a chance he’s still worth $4.5 mil.

I think if we get 4 good years, 2 bad years, this deal is fine. But if it’s 2 good years, 4 bad years, then the deal sucks. And IMO just 2 good years is fairly likely given his age and injury history, though hopefully I’m wrong about that!

Odds are he isn't playing the entire term.
A shot blocking defender won't be difficult to put on LTIR.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Great player with a lot of mileage and a history of injury problems, what could the criticism possibly be?