Proposal: Tanev to Toronto/Buffalo/Colorado

[Randy Randerson]

Draft position means nothing after the draft.

Bigras is a top prospect for the Avs. Where he was drafted doesn't place negative value on his development.

The scouts didn't place Jamie Benn as a 1st round pick. Guess they were totally right in that he wasn't going to be worth much.

Disagree. Many players who are drafted high get a residual value for at least a few years because the entire professional scouting community saw big ceilings in them

For example, would you be excited if your team got Michael Dal Colle right now?

I'm not saying that draft position determines how good a player is going to be, but if you're talking about first rounders who are still in their teens or early 20's there's some trade value left where guys who are later picks and trending in the right direction still have something to prove

Another example, if Brandon Montour was a top 15 pick he would be thought of on the Werenski/Provorov plain and that's not happening yet

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Disagree. Many players who are drafted high get a residual value for at least a few years because the entire professional scouting community saw big ceilings in them

For example, would you be excited if your team got Michael Dal Colle right now?

I'm not saying that draft position determines how good a player is going to be, but if you're talking about first rounders who are still in their teens or early 20's there's some trade value left where guys who are later picks and trending in the right direction still have something to prove

Another example, if Brandon Montour was a top 15 pick he would be thought of on the Werenski/Provorov plain and that's not happening yet

Are you trying to say we should be excited about acquiring Dal Colle right now?



You're way off basis on this. Draft position is almost meaningless after a player has been drafted. It's all about what they do post draft, and Dal Colle has been an extreme disappointment.



That's like asking if fans would be happy if there team acquired Duncan Siemens, Dylan McIlrath, Jamie Oleksiak, Conner Bleackley, etc.



All draft position does is tell you how good a player was as a teenager. Nothing more. Once they're drafted it means nothing unless they can actually start backing up why they were drafted where they were.

 

[cgf]

I've never even heard of McKinnon, Avs obviously have to add.

 

[strictlyrandy]

If draft position carries so much weight post draft, Yakupov would have returned more..

But I digress, this was about people claiming Bigras didn't have much value. Plain and simple, Bigras is the top d prospect for the Avs and that isn't due lack of quality at that position. His draft position means nothing anymore. He's been developing fine and will be on the roster next season. Avs know what they're doing with him.

Avs have no need for Tanev (unless they can send Beauchemin the other way). Avs especially wouldn't give MacKinnon for anything on the Canucks roster.

 

[Avs44]

Disagree. Many players who are drafted high get a residual value for at least a few years because the entire professional scouting community saw big ceilings in them

For example, would you be excited if your team got Michael Dal Colle right now?

I'm not saying that draft position determines how good a player is going to be, but if you're talking about first rounders who are still in their teens or early 20's there's some trade value left where guys who are later picks and trending in the right direction still have something to prove

Another example, if Brandon Montour was a top 15 pick he would be thought of on the Werenski/Provorov plain and that's not happening yet

Yet Montour is 22 and still in the AHL and both Werenski and Provorov are 19 and doing really well in the NHL, but nice try, terrible example. Draft position means very little after a player is drafted, especially years afterwards.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Are you trying to say we should be excited about acquiring Dal Colle right now?

You're way off basis on this. Draft position is almost meaningless after a player has been drafted. It's all about what they do post draft, and Dal Colle has been an extreme disappointment.

That's like asking if fans would be happy if there team acquired Duncan Siemens, Dylan McIlrath, Jamie Oleksiak, Conner Bleackley, etc.

All draft position does is tell you how good a player was as a teenager. Nothing more. Once they're drafted it means nothing unless they can actually start backing up why they were drafted where they were.

Would you be more excited about acquiring Michael Dal Colle than Daniel Audette? Do you know who Daniel Audette is without looking? I'm aware that Dal Colle has been an extreme disappointment, that's why I used him as an example, but if draft position didn't mean anything after draft day then these two guys would be equally interesting as an acquisition for your team

Draft position speaks to projectability. There's a statute of limitations as to when that matters, but draft+3, maybe draft+4 there is some residual value for high draft picks because of the intrigue of their upside

If draft position carries so much weight post draft, Yakupov would have returned more..

But I digress, this was about people claiming Bigras didn't have much value. Plain and simple, Bigras is the top d prospect for the Avs and that isn't due lack of quality at that position. His draft position means nothing anymore. He's been developing fine and will be on the roster next season. Avs know what they're doing with him.

Avs have no need for Tanev (unless they can send Beauchemin the other way). Avs especially wouldn't give MacKinnon for anything on the Canucks roster.

I'm not saying that it carries "so much weight", but there's an afterglow

If draft position didn't mean anything, you wouldn't know that Yakupov was traded, it's notable because of where he was drafted. He's also draft+5 season so the residual value is fading, when I said early 20's i meant 20-21, maybe 22 depending on the circumstances. I think everyone was stunned that Yakupov returned so little even given his career performance as well. There was a thread about Yakupov to the Leafs for Connor Brown that sort of highlighted where people saw his value - and speaks well to the trade value associated with draft position - 6th round pick does everything right for 4 years after his draft and earns about the value of a top pick who's done everything wrong since the same draft

I agree on Bigras, his performance has been decent enough to warrant some value and can understand the position on Tanev

 

[Gavy]

I know how good Tanev is, but youd thing he was an elite #1D with the way some Canucks fans are turning down proposals.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Yet Montour is 22 and still in the AHL and both Werenski and Provorov are 19 and doing really well in the NHL, but nice try, terrible example. Draft position means very little after a player is drafted, especially years afterwards.

Montour is in the AHL at over point per game being blocked by one of the deepest bluelines in the NHL and has been a force at every level since he was drafted (also got a late start at playing hockey as a competitive lacrosse player), the other two are less than 10 games in to their NHL careers so not sure that's the point to lean on. Ducks fans will say that Montour is the best player in the AHL at 22, and I'm not sure I think its clear cut but he's definitely among them - have a look at the trade forum threads around Montour and see where the value for him is sitting in fans eyes right now, both Ducks fans and fans of teams that want him

There's a limit on how long the afterglow lasts, but draft position carries trade value - Lawson Crouse hasn't been impressive since his draft, he was still worth taking a bad contract to get because of his projectability

 

[Skirbs1011]

The issue is, before the season one could make an argument Tanev is worth one of Nylander or Marner.

The fact is now that Toronto has seen what these kids are capable of there is no way in hell they part with them. Just like Canuck fans will do the same with Boeser.

There is no deal to be made with these 2 teams, ever.

 

[Avs44]

Montour is in the AHL at over point per game being blocked by one of the deepest bluelines in the NHL and has been a force at every level since he was drafted (also got a late start at playing hockey as a competitive lacrosse player), the other two are less than 10 games in to their NHL careers so not sure that's the point to lean on. Ducks fans will say that Montour is the best player in the AHL at 22, and I'm not sure I think its clear cut but he's definitely among them - have a look at the trade forum threads around Montour and see where the value for him is sitting in fans eyes right now, both Ducks fans and fans of teams that want him

There's a limit on how long the afterglow lasts, but draft position carries trade value - Lawson Crouse hasn't been impressive since his draft, he was still worth taking a bad contract to get because of his projectability

You said he would be regarded in the same light as Werenski and Provorov if he was drafted higher...I would say that's demonstrably not true considering he is undeniably years behind them right now, regardless of what defence is in front of him. If Montour was Weresnki, he'd be in a top four role on the Ducks right now, especially with Lindholm being out. That's a really silly argument.


I would also argue that the only reason Crouse was traded by Florida to get rid of a cap dump was that his stock had significantly fallen in their eyes, and that if he still had the 'glow' of being such a high pick, they would have kept him, so I'd flip that right around.

 

[Randy Randerson]

The issue is, before the season one could make an argument Tanev is worth one of Nylander or Marner.

The fact is now that Toronto has seen what these kids are capable of there is no way in hell they part with them. Just like Canuck fans will do the same with Boeser.

There is no deal to be made with these 2 teams, ever.

haha that's a little dramatic, don't you think?

like what if Kapanen puts up 90pts this year in the AHL, would he not then become an interesting prospect for the Canucks?

I've actually said the same thing, Tanev would have been worth Nylander the prospect of last year, but their stock is rising after making a good transition to the NHL and it wouldn't make sense to sell now

People got fixated on the Toronto's big 3 prospects, but its also a very deep system. Taking those 3 away makes it an average system and a guy like Kapanen is still a top prospect in an average system

 

[Randy Randerson]

You said he would be regarded in the same light as Werenski and Provorov if he was drafted higher...I would say that's demonstrably not true considering he is undeniably years behind them right now, regardless of what defence is in front of him. If Montour was Weresnki, he'd be in a top four role on the Ducks right now, especially with Lindholm being out. That's a really silly argument.


I would also argue that the only reason Crouse was traded by Florida to get rid of a cap dump was that his stock had significantly fallen in their eyes, and that if he still had the 'glow' of being such a high pick, they would have kept him, so I'd flip that right around.

If Montour had started playing hockey as a kid and had been drafted high, I genuinely believe that he would be viewed on the same level as those guys. He might have been in the NHL two years ago if that had happened, and definitely would have been drafted in his first year of eligibility, but its not the norm for defensemen to be in the NHL at 19 even as high picks. Its not a perfect example but it's the only one I can think of currently where a lower draft pick defenseman is playing himself to that kind of value. You're also citing that Montour is 3 years older, but not considering that they were only drafted 1 year apart

I would argue that Arizona did accept the cap dump for a reason, which can only reasonably be that they saw value in Crouse....unless you can point out another motive that a budget team takes on a bad contract when it didn't involve getting to the floor, and getting to give up 2 draft picks in the process?

 

[Avs44]

If Montour had started playing hockey as a kid and had been drafted high, I genuinely believe that he would be viewed on the same level as those guys. He might have been in the NHL two years ago if that had happened, and definitely would have been drafted in his first year of eligibility, but its not the norm for defensemen to be in the NHL at 19 even as high picks. Its not a perfect example but it's the only one I can think of currently where a lower draft pick defenseman is playing himself to that kind of value. You're also citing that Montour is 3 years older, but not considering that they were only drafted 1 year apart

I would argue that Arizona did accept the cap dump for a reason, which can only reasonably be that they saw value in Crouse....unless you can point out another motive that a budget team takes on a bad contract when it didn't involve getting to the floor, and getting to give up 2 draft picks in the process?

You're inherently arguing that without his draft position that Arizona would not have seen any value in Crouse. I've not seen anything to demonstrate that as true. Unless you can prove that Crouse's draft position was the reason that Arizona took on a cap dump to get him, I'm not seeing a valid argument here. Just because they saw value in him = / = they saw value in him solely due to where he was drafted, which is the logical leap you've been making. Crouse did not perform terribly in junior by any stretch of the imagination, he built fairly significantly in terms of production on his draft year season.


Regarding Montour, I'm seeing a couple of "ifs" that go beyond his draft position and quite a bit of guesswork that is not supported by the current reality - and regardless of when he was drafted, Montour is three years older which makes a pretty massive difference when the guys you're comparing him to are still essentially teens, so I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals where if Montour had started playing hockey at a younger age he might be regarded as one of the best young prospect defensmen in the world. That's far too abstract to be serious.

 

[JonnyCanuck604]

The issue is, before the season one could make an argument Tanev is worth one of Nylander or Marner.

The fact is now that Toronto has seen what these kids are capable of there is no way in hell they part with them. Just like Canuck fans will do the same with Boeser.

There is no deal to be made with these 2 teams, ever.

Just because one has 9 points mostly assists, and Marner has nothing but assists All the while in Nylander's case him and AM have surrendered or made costly mistakes like not blocking a shot due to being afraid? that shows no heart to play a defensive game. At least AM tries and admits when he makes a mistake.

Points are not solely how you base a forward. The leafs have nobody but cast off from other teams in the system, and one stud Reilly. Drafting and developing D is the hardest thing to do. Tanev isn't that sexy player who will put up 40 points, but he is the kind off a guy that will prevent goals from being scored upon.

Tanev is still young, only a couple of years older than larrson , And Nylander is no Hall. You can score 4 goals a game like the leafs have been so far yet only have 2 wins. That and the offense always dries up with rookies, once a team gets some video etc on him

If the leafs wanted Tanev it would have to be a first and a guy like Carrick or Nylander and a 2nd. Again we can only go by the market and what hall got plus what Russell signed for shows the market on D.

Shame guys like Tanev and other stay at home guys don't get the love they deserve

 

[kihei]

Vancouver just aren't good trading partners for the Leafs. Would not ever give two high picks and a top prospect for Tanev, as good as I think he is. The really truly absurd trade proposal here is the MacKinnon one. Oh, lordy, in what universe does that happen?

 

[Skirbs1011]

haha that's a little dramatic, don't you think?

like what if Kapanen puts up 90pts this year in the AHL, would he not then become an interesting prospect for the Canucks?

I've actually said the same thing, Tanev would have been worth Nylander the prospect of last year, but their stock is rising after making a good transition to the NHL and it wouldn't make sense to sell now

People got fixated on the Toronto's big 3 prospects, but its also a very deep system. Taking those 3 away makes it an average system and a guy like Kapanen is still a top prospect in an average system

I ment more in relation to the names of Tanev, Marner and Nylander.

But yes on smaller deals there is trades to be made, just nothing of a blockbuster type.

Kapenen is a player I 100% would like Canucks managment to take a look at.

 

[Randy Randerson]

You're inherently arguing that without his draft position that Arizona would not have seen any value in Crouse. I've not seen anything to demonstrate that as true. Unless you can prove that Crouse's draft position was the reason that Arizona took on a cap dump to get him, I'm not seeing a valid argument here. Just because they saw value in him = / = they saw value in him solely due to where he was drafted, which is the logical leap you've been making. Crouse did not perform terribly in junior by any stretch of the imagination, he built fairly significantly in terms of production on his draft year season.


Regarding Montour, I'm seeing a couple of "ifs" that go beyond his draft position and quite a bit of guesswork that is not supported by the current reality - and regardless of when he was drafted, Montour is three years older which makes a pretty massive difference when the guys you're comparing him to are still essentially teens, so I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals where if Montour had started playing hockey at a younger age he might be regarded as one of the best young prospect defensmen in the world. That's far too abstract to be serious.

Luckily in the Crouse case its super easy to isolate that Crouse is the value:

Crouse+Bolland = 2nd in 2018 and 3rd in 2018 (this was the trade)
Bolland = negative value, I would say to the tune of a late first round pick but that's debatable and doesn't really matter

Therefor Crouse = 2nd+3rd+positive value to offset the negative value of Bolland in Arizona's estimation

Crouse hasn't done anything to warrant being thought of highly since his draft, so if its not performance that is giving him the value that Arizona dealt for, then it must be....value placed on him by scouts as to his potential? sounds a little like how draft rankings happen. The residual value isn't because he was drafted high, he was drafted high because of his perceived value as a combination of potential and chances of reaching that potential, which in the case of non-off-the-board picks is true for the rest of the NHL draftees as well


Unhypothetically, Montour is currently playing himself into the value range of a bluechip prospect. Had he been drafted high, he would already be considered that.

I will concede that Provorov and Werenski have been good in the NHL and that removes some risk, so I will say that Montour is playing himself towards the tier that they would have been considered in before playing well as NHL'ers, and if he had been drafted high we would think of him in the same frame as them.


You're welcome to disagree, but if you're here just to try to tell people their arguments are silly based on little technicalities like the value isn't because of the draft position rather than follow the obvious line of reasoning that they were drafted in the positions they were as a result of perceived NHL projection and chances of reaching those projections then its a valueless conversation for you to try to feel superior. If that's the case, have at 'er

 

[Randy Randerson]

I ment more in relation to the names of Tanev, Marner and Nylander.

But yes on smaller deals there is trades to be made, just nothing of a blockbuster type.

Kapenen is a player I 100% would like Canucks managment to take a look at.

Fair enough, I think if there's a piece on the Canucks that we would target, it would be Tanev if we were looking like we were ahead of schedule this year because Tanev fills a need as a RHD and as a solid defensive player. But I also think at that point if Kapanen is continuing to have a good year, he'll restore his value as a bluechip type prospect and would get to be very interesting if the Canucks are out of it and looking at a rebuild or some version of a rebuild

 

[Avs44]

Luckily in the Crouse case its super easy to isolate that Crouse is the value:

Crouse+Bolland = 2nd in 2018 and 3rd in 2018 (this was the trade)
Bolland = negative value, I would say to the tune of a late first round pick but that's debatable and doesn't really matter

Therefor Crouse = 2nd+3rd+positive value to offset the negative value of Bolland in Arizona's estimation

Crouse hasn't done anything to warrant being thought of highly since his draft, so if its not performance that is giving him the value that Arizona dealt for, then it must be....value placed on him by scouts as to his potential? sounds a little like how draft rankings happen. The residual value isn't because he was drafted high, he was drafted high because of his perceived value as a combination of potential and chances of reaching that potential, which in the case of non-off-the-board picks is true for the rest of the NHL draftees as well


Unhypothetically, Montour is currently playing himself into the value range of a bluechip prospect. Had he been drafted high, he would already be considered that.

I will concede that Provorov and Werenski have been good in the NHL and that removes some risk, so I will say that Montour is playing himself towards the tier that they would have been considered in before playing well as NHL'ers, and if he had been drafted high we would think of him in the same frame as them.


You're welcome to disagree, but if you're here just to try to tell people their arguments are silly based on little technicalities like the value isn't because of the draft position rather than follow the obvious line of reasoning that they were drafted in the positions they were as a result of perceived NHL projection and chances of reaching those projections then its a valueless conversation for you to try to feel superior. If that's the case, have at 'er

I'm not arguing that Crouse was the value in that deal so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there. You did not, and still have not, demonstrated that it is just Crouse's draft position that gives him value. The value on him is determined by 1) what he has done in junior, regardless of his draft position, and 2) what scouts reasonably think of his potential. Both of those evaluations can be entirely done without draft position in the equation. No scout is going to look at Crouse, not like his junior numbers, not like the potential he sees, and say, 'well, he was drafted high so he must be good and have good value.'

That is precisely what you are arguing is going on if you're arguing that it is draft position that gave Crouse his value to Arizona that he otherwise would not have had, if he had been drafted later. If you're arguing something else, then it has absolutely nothing to do with draft position giving a player more or less value a year+ after being drafted - which means you're arguing something else entirely.




What it seems you're trying to argue now is that draft position is the sum of how teams value players, and that somehow the indicator of that sum (draft position) is going to keep mattering after the draft - and that thus players drafted lower are going to have to prove more, comparatively, to raise their value, because their initial indicator of how teams valued them was lower. What I don't get is why you're assuming teams are going to keep holding onto that initial indicator of value (draft position) years afterward. Draft position is a benchmark, at that one moment in time, of how they were valued...after that it is going to incessantly be in a flux as teams constantly have an entire department to evaluate these kids. A year later, two years later, that one single benchmark isn't going to matter much anymore, since teams have created far more recent, updated, benchmarks of value. You're basically grabbing one little snapshot in time and assuming the projections then are going to keep on holding value.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I'm not arguing that Crouse was the value in that deal so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there. You did not, and still have not, demonstrated that it is just Crouse's draft position that gives him value. The value on him is determined by 1) what he has done in junior, regardless of his draft position, and 2) what scouts reasonably think of his potential. Both of those evaluations can be entirely done without draft position in the equation. No scout is going to look at Crouse, not like his junior numbers, not like the potential he sees, and say, 'well, he was drafted high so he must be good and have good value.'

That is precisely what you are arguing is going on if you're arguing that it is draft position that gave Crouse his value to Arizona that he otherwise would not have had, if he had been drafted later. If you're arguing something else, then it has absolutely nothing to do with draft position giving a player more or less value a year+ after being drafted - which means you're arguing something else entirely.




What it seems you're trying to argue now is that draft position is the sum of how teams value players, and that somehow the indicator of that sum (draft position) is going to keep mattering after the draft - and that thus players drafted lower are going to have to prove more, comparatively, to raise their value, because their initial indicator of how teams valued them was lower. What I don't get is why you're assuming teams are going to keep holding onto that initial indicator of value (draft position) years afterward. Draft position is a benchmark, at that one moment in time, of how they were valued...after that it is going to incessantly be in a flux as teams constantly have an entire department to evaluate these kids. A year later, two years later, that one single benchmark isn't going to matter much anymore, since teams have created far more recent, updated, benchmarks of value. You're basically grabbing one little snapshot in time and assuming the projections then are going to keep on holding value.

You're interpreting too literally. It's not the actual draft position that gives the value, draft position (other than if someone goes way off the board) is determined by perceived value by scouts and that perceived value doesn't just disappear after the draft in the wake of someone not living up to their expectations, it takes a while - that was what I was saying

And conversely, if a player hasn't established that pedigree by being perceived as high value before his draft, it takes a while performing well to achieve the same perceived value of someone that did

 

[Menzinger]

Just because one has 9 points mostly assists, and Marner has nothing but assists All the while in Nylander's case him and AM have surrendered or made costly mistakes like not blocking a shot due to being afraid? that shows no heart to play a defensive game. At least AM tries and admits when he makes a mistake.

Points are not solely how you base a forward. The leafs have nobody but cast off from other teams in the system, and one stud Reilly. Drafting and developing D is the hardest thing to do. Tanev isn't that sexy player who will put up 40 points, but he is the kind off a guy that will prevent goals from being scored upon.

Tanev is still young, only a couple of years older than larrson , And Nylander is no Hall. You can score 4 goals a game like the leafs have been so far yet only have 2 wins. That and the offense always dries up with rookies, once a team gets some video etc on him

If the leafs wanted Tanev it would have to be a first and a guy like Carrick or Nylander and a 2nd. Again we can only go by the market and what hall got plus what Russell signed for shows the market on D.

Shame guys like Tanev and other stay at home guys don't get the love they deserve

There's so much wrong wth this post I don't even know where to begin....

There isn't a single team in the league that's going you mive a bluechip prospect AND a 1st AND a 2nd.

 

[Jarey Curry]

TANEV IS A GREAT 1.5 to 2 tweener......not quite a #1 but plays with a number 1 and makes him better, he is elite in what he does.

#1 Trade

My belief is he is worth Toronto 2017 1st + top prospect + 2018 2nd

Can we afford to take just Picks? No not really, but Toronto pays up gladly

#2 Trade

Reinhart +2018 2nd for Tanev + Virtanen

#3 Trade

Tanev for McKinnon

In each case I ask you does obtaining Tanev make the teams Better?

And to be fair and not kill the trades immediately, is there an add that makes it even?

I almost died when I read Tanev for MacKinnon

 

[lifeisruff]

Buffalo hangs up the phone snd puts them on block.

Reinhardt alone is worth more than Tanev. Tanev is not a #1.

Reinhart alone is worth more then Tavev and Virtanen. Tanev has never passed the 20 point mark. Throw in a 1st, (we can negotiate lottery protections) and I'll consider it.

 

[skyo]

Tanev + for Duchene is more realistic.

Mac=untouchable.

 

[Szechwan]

As a Canucks fan I highly, highly doubt Tanev lands Duchene.

Tanev is incredibly important to the team, so I get why no Van fans don't want to move him for anything but overpayment.. but I just don't think he has that kind of value around the league.

I think they should just hold on to him, this thread is going in circles.