Proposal: Tanev to Toronto/Buffalo/Colorado

[Cogburn]

Not condoning the deal, but aren't Nucks fans praying for a true rebuild? A deal like this is exactly the type that would signify the start of a rebuild.

We can't do a full rebuild until some of our veterans contracts expire, they retire or are open to a trade. Tanev would be a key piece to kick off a rebuild, but honestly, I feel he is young enough to keep. Conversely I don't trust our current management or coach to do anything approaching a rebuild. Benning can't get full value for what he gives up, and Desjardins sits or minimalizes the role of young players.

Miller and Burrows are off the books this year, the Sedins the year after, and honestly Edler is the defender I think has the highest yield and likely he most appeal of our defenders. The way he's playing Eriksson fits into the cap dump role with Sbisa and Dorsett too.

Tanev, because he plays a low key, unflashy game is still viewed as a player that isn't worth much since he doesn't score. Rebuild or no, I think he fits here, and frankly we need some mentorship for new comers and young players, and I don't like some of the other younger vets there.

 

[Liferleafer]

Fair enough, but you do know that Nylander was an 8th overall right? I would think that pick falls around 8th-12. That's the AAA prospect in the deal. Well chance of one. Slam dunk AAA's don't get traded in a Tanev level deal

There is one small piece, one huge one. That doesn't invalidate the huge one.



Most tired trope on the board. The only time a team "isn't in a possession to trade firsts" is when their prospect pool is depleted. A 1st round pick is just a player with x probability of reaching y talent level with the added benefit of cost control. In a smart deal for a key piece of commensurate value any draft pick is available at any time. See Andersen. F. As long as it's got that top 5 protection (because in all likelihood any trade wouldn't be for a player worthy of Patrick/ Liljegren.

100% disagree. A team (Toronto) that is projected to be in the bottom 5, should not be moving it's 1st, even protected.

You want to use Andersen as an example? Well that was the Pens 1st...#30. I counter with the Phil Kessel trade, that cost us Seguin and Hamilton....still think it's a great idea?

Your analogy would be correct in the 80's, but with pro scouting and the way young players train and develop now, a top 10 pick holds alot of value.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

100% disagree. A team (Toronto) that is projected to be in the bottom 5, should not be moving it's 1st, even protected.

You want to use Andersen as an example? Well that was the Pens 1st...#30. I counter with the Phil Kessel trade, that cost us Seguin and Hamilton....still think it's a great idea?

Your analogy would be correct in the 80's, but with pro scouting and the way young players train and develop now, a top 10 pick holds alot of value.

After all claims of Tanev is a top pairing defender, Zaitsev is better player, the Leafs aren't as bad as they've shown, maybe it's just us going along with what we are told.
Clearly a team that can score as well as the Leafs young players have they should win more than Vancouver who is literally the lowest scoring team, with least amount of time led in a hockey game right. But hey, that's none of my business

 

[4thline]

100% disagree. A team (Toronto) that is projected to be in the bottom 5, should not be moving it's 1st, even protected.

You want to use Andersen as an example? Well that was the Pens 1st...#30. I counter with the Phil Kessel trade, that cost us Seguin and Hamilton....still think it's a great idea?

Your analogy would be correct in the 80's, but with pro scouting and the way young players train and develop now, a top 10 pick holds alot of value.

I never said it didn't, I judged the dogma surrounding trading 1st's inherently bad as silly. Value for value in deals that make sense, no stigmatized assets.

Bad counter. The media and fans took the wrong lesson from that trade, because it wasn't "don't trade 1st round picks" the lesson to be learned was "don't leave yourself open to give more in trade than the intended value." Burke thought he was giving two playoff 1sts and a 2nd for Kessel, that would have been a great graded. Burke was wrong, and did nothing to cover his ass, and got burnt. I'd place fair value of Tanev to be a 6-14 1st + a B+ prospect. IMO that pick would be 8-10 range. Fair for 3 prime years of a 2-3 defensman that fits exactly what we need. I would not be okay with giving up a top 5 pick. Protection prevents that. Problem solved.

The Kessel to Pens trade is the perfect example of this. Very tight range of values changing hands based on the pick conditions, they weren't getting burnt even if the team flopped.

 

[bossram]

Fair enough, but you do know that Nylander was an 8th overall right? I would think that pick falls around 8th-12. That's the AAA prospect in the deal. Well chance of one. Slam dunk AAA's don't get traded in a Tanev level deal

And we could have picked Nylander, (as I was hoping) had Benning not been a buffoon. And now we're in this mess. At the top of the draft, he's picked sub-optimally (Juolevi is fine, but not what we really need).

I don't doubt that you can find those AAA prospects lower in the draft. But I think that's more luck related than scouting. The most reliable place to find those franchise pieces is, objectively, very high in the draft.

We need near-surefire future stars. If we're trading Tanev, that's just what has to be coming back. Honestly we'd need to find the equivalent of a Larsson for Hall deal (and IMO Tanev is much better than Larsson).

 

[4thline]

And we could have picked Nylander, (as I was hoping) had Benning not been a buffoon. And now we're in this mess. At the top of the draft, he's picked sub-optimally (Juolevi is fine, but not what we really need).

I don't doubt that you can find those AAA prospects lower in the draft. But I think that's more luck related than scouting. The most reliable place to find those franchise pieces is, objectively, very high in the draft.

We need near-surefire future stars. If we're trading Tanev, that's just what has to be coming back. Honestly we'd need to find the equivalent of a Larsson for Hall deal (and IMO Tanev is much better than Larsson).

I see Larsson and Tanev as largely equal, (underrated defensive 2-3's), Tanev maybe a little better now but Larsson (still could likely get better type young) and signed longer. Call it a draw value wise. Plus I don't think that trade defined the market so much as was outside of it, can't see Tanev pulling that kind of player

 

[bossram]

I see Larsson and Tanev as largely equal, (underrated defensive 2-3's), Tanev maybe a little better now but Larsson (still could likely get better type young) and signed longer. Call it a draw value wise. Plus I don't think that trade defined the market so much as was outside of it, can't see Tanev pulling that kind of player

I don't see it either. Hence there is no deal to be made. But that's what I'd be looking for.

Tanev is better than Larsson though. It's not really a debate. They both have played the "toughs". One consistently puts up sterling suppression metrics and overall strong shot metrics. The other doesn't.

Tanev has a much larger impact on his team.