Quote:
Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates
What I'm reading in this thread is a lot of people are down on this signing because of Brower, Neal and Hamonic.
Not because of Chris Tanev.
Almost every negative response to the signing has mentioned one of those 3 players.
Pretty impossible to like any signing when you're emotionally damaged from those past signing and using them to cloud the judgement of other signings in isolation.
You guys sound like a girl who's been cheated on too many times and now immediately gives the grills to her new boyfriend assuming he'll cheat too.
I understand where that's coming from but try to judge this signing for itself and make an opinion from that alone. Positive of negative, let's not get down on our new player because of past duds.
|
No people are down on this signing because of the player Tanev is. They bring up those contracts because in the absolute case scenario this will be a fair contract. Otherwise, I see it a lot like the Kris Russell signing by EDM. They gave him a 4x4 contract for his intangibles.
All the advanced stats show Tanev to be on a downward trajectory. In addition, before this season Tanev played 55, 42, and 53 games in the previous 3 seasons. Vancouver was mostly outplayed and out-chanced on a game to game basis. That said, Tanev was a large contributor to that. In fact, Tanev brought down almost everyone he played with. Tanev didn't look good against the Knights, and I think there is a reason he played less than 15min in game 7.
Is Tanev all bad? No. He looked pretty good in both the series against STL, and MIN. He might have been injured in the Vegas series, so I don't know. He is pretty good at winning battles in the defensive zone. He is hard to play against, and a more structured defense in Calgary can do him some good.
I just see a lot more risk than reward in this contract. The risk is compounded in my eyes when you consider having to give Dube/Valimaki/Bennett raises next year. You only have Ryan and Rittich as UFAs so cap space will be tight.