Then re-read the posts in this very thread where I stated I have no issue with the people that are critical that have their well thought out reasons for it, just the trolls that are seemingly only here to crap on Treliving, not root for the team
I have been critical of Treliving, I think he has done some good things but I don't think he is above critique.
As you can see, he was one of the better Canucks defenders at controlling gaps. Only Gio on the Flames was strong at this. He was also ok at moving the puck out relative to the other Canucks d, though he won't be anywhere near a Brodie replacement in this regard.
These are certainly more encouraging data points than the xG and RAPM metrics that have been posted, but it remains to be seen how he adjusts to the Calgary system and how many competent years he has left.
I can understand the Markstrom deal but this one I understand much less. The main issue with this deal is from a roster construction standpoint. The most obvious holes on this team are at 1C and 1D (with an aging Gio). Instead of using cap space and assets to fulfill those holes, they've downgraded at a position where the player was playing above his caphit and role. If BT makes more moves before the season starts to address those needs, then this doesn't matter, but as it stands they're already at the cap and nothing seems imminent.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jore For This Useful Post:
I know people tend to mock the idea of adding ~intangibles~ but Tanev is beloved for his leadership:
A guy like that helping Gio mentor Andersson, Hanifin, Valimaki, Mackey and Kylington is going to be invaluable. I really hope he spends a good amount of time with Hanifin.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Crown Royal For This Useful Post:
Regarding the expansion draft, I don't think there is any chance that Tanev gets protected, and I think it is very likely that Giordano does.
The guys that are subject to exposure are: Giordano, Tanev, Hanifin, Andersson and Kylington.
Hanifin and Andersson are givens. Giordano is also a given, IMO, unless Kylington takes a huge step forward this year and forces their hand so strongly, that they have to expose their captain.
Either way, Tanev is an odd man out with this lineup.
But with either Backlund or Bennett exposed (I assume Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Mangiapane and Dube are givens), I doubt we lose a defenseman.
A guy like that helping Gio mentor Andersson, Hanifin, Valimaki, Mackey and Kylington is going to be invaluable. I really hope he spends a good amount of time with Hanifin.
If he is a warrior as some have stated and an even better person, that is a good asset! I don't think our defense is going to have too many issues as long as everyone is doing their jobs!
Looks like he plays well with third and fourth liners but struggles when playing with the top two centers and drags them down. Probably put him in as a 5th or 6th dman and let him play mainly with the third and 4th lines
I think the real big takeaway is that the Canucks' 4th line with Sutter, Beagle et al is grossly overmatched for the role they play and generally poorly constructed, as you typically want a 4th line that gets buried in their own zone and still comes out of it a positive. Which, ironically, is what the Flames' 4th line last year with Jankowski, Reider, and Bennett successfully did despite their lack of offensive success!
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
I was hoping that they would replace Brodie with someone with more offence — with Barrie or even bringing Gus back. A power-play specialist that you could shelter/manage situationally between second and third pair minutes. With Andersson trending towards a top pair guy you have that luxury.
I think we fans need to consider how this signing - type of player - may be a reflection of what kind of style Ward wants to play. So to your point, the Brodie replacement not being offensive means they want a simpler game, simpler breakout and just more emphasis on the defensive zone. Think of Julien coached teams.
I think we fans need to consider how this signing - type of player - may be a reflection of what kind of style Ward wants to play. So to your point, the Brodie replacement not being offensive means they want a simpler game, simpler breakout and just more emphasis on the defensive zone. Think of Julien coached teams.
I don't think it's fair to view it as a Brodie replacement, more of a Hamonic replacement.
I think the team thinks Andersson can be the Brodie replacement
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
As you can see, he was one of the better Canucks defenders at controlling gaps. Only Gio on the Flames was strong at this. He was also ok at moving the puck out relative to the other Canucks d, though he won't be anywhere near a Brodie replacement in this regard.
These are certainly more encouraging data points than the xG and RAPM metrics that have been posted, but it remains to be seen how he adjusts to the Calgary system and how many competent years he has left.
I can understand the Markstrom deal but this one I understand much less. The main issue with this deal is from a roster construction standpoint. The most obvious holes on this team are at 1C and 1D (with an aging Gio). Instead of using cap space and assets to fulfill those holes, they've downgraded at a position where the player was playing above his caphit and role. If BT makes more moves before the season starts to address those needs, then this doesn't matter, but as it stands they're already at the cap and nothing seems imminent.
Maybe management think Valamaki will be a top pairing D in 2 years.
I see a few posters comparing him to Hamonic but IMO Tanev is a better skater, passer and is more positionally sound than Hamonic was. IF he can stay healthy, I think he'll be a fan favorite.
Of course I'd rather have Brodie and it sucks to lose him but his departure could give Hanifin/Andersson more ice time to develop, especially on the powerplay where I think they have more to show.
Best case scenario is that Tanev somehow regains a step and his injury-woes somehow slow down, allowing him and Giordano to form an incredible shutdown pairing while letting Gio do all the offensive work.
I don't see many scenarios in which Tanev is a good partner for guys like Hanifin or Valimaki unless he regains a couple steps to once again become one of the best defensive defenseman in the NHL like he was a few years ago. Otherwise, it'll be the same situation as last year with Hughes, where he dragged Hughes down and Hughes absolutely flourished away from him.
Gio-Tanev
Hanifin-Andersson(it works, let them grow)
Valimaki-Kylington
Thats as of today and barring future tweaking.
Its fine. The hesitancy about our young players is akin to over fretting nail biting.
Honestly, this isn't the end of the world. Id rather stable defensive zone awareness than offense. Which in fact we have, Andersson now gets PP time, Hanifin can get some.looks, Kylington too. We have the pieces, you have to use them though.
The Following User Says Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
As you can see, he was one of the better Canucks defenders at controlling gaps. Only Gio on the Flames was strong at this. He was also ok at moving the puck out relative to the other Canucks d, though he won't be anywhere near a Brodie replacement in this regard.
These are certainly more encouraging data points than the xG and RAPM metrics that have been posted, but it remains to be seen how he adjusts to the Calgary system and how many competent years he has left.
I can understand the Markstrom deal but this one I understand much less. The main issue with this deal is from a roster construction standpoint. The most obvious holes on this team are at 1C and 1D (with an aging Gio). Instead of using cap space and assets to fulfill those holes, they've downgraded at a position where the player was playing above his caphit and role. If BT makes more moves before the season starts to address those needs, then this doesn't matter, but as it stands they're already at the cap and nothing seems imminent.
I'd just like to make the point that if you want to improve 1C or 1D the only realistic to do that is via the draft or trade. Free agency isn't where team revolutionize their roster. It is where they fill gaps in the line up.
I dislike how people keep bringing up Brodie as an option that was missed out on.
Do you really believe he was a realistic option for the Flames to sign?
I don't.
Why not?
It’s literally been reported by reputable sources AND right from our GM’s mouth that we were talking with Brodie’s agent right down to the wire. Doubt that would be the case if they weren’t interested in re-upping here.
The fact that Tanev signed such a similar deal after Brodie left to Toronto makes me think it was a plan B. BT will never come out and say that much but timing and dollar wise plus with the news that we were still negotiating with Brodie after free agency opened makes me think that
The Following User Says Thank You to neo45 For This Useful Post:
You could go with something a little more crazy like
Go Andersson
Valimaki Tanev
Hanifin Yeleshin
Kyllington
Shelter the #### out of Yeleshin and double shift Tanev and Andersson with Hanifin as much ad possible.
Teeny gear grinder, its Yelesin. Not shin.
Readjust the perception that Gio-Tanev will be 2nd pairing and relied more for defense than offense. Turn Hanifin and Andersson into the first pairing and let the run. 3rd pairing will be fine. I have full trust in Valimakis game to be able to handle majority of the the heavy lifting in their own zone.
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.
.
You’ve chosen to do some very selective reading of this thread if that’s the only Tanev criticism you’ve taken away. All of these have been pointed out numerous times:
- awful possession numbers (bottom 10 percentile for his position league wide)
- injury prone history
- lack of offense
- wrong side of 30
- trending downwards already
- trade protection and term
None of these criticisms have anything to do with Brouwer or Neal and people have been pointing out these red flags on Tanev well before we ever signed him
