Bob Long Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 11 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said: At 34 and 4.5M Plus Calgary is going to want the moon for him. As a rental that's asking too much. Calgary is already counting their money and our top prospects. Tanev ufa will want the same 4.5M too. with all the parity in the league right now I'm not sure Tanev is going to get that big of a return. A lot of teams are in the mix right now and may not want to blow a big wad on free agents this year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, aGENT said: What's wrong with "just" having a 2C ceiling? If he could become a 2C it would be massive win for this organisation... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: with all the parity in the league right now I'm not sure Tanev is going to get that big of a return. A lot of teams are in the mix right now and may not want to blow a big wad on free agents this year. Yeah, given his age, injury history etc... He might get closer to $3.5-$4m territory. On a good team anyway. Some bottom feeder could probably give him $4.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 minute ago, spook007 said: If he could become a 2C it would be massive win for this organisation... I think he'll be either an ok, if not flashy 2C, or a REALLY good 3C. Could be a solid mid 6 C tandem with an eventually declining Miller. We might have the equivalent of two "2B" lines instead of a 2nd and 3rd... Which is honestly not far from what we have this year (different players obviously). 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 56 minutes ago, aGENT said: Yup when he eventually makes the big club, there will be fans poo-pooing him because he won't be flashy or put up massive counting stats, he'll just be a solid, reliable C. Coaches will probably love him and some fans will wonder why see Joe Veleno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, stawns said: I don't think so, he does t have that explosive element to his game, but he's probably going to be a guy who is better actual player than a lot of 1C guys are. He just won't have the numbers to get the attention Any current NHL player comparable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 minutes ago, aGENT said: I think he'll be either an ok, if not flashy 2C, or a REALLY good 3C. Could be a solid mid 6 C tandem with an eventually declining Miller. We might have the equivalent of two "2B" lines instead of a 2nd and 3rd... Which is honestly not far from what we have this year (different players obviously). I'd say that is a massive win, if they turned Horvat into Hronek and a 2/3C, and Zadorov... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 I agree with the people saying Tanev likely won't get the sun and the moon for Calgary. I'd be surprised if a 1st round pick was involved in such a trade just given his age and caphit. Regarding Hughes in all of this, I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes and Tanev talked a lot. This would also imply that Tanev probably wants to come back. The problem I have with Tanev coming back is where does he fit? We have Hughes, Hronek, Myers, Zadorov, Soucy, Cole, Juulsen, etc. That's 7 defenders, 6 of whom are on significant cap hits from 3mil to 7.85mil. Soucy is reportedly out 5 to 6 weeks but that's not really that long of a wait before he's back in the lineup if you think about it. Without Tanev, we have a lot of money on defense. With Tanev, that only seems to increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 5 minutes ago, The Lock said: I agree with the people saying Tanev likely won't get the sun and the moon for Calgary. I'd be surprised if a 1st round pick was involved in such a trade just given his age and caphit. Regarding Hughes in all of this, I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes and Tanev talked a lot. This would also imply that Tanev probably wants to come back. The problem I have with Tanev coming back is where does he fit? We have Hughes, Hronek, Myers, Zadorov, Soucy, Cole, Juulsen, etc. That's 7 defenders, 6 of whom are on significant cap hits from 3mil to 7.85mil. Soucy is reportedly out 5 to 6 weeks but that's not really that long of a wait before he's back in the lineup if you think about it. Without Tanev, we have a lot of money on defense. With Tanev, that only seems to increase. Have to imagine that any trade for Tanev means Myers is either going the other way, or out in a separate trade. Otherwise we simply (try to) sign him and replace him for Myers in the summer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 minutes ago, aGENT said: Have to imagine that any trade for Tanev means Myers is either going the other way, or out in a separate trade. Otherwise we simply (try to) sign him and replace him for Myers in the summer. That may be the most likely scenario, especially given that Myers is 33 and one of our oldest defensemen anyway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Tanev for Myers let’s go! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captkirk888 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 hours ago, stawns said: Absolutely it was.........they missed. What was the result over the next 10 years? The Canucks two misses have been followed by a decade of bottom feeding. 3 misses. 1982 was the true definition of a Cinderella run @tas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 minutes ago, Captkirk888 said: 3 misses. 1982 was the true definition of a Cinderella run @tas true enough, but as I wasn't alive to witness it I'm not comfortable speaking about it, since I have no firsthand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captkirk888 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Just now, tas said: true enough, but as I wasn't alive to witness it I'm not comfortable speaking about it, since I have no firsthand. No problem. It still happened tho, it’s part of history. I know you can read, so you have every right to look it up and comment on it. I was 17 at the time and it was a blast! I began watching/listening to the Canucks in 74 when I was 9. My dad used to take me to a lot of games when they sucked in the lates 70s (he got free tickets from work, they were great seats though- 6th row from ice at blue line). FWIW, I think you are thoughtful poster with good insights (sometimes lol). Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 14 minutes ago, Captkirk888 said: 3 misses. 1982 was the true definition of a Cinderella run @tas No argument, it was a great time gombe a Canucks fan. It's far enough back, though, that it's a different era, as far as things like loading up at the tdl for the comibg draft. It was also a pretty quiet year for van, though they did make a big 3 for 1 deal, except they got 3 players and gave up 1 (hanlon). That said, you are right that it does for the point because it was another decade+ of ugh before the '94 run 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 12 minutes ago, stawns said: No argument, it was a great time gombe a Canucks fan. It's far enough back, though, that it's a different era, as far as things like loading up at the tdl for the comibg draft. It was also a pretty quiet year for van, though they did make a big 3 for 1 deal, except they got 3 players and gave up 1 (hanlon). That said, you are right that it does for the point because it was another decade+ of ugh before the '94 run this is going to sound insane, but I'm almost ok with the decades of futility in between. it's a little like, uh ... certain, other things ... where the ride is more fun and important than the destination, you know? plus, for me at least, it makes those years of peak success that much more meaningful having persevered through the down times. part of me dreads this team winning a cup, which will make me face the reality that nothing magically changes, life goes on the same, and they just play the next year of hockey like the previous one didn't matter. there's no inherent meaning, no fulfillment to be gained. Edited January 26 by tas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 19 minutes ago, Captkirk888 said: No problem. It still happened tho, it’s part of history. I know you can read, so you have every right to look it up and comment on it. I was 17 at the time and it was a blast! I began watching/listening to the Canucks in 74 when I was 9. My dad used to take me to a lot of games when they sucked in the lates 70s (he got free tickets from work, they were great seats though- 6th row from ice at blue line). FWIW, I think you are thoughtful poster with good insights (sometimes lol). Cheers. oh, I know the '82 lore. the cast of characters, the chain of events. but all I can do is parrot somebody else's take, and that's not who i am. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 11 minutes ago, tas said: this is going to sound insane, but I'm almost ok with the decades of futility in between. it's a little like, uh ... certain, other things ... where the ride is more fun and important than the destination, you know? plus, for me at least, it makes those years of peak success that much more meaningful having persevered through the down times. part of me dreads this team winning a cup, which will make me face the reality that nothing magically changes, life goes on the same, and they just play the next year of hockey like the previous one didn't matter. there's no inherent meaning, no fulfillment to be gained. Geez man, I hope nobody is standing near a high ledge while reading this 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 8 minutes ago, aGENT said: Geez man, I hope nobody is standing near a high ledge while reading this 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Captkirk888 said: 3 misses. 1982 was the true definition of a Cinderella run @tas Hockey gods gave Vancouver a big "F - U". As if our chances were slim enough (facing a Hall of Fame stacked islanders team), we lost the use of our Captain & best defenseman before the post-season began as a result of a freak accident. I say again, we have to sacrifice Alflives to remove this bad mojo! Edited January 26 by NewbieCanuckFan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, The Lock said: This would also imply that Tanev probably wants to come back. his heart never left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Tanev would make the D-core better and we have a lot of defenseman who could play with him. Who goes though? If no D go than we have a pretty deep D-core if one of the regulars sitting out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: Tanev would make the D-core better and we have a lot of defenseman who could play with him. Who goes though? If no D go than we have a pretty deep D-core if one of the regulars sitting out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Crossbar Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) Absolutely no to giving up a 1st. A 2nd plus prospect only if Flames retain salary. I'm completely open to Tanev on our blueline to sure up a run in the playoffs, he would definitely help, but it needs to be right. We need options in the offseason. We already have a 34-year old on D in Cole. He's only a one year, so Tanev could replace Cole next year if we wanted to go that route. Edited January 27 by Dr. Crossbar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, aGENT said: He's the prime candidate. But what if they go Kuz? It would give us a pretty deep D-core. May hurt the top 6 though. Ideally Kuz goes for a top 6 FWD. Whether that is a deal to make a deal(like Zads, Bear) or otherwise. What if we go balls to the wall and go for Lindholm and Tanev? Mik-Petey-Lindholm Hog-Miller-Boeser Joshua-Bleuger-Garland Hughes-Tanev/Hronek Cole/Zads-Tanev/Hronek Soucy-Cole/Zads That makes for a good top 9 and D-core. Not sure we can keep Lindholm though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.