Coconuts Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 21 minutes ago, tas said: what's wrong with that? a responsible, physical, absolute unit of a goalscorer who elevates in big games in your middle 6 is a hell of a nice thing to have. Nothing, in fact Podz may be more valuable to the Canucks as a cost effective forward than he would be via trading him. They'll need cost effective forwards going forward, he could very well be one, I hope he can make an NHL level impact. I just don't view him as a piece that'd entice Calgary to part with Andersson, who's arguably a prime aged top pairing RD. He might be something they take back for Tanev though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 2 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Nothing, in fact Podz may be more valuable to the Canucks as a cost effective forward than he would be via trading him. They'll need cost effective forwards going forward, he could very well be one, I hope he can make an NHL level impact. I just don't view him as a piece that'd entice Calgary to part with Andersson, who's arguably a prime aged top pairing RD. He might be something they take back for Tanev though. Podz for Tanev would be fair, no? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: Podz for Tanev would be fair, no? It'd probs need to be more, Calgary is reportedly asking for a 2nd plus another asset. If one values Podz as being worth a 2nd or a late 1st you're probably still adding. Podz and a 3rd maybe, or Podz and a 2nd. Would you do Podz and a 2nd for Tanev? Calgary's likely not in a rush to trade Tanev, as time marches on someone may ante up and part with a 1st, which they probably take and run. I'm talking out of my ass, but more than likely if Calgary trades Tanev sooner than later it'll be because someone offers Calgary a package they don't think other teams will beat. If 10+ teams have inquired about him there are probably at least a couple offers featuring a 2nd+ on the table imo. Calgary can wait and see if anyone will ante up leading up to the deadline, that's what I'd do. Edited February 17 by Coconuts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Barn Burner Posted February 17 Popular Post Share Posted February 17 15 minutes ago, Alflives said: Podz for Tanev would be fair, no? No. Podz is only 22. Tanev, as much as it would be nice addition, and who is a UFA, plus, there's only 27 games left in the season. Hell no. That's ridiculous. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 minutes ago, Barn Burner said: No. Podz is only 22. Tanev, as much as it would be nice addition, and who is a UFA, plus, there's only 27 games left in the season. Hell no. That's ridiculous. Woo + for Tanev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Alflives said: Woo + for Tanev? Maybe? I know it's going to cost. But let's not get crazy here. There are only 27 games left and he is a UFA. I personally think we need someone just for one year, which I know Tanev would want more term. I'd keep Hronek, Juulsen and Willander. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker67 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Mikheyev+ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Barn Burner said: Maybe? I know it's going to cost. But let's not get crazy here. There are only 27 games left and he is a UFA. I personally think we need someone just for one year, which I know Tanev would want more term. I'd keep Hronek, Juulsen and Willander. Willander might not be ready for top 4 duties next year. JR/PA have also preached lengthy development. Tanev could be the perfect stop gap even if we try to get him in free agency. Could also be a good mentor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said: Willander might not be ready for top 4 duties next year. JR/PA have also preached lengthy development. Tanev could be the perfect stop gap even if we try to get him in free agency. Could also be a good mentor. I didn't say that. Read the response. I said we need someone for 1 year only. Tanev will want term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 19 minutes ago, Barn Burner said: I didn't say that. Read the response. I said we need someone for 1 year only. Tanev will want term. He might not be ready for the following year either. He could start on the 3rd pair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Just now, Junkyard Dog said: He might not be ready for the following year either. He could start on the 3rd pair. That's where we want him to start. Unless he forces himself into the 2nd pairing. We don't need to tie up a bunch of term. If you have Hronek, Willander and Juulsen, that's a pretty solid RD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillisD Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 I think we'll pass on Tanev. Asking price is too high. We'll chat in the off-season. Plus Tanev has been broken and put back together so many times I'm kinda leary anyway. Our core would love to see him though 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Just now, Barn Burner said: That's where we want him to start. Unless he forces himself into the 2nd pairing. We don't need to tie up a bunch of term. If you have Hronek, Willander and Juulsen, that's a pretty solid RD. Could be better. And a lot of unknowns going with that. Juulsen is a 7 D as it stands on a high-end team. A solid one. He has played good overall but hasn’t warranted taking out anybody from a healthy D-core. There’s also a strong argument to keep Juulsen as 7th D given how injuries happen. Better to have more depth than lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comox Blaster Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 No to trading for Tanev. Let's see what our young guns in Abbey can do if absolutely required. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 47 minutes ago, Barn Burner said: I didn't say that. Read the response. I said we need someone for 1 year only. Tanev will want term. I don’t think the plan is to have Willander be a top 4D in two years, that is asking a lot from a kid. One year in the AHL, maybe another year in the AHL with injury call up time (with Tanev’s playing style that probably means we have a 20-30 game need for an injury call-up), in the third year on a sheltered 3rd pairing role in the NHL… then see how it goes. Tanev is literally the perfect guy to sign. 2-3 year term, and he will slide down the lineup as Willander is ready to move up. Can’t get a better mentor either. A longer term for Tanev equals a lower cap hit in the years we need to make up for OEL dead money. If he wants to come back to Vancouver you could even be looking at a sub $4 million number if you give him a little term. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 2 minutes ago, Provost said: I don’t think the plan is to have Willander be a top 4D in two years, that is asking a lot from a kid. One year in the AHL, maybe another year in the AHL with injury call up time (with Tanev’s playing style that probably means we have a 20-30 game need for an injury call-up), in the third year on a sheltered 3rd pairing role in the NHL… then see how it goes. Tanev is literally the perfect guy to sign. 2-3 year term, and he will slide down the lineup as Willander is ready to move up. Can’t get a better mentor either. A longer term for Tanev equals a lower cap hit in the years we need to make up for OEL dead money. If he wants to come back to Vancouver you could even be looking at a sub $4 million number if you give him a little term. If you can get him at a reasonable rate for 2 years max, then that's fine. I just don't want management signing anything long-term. There's no point. Juulsen is showing that he's more than capable of being a solid 3rd RD. Re-sign Hronek, maybe Tanev for 2 years, by then, Willander will be on the big club. More than likely, so will Petey D, on LD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 26 minutes ago, Comox Blaster said: No to trading for Tanev. Let's see what our young guns in Abbey can do if absolutely required. I'd rather not trade for him at all. But, if it's reasonable, then, sure. None of this crazy shit like Podkolzin or a 1st. That's asinine. He's more than likely done in Calgary, so we're not the one's who are desperate. People keep forgetting that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 32 minutes ago, Provost said: I don’t think the plan is to have Willander be a top 4D in two years, that is asking a lot from a kid. One year in the AHL, maybe another year in the AHL with injury call up time (with Tanev’s playing style that probably means we have a 20-30 game need for an injury call-up), in the third year on a sheltered 3rd pairing role in the NHL… then see how it goes. Tanev is literally the perfect guy to sign. 2-3 year term, and he will slide down the lineup as Willander is ready to move up. Can’t get a better mentor either. A longer term for Tanev equals a lower cap hit in the years we need to make up for OEL dead money. If he wants to come back to Vancouver you could even be looking at a sub $4 million number if you give him a little term. Yeah, but you don't know. That's only your opinion. Let's see what "the big dogs" decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 12 minutes ago, Barn Burner said: Yeah, but you don't know. That's only your opinion. Let's see what "the big dogs" decide. They already decided that the plan is the AHL for him next year, so that is pretty clear and what they have said publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Provost said: They already decided that the plan is the AHL for him next year, so that is pretty clear and what they have said publicly. Fair enough. But isn't it Lekkerimaki and Petey D in the AHL next year? I haven't heard anything about Willander in the AHL next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 27 minutes ago, Barn Burner said: Fair enough. But isn't it Lekkerimaki and Petey D in the AHL next year? I haven't heard anything about Willander in the AHL next year. Yes, you are right. BU for another season and joining AHL after college season is done is the expected plan. The same plan as D. Petey (just a year later) who is expected to come to AHL this year after his season is done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breadnbutta Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 6 hours ago, Mac said: I agree we need depth on D. I just think the offer suggested is way too much. I agree.. It is too much. But there will be a bidding war for Tanev and Calgary doesn't want to help us out any more than they already have. That's why I proposed that, it's essentially the most I would be willing to give up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardown Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 hours ago, Comox Blaster said: No to trading for Tanev. Let's see what our young guns in Abbey can do if absolutely required. Or go after someone cheaper as depth. I like the idea of Bogosian. Our team is literally the best in the league and people think we need to part with valuable assets for a 34 yr old UFA who is not 27 year old Tanev. he’s got so many miles on him he may not even make it through a full playoff run. unless he’s cheap, pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL97OneTimer Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 5 hours ago, Barn Burner said: I'd rather not trade for him at all. But, if it's reasonable, then, sure. None of this crazy shit like Podkolzin or a 1st. That's asinine. He's more than likely done in Calgary, so we're not the one's who are desperate. People keep forgetting that. This. Nostalgia is a beautiful thing, and a dangerous thing too. It's great with Kessel buried in the minors, signing cheap for a call-up when needed. Not so good when selling top end young talent for a guy who likely won't move the needle much but will likely cause losing a guy on waivers in addition to losing the young prospect / pick. Love Tanev and he's an excellent player but I don't think he would move the needle enough to make it worth it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 4 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said: This. Nostalgia is a beautiful thing, and a dangerous thing too. It's great with Kessel buried in the minors, signing cheap for a call-up when needed. Not so good when selling top end young talent for a guy who likely won't move the needle much but will likely cause losing a guy on waivers in addition to losing the young prospect / pick. Love Tanev and he's an excellent player but I don't think he would move the needle enough to make it worth it. Agreed. Especially at Tanev's age, being a UFA, and for only 27 games, left in this season. Not recommended, at all. Pass. Either free agent next summer, or at a highly reduced price this year. No top prospects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts