[Speculation] Stars Rumors: 3 Free-Agent Destinations for Chris Tanev

[high flying Vee]

On 6/3/2024 at 8:01 AM, Provost said:

He was a huge reason they got that far and was clearly hobbled from injury by the end.

 

I take him any day of the week.

And twice on Sunday

[Rick_theRyper]

31 minutes ago, Alflives said:

So we could move off all of Garland and allocate that cap to Zadorov and Geuntzel. And sign Tanev too.

Hughes, Hronek

Zadorov, Tanev

Soucy, Myers

Juulsson 

Boeser, Miller

Geuntzel, Petey

Hogs, Blugar

 Pods, Suter

 

Then fill in the blanks. 

 

This is exactly what I think it will be if it goes to plan. Canucks will need to shop a player two years down the road to get a NHL ready RHD or UFA/RFA. Can't expect too many more good years out of Tanev/Myers but I believe they have a couple left in the tank. It just makes me nervous it they were the #1/2 if we traded Hronek for a winger. Hronek is a #2 guy though 100% and we only have 1 RHd in the pipe so 100% keep him for this year at least. Hard player to replace. Same with Zadorov 

[high flying Vee]

1 hour ago, canucks curse said:

think about this if you trade garland, no retention, you could sign Duclair 3.75 x 4 and Danton Heinen 1.25 x 2 yrs  at essentially the same price 

Imagine what this playoff run looks like without Garland. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, high flying Vee said:

Imagine what this playoff run looks like without Garland. 

Imagine what this playoff run looks like with Demko and a healthy Petey. 

[Rick_theRyper]

With the Garland talk, do anyone really think they keep him and give him his big UFA payday? I don't think that at all in the big plan, he had a hot season after three meh seasons, I'm not at all above moving him for something at the draft. Have to sell high on players. He's only signed next year no? Or is it one more after next season? Perfect player to move on a high note. Imo

[wai_lai416]

2 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:

With the Garland talk, do anyone really think they keep him and give him his big UFA payday? I don't think that at all in the big plan, he had a hot season after three meh seasons, I'm not at all above moving him for something at the draft. Have to sell high on players. He's only signed next year no? Or is it one more after next season? Perfect player to move on a high note. Imo

He has 2 years left and what big payday? He already gotten his big payday lol his play doesn’t even warrant him a raise on his current contract. Priority is to move mikheyev first he’s literally useless in all situation.. we can easily find a guy just for the pk. Which is all he’s used for. Between garland and mik one have got to go and I’d move mik first and see where the team is at and then decide on garland. 

[high flying Vee]

25 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Imagine what this playoff run looks like with Demko and a healthy Petey. 

I’m not disagreeing about Demmer and a full power EP40 but Garls was one of a handful of players on this club whose balls grew a few sizes once the regular season ended. He was our best forward (outside of JT) on many a night, setting the pace, stirring the drink. He’s an obsessive winner and it showed. 

[DeNiro]

9 minutes ago, high flying Vee said:

I’m not disagreeing about Demmer and a full power EP40 but Garls was one of a handful of players on this club whose balls grew a few sizes once the regular season ended. He was our best forward (outside of JT) on many a night, setting the pace, stirring the drink. He’s an obsessive winner and it showed. 
 

 

 

Yep.

 

You take Garland out of that room you lose a lot of character and drive to win. And an already quiet room gets quieter.

 

Not sure that’s how you go about building a culture.

[Rick_theRyper]

43 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

He has 2 years left and what big payday? He already gotten his big payday lol his play doesn’t even warrant him a raise on his current contract. Priority is to move mikheyev first he’s literally useless in all situation.. we can easily find a guy just for the pk. Which is all he’s used for. Between garland and mik one have got to go and I’d move mik first and see where the team is at and then decide on garland. 

So you don't think his agent will push for more money? That he showed he can drive a line and play up the line up. There's no way he doesn't ask for more money especially after last season. I'm just saying past his current contract he's not gonna be here, so why not move him while his value is highest it's been? I think he'll sign where he gets the most money like all UFAs. He will be the typical 30 yr old UFA looking for his last big deal. If he plays like last year he will get it too. 

[wai_lai416]

9 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:

So you don't think his agent will push for more money? That he showed he can drive a line and play up the line up. There's no way he doesn't ask for more money especially after last season. I'm just saying past his current contract he's not gonna be here, so why not move him while his value is highest it's been? I think he'll sign where he gets the most money like all UFAs. He will be the typical 30 yr old UFA looking for his last big deal. If he plays like last year he will get it too. 

So how do u push for big money if you don’t have the play or stats to back it up? What part of his play or stats say he deserve a big contract?

Edited June 5 by wai_lai416

[Gurn]

44 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

So how do u push for big money if you don’t have the play or stats to back it up? What part of his play or stats say he deserve a big contract?

iirc Garland has excellent 5 on 5 numbers, and would get a  more power play time if the coaches had the discipline to split the pp time more equally between the two groups.

 

 

[NHL97OneTimer]

1 hour ago, Rick_theRyper said:

So you don't think his agent will push for more money? That he showed he can drive a line and play up the line up. There's no way he doesn't ask for more money especially after last season. I'm just saying past his current contract he's not gonna be here, so why not move him while his value is highest it's been? I think he'll sign where he gets the most money like all UFAs. He will be the typical 30 yr old UFA looking for his last big deal. If he plays like last year he will get it too. 

You keep him to show the young guys (and sometimes the older guys) the effort which they should be playing with.  Team culture as said above.  

 

If management sold everyone who was considered peaking, they'd never have a contender but they'd be rich in draft picks.  At some point you have to take a run at a cup.  

 

The right thing to do is to ensure the construct of the team is there and to ensure the dollars spent appropriately.  Garland's role was big in the playoffs and he certainly met his contractual obligations.  There's nothing to suggest he can't do it next year.

[Rick_theRyper]

1 hour ago, wai_lai416 said:

So how do u push for big money if you don’t have the play or stats to back it up? What part of his play or stats say he deserve a big contract?

His entire season last year showed he can play top six, play a top defensive role, drive a line. He's not going to take a pay cut after a season like that. If he keeps it up he will make more money. Plus it's just how it goes, players don't take pay cuts at 30 unless they are trash. Do you people expect him to resign under 4.95? When he's a ufa in two years? I don't understand this argument lol hell we traded for him expecting a mid at worst to top six RW and did he not prove that this last season? He will get more than he makes now and IMO he ain't worth it. Sell him on the high instead of letting him walk. Whether that's this off season or next or either of those tdl's. Right now is a safe bet after a great season. No?? 

[Rick_theRyper]

16 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

You keep him to show the young guys (and sometimes the older guys) the effort which they should be playing with.  Team culture as said above.  

 

If management sold everyone who was considered peaking, they'd never have a contender but they'd be rich in draft picks.  At some point you have to take a run at a cup.  

 

The right thing to do is to ensure the construct of the team is there and to ensure the dollars spent appropriately.  Garland's role was big in the playoffs and he certainly met his contractual obligations.  There's nothing to suggest he can't do it next year.

He's also not a core player, and is worth something and they have cap problems. There's reasons to both sides. In keeping him for those two years or selling high. And cap space and picks coming in during contention time is important too!  I totally think he will continue his great two way play I'm not saying that at all. All I said is that I can see us moving him at a high point because I really don't see him here after he's UFA. But yeah he is big part of the mid six now and there's no harm in keeping him for now. Just have to sell high on some guys we do it never almost. BO. yeah but usually we just let guys walk even during our down years. I think smart teams sell high and already have that next role playing guy on their radar to replace him. In the end it's a business 

[RWJC]

47 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:

He's also not a core player, and is worth something and they have cap problems. There's reasons to both sides. In keeping him for those two years or selling high. And cap space and picks coming in during contention time is important too!  I totally think he will continue his great two way play I'm not saying that at all. All I said is that I can see us moving him at a high point because I really don't see him here after he's UFA. But yeah he is big part of the mid six now and there's no harm in keeping him for now. Just have to sell high on some guys we do it never almost. BO. yeah but usually we just let guys walk even during our down years. I think smart teams sell high and already have that next role playing guy on their radar to replace him. In the end it's a business 

They do sell high, when they have requisite replacements. We don’t (yet) hence why you don’t trade him until you do. Anyone slotting Hogz into his position must understand that Hogz has to prove he can handle the minutes and role…hasn’t done that yet. You wouldn’t be long as a GM in the NHL if you moved out too many of your working, positive stat pieces in order to replace them with question marks. Especially not with the progression this team has shown, largely on the backs of role players playing at the height of what’s being asked or expected of them.

 

 

 

Edited June 5 by RWJC

[wai_lai416]

55 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:

His entire season last year showed he can play top six, play a top defensive role, drive a line. He's not going to take a pay cut after a season like that. If he keeps it up he will make more money. Plus it's just how it goes, players don't take pay cuts at 30 unless they are trash. Do you people expect him to resign under 4.95? When he's a ufa in two years? I don't understand this argument lol hell we traded for him expecting a mid at worst to top six RW and did he not prove that this last season? He will get more than he makes now and IMO he ain't worth it. Sell him on the high instead of letting him walk. Whether that's this off season or next or either of those tdl's. Right now is a safe bet after a great season. No?? 

entire season play? he didn't even play in a top 6 all season so i dunno wth you are talking about top 6 lol.. if anything he showed he can't play in a top 6.. and is suitable on a 3rd line role only.. each time he played in the top 6 he was useless

Edited June 5 by wai_lai416

[Rick_theRyper]

2 hours ago, RWJC said:

They do sell high, when they have requisite replacements. We don’t (yet) hence why you don’t trade him until you do. Anyone slotting Hogz into his position must understand that Hogz has to prove he can handle the minutes and role…hasn’t done that yet. You wouldn’t be long as a GM in the NHL if you moved out too many of your working, positive stat pieces in order to replace them with question marks. Especially not with the progression this team has shown, largely on the backs of role players playing at the height of what’s being asked or expected of them.

 

 

 

Well they wanted to move him last year tried, now he had a great season. I'm just saying the stars are aligned either way you look at it. It's almost 5 million cap space with something coming back our way to allow us to possibly keep all three Lind, Zadorov,  Hronek. Mik will cost at least 3rd and a or a decent prospect to move

[Rick_theRyper]

2 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

entire season play? he didn't even play in a top 6 all season so i dunno wth you are talking about top 6 lol.. if anything he showed he can't play in a top 6.. and is suitable on a 3rd line role only.. each time he played in the top 6 he was useless

Was the Garland Lindholm Joshua line not getting more quality chances and even when Blueger was there, they were arguably the 2nd best line 2/3 of the year. 

[Provost]

5 hours ago, Rick_theRyper said:

So you don't think his agent will push for more money? That he showed he can drive a line and play up the line up. There's no way he doesn't ask for more money especially after last season. I'm just saying past his current contract he's not gonna be here, so why not move him while his value is highest it's been? I think he'll sign where he gets the most money like all UFAs. He will be the typical 30 yr old UFA looking for his last big deal. If he plays like last year he will get it too. 

No, he has finally played one year the level of his current contract, he hasn’t provided a ton of surplus value at all.  That isn’t big payday territory for a guy on the downward part of his career who will be facing free agency at 30.

 

Big name players get paid well into their 30’s, journeymen middle six guys worry about getting jobs at all and not getting pushed out by younger players.  They end up with short term contracts for cheap.

 

If Garland keeps this level

of play for two more years, he “might”

get another contract at similar numbers for 2-3 year term.

[PhillipBlunt]

5 hours ago, DeNiro said:

 

 

Yep.

 

You take Garland out of that room you lose a lot of character and drive to win. And an already quiet room gets quieter.

 

Not sure that’s how you go about building a culture.

Garland stays. He loves it here. The fans have cheered him on. 

[wai_lai416]

48 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:

Was the Garland Lindholm Joshua line not getting more quality chances and even when Blueger was there, they were arguably the 2nd best line 2/3 of the year. 

being the 2nd best line doesn't make you a top 6.. are other team treating you like a top 6? no? that line was invisible as soon as joshua went down.. and even prior to joshua going down.. they went thru a 10 game stretch completely irrelevant when the other team started to play them higher up the depth chart.. but keep telling yourself Garland played like a top 6 this season when in reality he was horrible when elevated in a top 6 role... the garland lindholm joshua line wasn't even a thing until the playoff.. 

Edited June 5 by wai_lai416

[Rick_theRyper]

22 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

being the 2nd best line doesn't make you a top 6.. are other team treating you like a top 6? no? that line was invisible as soon as joshua went down.. and even prior to joshua going down.. they went thru a 10 game stretch completely irrelevant when the other team started to play them higher up the depth chart.. but keep telling yourself Garland played like a top 6 this season when in reality he was horrible when elevated in a top 6 role... the garland lindholm joshua line wasn't even a thing until the playoff.. 

But yet hes played so well we should keep him? I don't understand where your going with this man! 

[wai_lai416]

27 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:

But yet hes played so well we should keep him? I don't understand where your going with this man! 

so you going to ignore the part that say keep telling yourself?? i think you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone that'll agree with your assessment Garland played in a top 6 role 2/3rd of the season and was great.. garland have been mostly invisible without joshua.. he has 4 goals and 3 assist during the stretch where joshua was injured.. 3 of those goals came against anaheim buffalo montreal... his minutes was reduced to 14mins during that stretch.. that's top 6 minutes for sure.. give the man a raise he deserves it.

[GrammaInTheTub]

16 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

so you going to ignore the part that say keep telling yourself?? i think you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone that'll agree with your assessment Garland played in a top 6 role 2/3rd of the season and was great.. garland have been mostly invisible without joshua.. he has 4 goals and 3 assist during the stretch where joshua was injured.. 3 of those goals came against anaheim buffalo montreal... his minutes was reduced to 14mins during that stretch.. that's top 6 minutes for sure.. give the man a raise he deserves it.

The whole team struggled while Joshua was out. It was our 0.500 hockey stretch. Garland put up roughly 0.5PPG while Joshua was out. The Joshua-Garland (and whichever centre) line was ostensibly our 2nd line while the Petey line struggled offensively but continued taking opponents tough matchups. 

[wai_lai416]

1 hour ago, GrammaInTheTub said:

The whole team struggled while Joshua was out. It was our 0.500 hockey stretch. Garland put up roughly 0.5PPG while Joshua was out. The Joshua-Garland (and whichever centre) line was ostensibly our 2nd line while the Petey line struggled offensively but continued taking opponents tough matchups. 

Not sure how you guys decides to base who’s higher up in the line based on production.. I mean if that’s the case ep line out produced the garland line as a whole for the season. Garland needs Joshua to produce end of story. Joshua missed 19 games garland had 7 points in that stretch 3 points against playoff teams. Minutes reduced to around 13-14 minutes that was playing with lindholm.. if he’s so effective why did they reduce his mins? Like I said the 3rd line is effective coz they were dominating other teams 3rd 4th line and bottom pairing defenceman.. when other team played them like a top 6 line? They struggled. Look at their quality of opponent.. tell me they were the 2nd line again? So if say they dominated the 4th line and out scored the top line because they are up against 4th line and bottom 2 defence pairing they automatically become your top line?? You think other team is going to put their top line and top defenceman against them all of a sudden?

 

garland started playing with Joshua in late November.. they played together for maybe 2 months and 2 weeks prior to Joshua injury when other team started to treat them like the 2nd line and they were awful for that 2 weeks prior to Joshua injury… 0 points as a line for 10 games. Last I checked the season is 6 months.. so they were good for 1/3rd of the season 

 

and regardless this is about the guy I’m quoting claiming garland is due for a raise and his big contract. He have done nothing in his current contract that deserves a raise.. this is prolly the first time he’s even remotely close to what he was paid even though he’s playing down the lineup. No contender in this league would have garland in their top 6. He’s perfectly fine for a 3rd line role and at 5mil he’s overpaid. Whoever thinks he should get a raise needs to get their eyes checked 

Edited June 5 by wai_lai416