So Tanev would still be called up right now if any of Ballard, Alberts or Rome was playing well on the right side and the D looked strong? You really believe that?
I think it's abundantly clear the team is making this move because Alberts, Rome and Ballard all look like garbage playing on their off-side, but maybe that's just me.
This plus the team has struggled big time getting pucks to the forwards since salo went out. Teams are playing our D really aggressively right now and they aren't handling it well at all.
Tanev is up here because the team needs the help and Gillis needs to know how desperate he needs to be at the deadline. It's fine to say they need to replace Ballard, but how much and who are you willing to give up to do it? I don't see a bunch of teams lining up to help the Canucks get better, more likely teams are trying to bend him over a barrel.
It just boggles the mind how Ballard is unable to play any kind of Top 4 role on this team...he has the skating and can block shots...even if he can't provide offense he could be a serviceable player if he played a simple game of just pushing the puck up to forwards. He clearly has a good first pass I don't know why he's doing too much
If he could play more we could play Bieksa and Salo less, leading to smiles all around
I think the LA game was an aberration. Pretty much the whole team was bad early on, and some of those chances given up by Edler and Bieksa were just as bad, if not worse. Prior to that he'd been playing very solid hockey and had been keeping it simple.
His problem I think is that he wants to do more than just chip it out at certain times, given his puck-rushing and skating abilities. As long as he keeps it simple (although some better forward support would make it easier for him, and the rest of the D too in general) he can earn the coaches' trust. However it remains to be seen if that'll happen 'cos it really would make everyone's lives so much easier if he would prove he was capable of moving up once and for all.
Agree with those saying this is an assessment of where Tanev is at and whether he can play the Top 4 RS D-man. If not then I think MG will try and get someone. We really should be treating Salo as a luxury from now on - can't factor him in at all as it's too risky.
Just caught AV's audio regarding the call-up, pretty interesting:
-Having problems with transition game because playing natural left-side defenseman on the right-side results in poor break-outs; these guys have to handle the pucks on the back-hand too much and can't adjust to the forecheck (guys used to playing RS like Ehrhoff don't have the problem). Really hurts the system in place, which is based on getting the puck up ice and into the offensive zone as quickly as possible.
-Is having difficulty finding chemistry with the pairings at the moment (I assume this doesn't include Hamhuis/Bieksa who have never been apart). Gee...this wouldn't have anything to do with a bunch of #6/#7 defensemen playing important minutes? Forget chemistry, these guys aren't good enough to all be in the line-up at the same time.
-Tanev is being tried with Edler because...well lets face it...he's the highest depth right-side defenseman in the system outside of Bieksa/Salo.
-AV continues to basically say Salo is one of (if not 'the') most important defenseman on the team. This is bad news considering the guy is 37, in my opinion.
Most of these points have been made by numerous posters on here since training camp; took the organization this long to realize all of this? Management problem, not a coaching problem.
Gee...really AV? Playing Rome in the top 4 isn't a good idea? I'm confident Gillis and Gillman are doing their homework about available defenceman around the league...
so it's basically a Hint to mike gillis " get another dman that is right handed or that can play the right side because it's ****ing up eveyrthing.
I liked Keenan's idea of being subtle...remember the game where he kept pulling the goalie (despite the other team continuing to score) in an effort for Burke to complete the Bure trade? Granted, Burke got the last laugh in the end.
I liked Keenan's idea of being subtle...remember the game where he kept pulling the goalie (despite the other team continuing to score) in an effort for Burke to complete the Bure trade? Granted, Burke got the last laugh in the end.
Gee...really AV? Playing Rome in the top 4 isn't a good idea? I'm confident Gillis and Gillman are doing their homework about available defenceman around the league...
LTIR counts against the cap just as any other salary would it just allows you to go over cap by that amount, if you are over you don't acrue any savings. Salo could have been put on LTIR earlier if they wanted but there was no difference unless they needed to go above cap (ie try Tanev).
I know that, but there is more to the salary cap then meets the eye. And there is a difference, its because pay is calculated daily.
There is a reason why the team puts player on LTIR retroactively, and if you want me to explain to you the fine nitty gritty details of it all you will have to give me some time.
Ballard may fit a less structured defensive system where he can cover on on one. As Andrew Alberts pointed out when he came over the Canucks system is much more complex and takes time to learn as he was used to more man on man coverage. It seems Ballard's hockey IQ is just not that high and he seems incapable of playing within the Canucks system.
The offensive system breakouts are also complex and Ballard seems to be at his best when he is allowed to freelance but that just does not fit in the Canucks systems either.
All in all for the Canucks Ballard seems to be trying to fit an expensive square peg in a round hole.
I couldent agree with you more, this is how I see it. Ballard is a good player, easily a top four on many teams but he isnt a flexible player and he is clearly unable to adapt his game. Certainly that is a big downside for him as a player for any successful well structured team, but there are plenty of teams that arent well structured and can give him that flexibility he needs as a player. AV on the other hand keeps thinking that if he puts enough pressure on Ballard that he will change his game and adapt, it worked with most players, but unfortunately Ballard simply isnt capable of doing that.
Its clear he is a good player but he needs to be on a team with a lax and flexible system, and if he is he will be as good of player as he always has been. He simply doesnt fit this team and is a player that cant adapt.
I really hope Tanev plays well these next couple games. I would love to see either Alberts or Rome knocked out of the top 6.
Unless a defenseman gets traded, we won't have room to carry Tanev when Salo gets back. My guess is if he does look good in the next 2 games, he'll be reassigned now then recalled after the trade deadline when a defenseman does get traded. Say bye to Ballard
I think people need to keep in mind that Rome alberts and sulzer are our 6-8 dmen...
who can move up a bit for short period of times..... as the 6th dman they are solid..
alot of teams would be happy to have thenm as their 6th dman elt alone some teams theri 5th dman.
what is great (not incl tanev_) isthat they give us incredible depth for a long playoff run....... and we have had the luxury of carrying 8 dmen all season.....
Tanev probably makes the team as the 6th dman but he could be sent down and they want him playing big minutes as the #1 in chi till he is finally recalled for the playoffs
this may be a stint to confirm to the brass that he is going to be a fixture these playoffs.
slim possibility it is to showcase him but I dont see him being moved unless the return is a big piece for this team....ie a pkg for B ryan or similiar return.
