HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Chris Tanev called up - Feb 16/2012

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-17-2012, 10:17 AM
  #51
Jrtu
Registered User
 
Jrtu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,510
vCash: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
yes mg should. for depth insurance purposes. whoever he aquires, maybe he'll likely keep rome/sulzer as spares. deal alberts for a pick or whatever.
I'm advocating for this as well. This guy takes up $1.225M of our cap hit sitting in the pressbox eating popcorns. If he has a better cap hit, like Rome at $0.75M, then I wouldn't mind so much. Besides, he's still signed for another season after this, which will again take up the same cap space.

Trade him now while he still has value. He won't be a rental like most deadline acquisitions and other teams that aren't as deep might actually have an use for him as a depth player in the back end.

Jrtu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 10:25 AM
  #52
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrtu View Post
I'm advocating for this as well. This guy takes up $1.225M of our cap hit sitting in the pressbox eating popcorns. If he has a better cap hit, like Rome at $0.75M, then I wouldn't mind so much. Besides, he's still signed for another season after this, which will again take up the same cap space.

Trade him now while he still has value. He won't be a rental like most deadline acquisitions and other teams that aren't as deep might actually have an use for him as a depth player in the back end.
some teams who need are in need of a big body should garner some interest.

David71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 10:35 AM
  #53
Catamarca Livin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
I've always been in the minority, but I've always preferred Alberts to Rome. He adds a physical presence and wins battles along the boards. Rome's only advantage is that he is a bit better positionally.

I think since Ballard has been out Alberts has clearly been better than Rome, but we'll see if the coaches agree.
I disagree. Rome is a much better play than Alberts IMO. Rome does not get beat wide one on one. Rome actually can get physical without taking penalties. Rome does not bobble the puck everytime he is under pressure. I think Rome is more effective than Ballard. He is bigger more physical and does not backward skate into the goalie. For 3.5 million dollars more Ballard rushes up the ice nicely but never finishes a play. I agree with AV. I was a Rome hater. Once you overlook that he needlessly ices the puck once each night he plays his role very well. Tanev might play better with Ballard than Rome because Tanev uses his partner alot, and passing Rome the puck is not always the best move. So maybe for Tanev is Ballard is better than Rome, but Alberts is not as good as Sulzer.

Catamarca Livin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 10:51 AM
  #54
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Rome is very underrated and stylistically a good partner for Tanev. I think they'll play well together.
If you asked most people on this board honestly I don't think many people would underrate Rome. If you remember his first games with the Canucks he was VERY impressive with his simple plays and good passes. Rome makes the occasional gaff but generally is a solid NHL defenceman. He looks TERRIBLE in the top 4 though. He doesn't have the ability to move up the line up (where Tanev does).

YogiCanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 12:22 PM
  #55
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,742
vCash: 500
Ballard is on the IR, not LTIR.

Tanev will be sent down before the trade deadline (but may not be put on the Wolves clear day roster) so that the Canucks have the flexibility to call him up or send him down after the deadline.

Is Sulzer healthy? He has played so little that they should just send him down so he can play and to gain a roster spot.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 12:24 PM
  #56
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
If you asked most people on this board honestly I don't think many people would underrate Rome. If you remember his first games with the Canucks he was VERY impressive with his simple plays and good passes. Rome makes the occasional gaff but generally is a solid NHL defenceman. He looks TERRIBLE in the top 4 though. He doesn't have the ability to move up the line up (where Tanev does).
He's a solid *DEPTH* defenseman (eg., #7). He isn't a solid NHL defenseman on a good or great team (eg., #6).

It's no secret that the coaching staff gives Rome a pretty long leash (whether they have valid reasons for that, well, that's another matter for discussion). If he makes a mistake that causes a goal - he never misses a shift (or causes a goal in an OT playoff game - it's the OTHER D that gets the healthy scratch). He gets some PP duty and OT duty (regular season), etc.,

As said before, if Salo gets hurt, it'll be Rome that takes that spot - not Ballard. Not Tanev.

If there's a Bizzaro world version of being in the dog house - it's Rome.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 01:18 PM
  #57
deckercky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,663
vCash: 500
Rome is a fine #6 on any team in the league.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 01:37 PM
  #58
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
If you asked most people on this board honestly I don't think many people would underrate Rome. If you remember his first games with the Canucks he was VERY impressive with his simple plays and good passes. Rome makes the occasional gaff but generally is a solid NHL defenceman. He looks TERRIBLE in the top 4 though. He doesn't have the ability to move up the line up (where Tanev does).
There you go underrating him. Rome is easily good enough to fill in a top 4 role on the left side, though he isn't nearly as good on the right. He's big, physical, supports the rush well and consistent. One of the better bottom pairing defenseman in the league.

I'm convinced most of you have no idea what you're watching when it comes to defensemen.


Last edited by Scurr: 02-17-2012 at 01:44 PM.
Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 01:40 PM
  #59
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,892
vCash: 500
^ He would've and should've gotten more than a two year $750K if that were true. That or he has a horrible agent (maybe get Alberts' agent).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 01:43 PM
  #60
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,710
vCash: 500
That was two years ago. Lets see what he gets this contract.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 01:49 PM
  #61
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,892
vCash: 500
Well Alberts was pretty underwhelming before he signed his current deal (and I'm probably being kind); he got a two year $1.225 million deal; and unlike Rome, is bad enough on the left side without even thinking of switching him to the right side.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 02:02 PM
  #62
sobrio
Registered User
 
sobrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bucerias
Country: Mexico
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 50
Has anyone been watching the Wolves closely enough to notice if Tanev has added some weight to his frame? Most sites have him listed at 6'2, 185 still. He has always reminded me of a young Edler with a similar disposition although Edler was a prospect with 15 pounds on him. Physically my concern is his lankiness might not serve him well down the stretch of punishing playoffs.

sobrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 02:14 PM
  #63
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,576
vCash: 500
^Tanev bulked up considerably in the off-season, IIRC. Not sure by how much, but I think it was a fairly sizeable difference.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 02:16 PM
  #64
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,742
vCash: 500
^^^Most hockey players are unable to do much weight training during the season unless they are rehabbing an injury and in fact, many lose muscle mass. Depth players who only play 8-10 minutes per night may be able to fit weight training in however for most players, the practice, travel and playing schedule dictates a training regime that is more focused on recovery from games and maintaining aerobic fitness.

Hey! What happened to the quote feature?

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 02:45 PM
  #65
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catamarca Livin View Post
I disagree. Rome is a much better play than Alberts IMO. Rome does not get beat wide one on one. Rome actually can get physical without taking penalties. Rome does not bobble the puck everytime he is under pressure. I think Rome is more effective than Ballard. He is bigger more physical and does not backward skate into the goalie. For 3.5 million dollars more Ballard rushes up the ice nicely but never finishes a play. I agree with AV. I was a Rome hater. Once you overlook that he needlessly ices the puck once each night he plays his role very well. Tanev might play better with Ballard than Rome because Tanev uses his partner alot, and passing Rome the puck is not always the best move. So maybe for Tanev is Ballard is better than Rome, but Alberts is not as good as Sulzer.
Like I said, I'm in the minority but fair enough. In a limited #6 role, I much prefer Alberts. Rome can be physical without taking penalties? He's had major penalties in the playoffs and again this year, and has taken a good amount of bad penalties this year. Their penalty totals are generally fairly similar. Rome may not 'bobble' the puck, but he makes his share of bonehead giveaways.

As for trading/waiving Alberts, I don't really see the point unless we need the cap space. He's fine as a 7th guy with that contract, and its easily buried in the minors next year if needed. The contracts of Ballard, Malhotra, and (if he's given more than 2 million) Raymond would be much bigger concerns IMO.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2012, 02:47 PM
  #66
sobrio
Registered User
 
sobrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bucerias
Country: Mexico
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 50
Thanks guys, and yeah I can't get the quote reply to work either.

sobrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2012, 10:56 AM
  #67
Lemurion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 145
vCash: 250
Alberts is very good on the PK, but I think Rome is better in most other circumstances.

I personally think that one reason the team likes Rome is that he makes the "right" mistakes. Many of his mistakes come from trying to follow the system and failing, so he doesn't usually surprise the team with a spectacular mistake that no one was expecting so they aren't in a position to recover from.

I don't expect Tanev up full time until the Wolves are out. I think this trip is about determining whether the Canucks can go with what they have or not - and if not whether they need a #3-4 or a #5-6 right-side D.

Lemurion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2012, 11:10 AM
  #68
Bermynuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
How can Canuck fans not know how valuable it is to have defensive depth going into the playoffs??? OK Alberts isn't perfect but we know that someone will probably go down in the playoffs and he will be serviceable in the playoffs...he knows the system, knows the players, he's relatively cheap. You need guys like this if we're planning to last 4 rounds

Bermynuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2012, 11:15 AM
  #69
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
^Tanev bulked up considerably in the off-season, IIRC. Not sure by how much, but I think it was a fairly sizeable difference.
Not a ton. He added 10 pounds of muscle according to Kuzma's blog post yesterday. A good start though for a skinny lad.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2012, 11:28 AM
  #70
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bermynuck View Post
How can Canuck fans not know how valuable it is to have defensive depth going into the playoffs??? OK Alberts isn't perfect but we know that someone will probably go down in the playoffs and he will be serviceable in the playoffs...he knows the system, knows the players, he's relatively cheap. You need guys like this if we're planning to last 4 rounds
Left side D:
Hamhuis
Edler
Rome
Ballard
Alberts


Right side D:
Bieksa
Salo
Tanev
Suzler

Hence the need for a right side D and one less left side D. I'm guessing Ryan Parent is hurt; but unless he's done for the year, he also plays the left side.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2012, 11:31 AM
  #71
Samzilla
Registered User
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,311
vCash: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Not a ton. He added 10 pounds of muscle according to Kuzma's blog post yesterday. A good start though for a skinny lad.
If it's truly 10lbs of muscle then that's a huge amount to add in one off-season. Anybody can put on 10lbs. Heck, most could probably do that in a couple of weeks. Just gorge yourself. But to put on that much muscle in that time span is pretty impressive. Good for Tanev.

Samzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2012, 03:22 PM
  #72
TacitEndorsement
Registered User
 
TacitEndorsement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
If it's truly 10lbs of muscle then that's a huge amount to add in one off-season. Anybody can put on 10lbs. Heck, most could probably do that in a couple of weeks. Just gorge yourself. But to put on that much muscle in that time span is pretty impressive. Good for Tanev.
It's really not that much for a professional athlete, especially one his age. I would expect those results.

TacitEndorsement is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.