Canucks Army Monday Mailbag: August 21st – Part Deux

It makes a tonne of sense for the Toronto Maple Leafs, who get a legitimate top pair defenceman in the prime of his career in Chris Tanev. All they have to part with is a prospect with high-end top six upside. It’s a value coup for Maple Leafs.

If the Maple Leafs ever approached the Vancouver Canucks with a one-for-one trade sending Kasperi Kapanen their way for Tanev, I’d expect Canucks general manager Jim Benning to hang the phone up and block their number.

One could make a good case that Tanev’s skill set is underrated, but not to the extent that the Canucks have to sell him for a prospect of Kapanen’s calibre. I say that as someone who thinks fairly highly of Kapanen, too.

A year after the Detroit Red Wings had to put some serious cash down for Thomas Vanek as a restoration project, nobody wants Vanek. That would make some semblance of sense if Vanek hadn’t put together a solid year offensively for Detroit, but that’s not the case. Vanek had 48 points in 68 games split between the Red Wings and Florida Panthers. That’s about top line production.

Vanek would be a good fit with the Canucks, insofar as he’s someone who’s shown he can put up solid offensive totals in less than favourable situations and hold value at the trade deadline. In some ways, he’s the perfect player for the Canucks this off-season. The exact kind of player they should have targeted on the open market.

The Canucks haven’t tried playing Jordan Subban at forward because Jordan Subban is a defenceman. Furthermore, nothing about his skill set suggests he’s better equipped to play the wing than the point other than the fact that he scores often. It’s tantamount to suggesting Kris Russel would make a fine goaltender because he blocks shots.

I don’t mean to take this out on Yaya, but I do hate this line of questioning — in fairness to Yaya, I’ve fielded this question a few times from many different people.

My issue here is that the question purports that Subban can’t play defence because of his apparent struggles in his end. There might be an element of truth to the notion that Subban struggles defensively. I hear it often enough from people I trust to give the idea some weight. And yet, Subban was a 50% Goals For player last year.

The thing about hockey is that you can’t separate a player’s offensive and defensive contributions when making assessments on their whole. Subban might struggle terribly in the defensive zone, but if he’s contributing enough offensively to make it a wash or a net positive, why should that matter? Subban’s done that, to the best of our knowledge, so why would the Canucks change his position? His results indicate he’s doing things to help the Comets win on defence, so keep him there and hope it translates to the NHL eventually.

I have to be honest, the only thing I’ve ever thought of Curtis Sanford is how to curse him in that one season where his performances with the St. Louis Blues effectively ended the Canucks post-season chase. I didn’t even know he’d entered the world of coaching. All that is to say, I’ve no clue how it affects Thatcher Demko.

If I were you, I’d find Greg Balloch on Twitter and reach out to him with this same question. He’s a great resource for everything goaltender related. Far better than I am at evaluating the position.

It’s Dan Hamhuis without question. Hamhuis had trade deadline value in 2015-16 despite costing $4.6-million against the cap, so imagine what teams would give up for a Hamhuis that cost just $1-million. He’s still a solid top-four defenceman, by the way.

Auston Matthews without a moment’s hesitation. His two-way game is amazing, and what he did last season with Zach Hyman as one of his most consistent linemates is just amazing. He’s also the younger of the two centres.