What they’re saying: Internet reacts unfavorably to Penguins’ signing of Brandon Tanev
It didn’t look good!
Since news broke of the Penguins signing Brandon Tanev to a long-term (six years) and fairly big money contract ($3.5 million per year) for a bottom six forward, the internet reaction has been immediate. And mostly uncomplimentary but let’s take a look at some of the good, bad and other opinions that have been out there for this move!
Tanev is 27 years old, has played less than 200 NHL games, has never hit 15 goals or 30 points, has never averaged more than 14 minutes/game, and has never had a positive Corsi Rel season.
— Jeff Veillette (@JeffVeillette) July 1, 2019
This contract is certifiably insane. https://t.co/DzhETmyf4d
Hey you know who had one less point than Tanev last season and better underlying numbers and makes way less? DOMINIK SIMON
— Dan Hopper (@DanHoppOPS) July 1, 2019
Brandon Tanev (6x3.5m with Pittsburgh) is an offensive black hole with some defensive upside and a decent shot.
— Micah Blake McCurdy (@IneffectiveMath) July 1, 2019
Look at your life, look at your choices, oh my god. pic.twitter.com/O6VBjDxWhJ
These two players signed similar contracts today. Donskoi got 400k more per season but Tanev got two extra years. Wonderful. pic.twitter.com/WIvjrvhM8w
— Alan (@loserpoints) July 1, 2019
Anyway, like I said earlier, Tanev is fine. Might be good, probably not going to be awful.
— Alan Saunders (@ASaunders_PGH) July 1, 2019
But the continued marginal overpayment of players that don’t have the ability to move up the depth chart is what’s holding the #Pens back, and they just added to it instead of fixing it.
your wagon to a non-core guy and eliminating flexibility, quite possibly leaving yourself with a “The hell we gonna do with this guy?” scenario before that term is up. Those dollars aren’t crippling but they’re bad contracts, full stop.
— Justin Bourne (@jtbourne) July 1, 2019
There are two Penguins under contract until 2025:
— Don’t Yell at Me, Yell at Kevin (@PensNationK) July 1, 2019
Brandon Tanev
Sidney Crosby
I hear Dejan loves the Tanev move; had to have his tweet read to me, since I'm blocked, of course. Anyway, that's the biggest indictment there could be.
— Chris Mueller (@ChrisMuellerPGH) July 1, 2019
A potential 5 or 6 year deal for Brandon Tanev in Pittsburgh? Man, I feel bad for whatever GM will be taking over for Jim Rutherford w/ the #Pens when he retires in a few years. #NHL
— Randip Janda (@RandipJanda) July 1, 2019
.@seangentille says signing Brandon Tanev is the surest sign yet Jim Rutherford is not thinking about the future. https://t.co/E0hISIKRPp pic.twitter.com/2uKuGFobed
— The Athletic (@TheAthleticPGH) July 1, 2019
Tanev is a great get. Just a bit much, &a lot long.
— Mark Madden (@MarkMaddenX) July 1, 2019
The problem with giving Brandon Tanev this money and term is that he doesn’t come with Adam Lowry, who played a huge role in his breakout year last year. Away from Lowry, things don’t look as pretty.
— Jesse Marshall (@jmarshfof) July 1, 2019
At least Tanev can skate well, but you don't go that big for 4th liners. As of now, they have ~2.2M to re-sign Aston-Reese, Blueger, and Pettersson. This contract forces them to need to trade someone to clear more space. Always good when other teams know you HAVE to make a deal.
— Eric Majeski (@LGP_netwolf) July 1, 2019
Tanev is a rare breed: A forward who can skate, hit, block shots and kill penalties but also has some skill and isn't a drain on possession. Players like this, as we just found out, are apparently very expensive. Six years, $21 million? Huge price tag. https://t.co/Mws8OFWcqI
— Jonathan Bombulie (@BombulieTrib) July 1, 2019
That seems to be the general tone and tenor of immediate reactions. Some think that Tanev is young and useful enough. Others are repulsed by the length of this contract considering the role. Some are unhappy with the price tag per year.
It’s also pointed out this has been a player who is fast, tough to play against, decent defensively — pretty much all tenets of what the Pens’ thought they were missing and wanted to add. In that regard, it can’t be too shocking this was identified as the type of element the team felt they were missing and looking to add. However, the nuanced question of “how much they had to pay” to get him has sort of drowned out exactly what they may have think they’ve gotten as an improvement.
So, what say you?