All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Poile said NJD was the only team willing to take the full cap and that's why they made the trade with them. Gaudette would have been heading to the AHL in Nashville - they have no place for him on their roster. Their aim was to free cap space.
  3. OK, I am going to be the Devil's Advocate on this one and make a case for LE. I admit that Sutter is the obvious answer and he does play center, which is the more valuable position, other things equal. I would also add that obviously both Sutter and LE have been disappointing. I personally have disliked both those deals since Day 1. That said, I think CDC is a little too negative about LE. Here are some considerations. 1. The question is about who is more valuable, not who provides better value per dollar of cap hit or who has a worse contract. LE has a terrible contract and I remain very critical of Benning for signing it. It is buyout proof, too long, and untradeable among other things. Sutter's contract is not nearly as bad. But the question is not who has the worse contract. So I will focus purely who is more valuable on the ice. 2. LE has been relatively healthy. Sutter has not. And the injuries he has had, especially his groin problem, are the kind of thing that often recur and that can permanently reduce skating ability. There is a decent chance Sutter does not play much again next year or, if he does play, is not at 100%. In terms of expected value, that needs to be factored into the calculation. 3. For both guys, PK duty is an important part of their portfolio. Sutter has a reputation as a good penalty killer but he is only about average. LE is an excellent PK player. Last year, LE has the lowest expected goals against per 60 minutes on the Canucks (4.63). Sutter was 8th (out of 16 guys with more than 20 PK minutes) at 6.29. You get the same story if you use actual goals against or CORSI or Fenwick, etc. LE is often under-rated as penalty killer. He is actually very good. 4. At 5-on-5 both guys played a lot of shutdown, so their deployment was similar and comparisons should not be subject to bias created by different quality of competition. The 5-on-5 numbers favor LE. In terms of scoring, LE scored 1.43 pts. per 60 minutes. Sutter was much worse at 0.74. Similarly, LE was a lot better on corsi, fenwick, expected goal differential or any other stat commonly used to assess performance. 5. Last year, Sutter's faceoff percentage was 49.08. So, while LE does not take face-offs, Sutter did not provide any net benefit from faceoff beyond having an "average" faceoff guy playing with Eriksson. 6. LE played well with Beagle. They were very good on the PK together and very good at shutdown together. On the numbers, the LE-Beagle combo was better than a Sutter-Beagle combo would be. 7. Last year, Sutter may be have playing hurt some of the time and that may have depressed his numbers but, as noted above, he may never get back to 100% health. 8. Neither LE nor Sutter contributes much to the physical game or the speed game. Sutter used to be thought of a good skater but as I see things he is below average at this stage in his career -- probably groin injury related. Bottom line: If Gaudette gets the 3C role, I think LE would be a better shutdown winger playing with Beagle than Sutter would be. LE is still paid far too much, but if he were being paid $2 million, the Canucks or any other time should be pretty happy with him.
  4. [proposal] Canucks’ best play right now would be to move Adam Gaudette for a young defenseman in a similar predicament to Adam Gaudette Here are some facts: 1) The Canucks will likely be stuck with Sutter for two more years, barring a deal with retention or adding a sweetener. 2) We have Tyler Madden in our system who has a very good chance of being in a similar to position to where Gaudette is right now. 3) The Canucks need more young promising pieces on defense. 4) With Pettersson and Horvat in our system for likely the next 10+ years, combined with the fact that bottom 6 centers can usually be easily signed/acquired in the off-season, I’m not sure if losing Gaudette would be the most devastating thing in the world. I’m not sure as to exactly who’s an Adam Gaudette equivalent out there (Devon Toews? Roland Mckeown? Jeremy Lauzon?), but whoever that guy is, we need him in our system in my opinion. We need a young defenseman that is pretty much NHL caliber right now, but is simply a victim of organizational depth. We need someone who has a reasonable shot of becoming a top 4 caliber dman in a few short years, if not sooner.
  5. i can see Gadjovich being a Darren Archibald type of player. Career AHLer who gets some NHL games in when injuries occur. Has to win fights to be relevant
  6. I agree. I think there are still a few players that we need healthy though or it could severely impact whether we make the playoffs.
  7. I like the Habs. I like Jesperi. I like what they're building over there. Doesn't change the fact that EP is considerably better than Kotkaniemi. My best friend is a die-hard Habs fan and he'd be the first on this forum to be saying that this debate isn't even a debate. That it's not even close.
  8. Ever notice it's the ones that say they are stupid, are usually the ones that are observant, and actually very clever?
  9. I agree but seems we might actually have some depth that can step in and actually help not hinder and that's just this season let alone in 2-3 yrs
  10. Krpten wants in but i will be off fishing/camping Tues and Wed
  11. You make it sound like he has had 3 years of exclusive top line usage and done nothing with it. Thats not close to the truth at all. He was not really given a lot of top 6 opportunity overall considering what they signed him to do. The coaches certainly share some of the blame. Neither Desjardins nor Green have really attempted to utilize Eriksson in the way Boston did that got the most out of him. He has been largely miscast in Van, which has actually been an ongoing theme in Vancouver back to the Alain Vigneault days. Some players were just square pegs in round holes. Some of that is on Eriksson for not running with the somewhat sporadic opportunities he got for sure. As i have said many times. But really, if you sign a player to a big money deal like that its probably a good idea to understand how he found the success previously that made you want to sign him in the first place and try to get him back to that place. Sometimes players dont fit in even playing with great players. Chemistry is not guaranteed. That seems to be the case with Eriksson in Van unfortunately. Burrows often gets lumped in as a plugger who the Sedins made into a good player but what people miss is that Burrows also made the Sedins more effective by the way he played the game. He gave them space to make plays. He went to the net. He retrieved pucks, forechecked hard, and added a strong defensive conscience to their line. All of these things helped allow the Sedins to play their game. Thats how chemistry works. I thought at the time that, despite international success as a line, Eriksson would not be a good fit with the Sedins on the Canucks. Unfortunately they were pretty much all we had in his first few years in Van. Last year I thought Eriksson looked pretty good with EP actually. Not lights out, but not worthy of the demotion either. So in a sense I can understand his frustration too. Players get sat and demoted for all kinds of reasons, and its not always that the best players play. Coaches are human and have favorites who despite struggling never lose their spot. Its not a negative, its just reality. O'Neill's comment is seriously simplified presumably so it can become a soundbyte for the unwashed masses desperate to hate on a guy who by all accounts hasnt lived up to his contract. Eriksson is up against it now. He has to win any spot he might get. And thats not a bad thing at all. If he can't, he ends up in Utica etc. But his time in Vancouver has not only been a failure because of him. It was a bad contract to begin with and thats on Benning. It set the expectations sky high. He has struggled to find a steady role and thats on Desjardins and now Green too. Its their job. I want him gone as much as the next guy. But your argument does not seek out any realistic balance at all.
  12. No wonder he made sure he was settling down with this contract, man's never gonna be able to set foot in Russia again.
  13. Today
  14. I don't think you looked very hard
  15. He better hide from Putins Babushka Squad
  16. Best interview I've read in a minute.... gained a lot of respect for Panarin
  17. New Jersey laughs, farts in the telephone receiver, and then hangs up. Two injury prone players + a young bubble player doesn’t get you Michael McLeod. Maybe on a good day, that package gets you Caitlyn Jenner.
  18. As much as I agree stecher should start the season on the third pairing, I don't think it is out of the question that could could develop into a strong 4-5 D. I think he made some significant strides last year and can definitely continue building off of that. The kid hasn't peaked, he has more to show us me thinks.
  19. He averaged under 9 minutes a game at even strength with 16% in the neutral zone start/60, 50% of his shifts were on the fly/60. I considered that sheltered minutes. Why do you think there were rumours that he requested to be traded? Because he thinks he wasn’t given an opportunity to play = sheltered.
  20. Why would we put 2 LD’s together and 2 RD’s together though?
  21. Bring back the Tree!!! ( I hope he doesnt mind that nickname.. hes a hella strong tree) I wouldn't mind waiting until the new year when the dusts settles though
  22. That logo looks awful as a jersey crest, simply awful. From its awkward shape to its muddy colour distribution to all the unnecessary lines & details that bring to mind the very worst of busy, 90's design. I am so thankful that my Canucks didn't fix what wasn't broken and made our previous jerseys even better. My only hope now is that they win the Stanley Cup in the Orca so we can be rid of this debate once and for all. I loathe Johnny Canuck.
  1. Load more activity