bigbadcanucks

Members
  • Content Count

    2,976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

bigbadcanucks last won the day on September 24 2015

bigbadcanucks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,653 Gaming the system

About bigbadcanucks

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,821 profile views
  1. I have a suspicion that if the Canucks are going to upgrade their top four, the guys that get moved are the current top four (i.e., on the right side Tanev or Stecher; on the left side Edler or Hutton). As much as I like the way Stecher and Hutton asserted themselves when they were given the ice time, I think they are going to be the casualties of an upgrade on the top four. As much as the NHL has become a faster league where you need quick, puck moving d-men, there is still a need for players that bring size, grit, and toughness on your second and third pairing. Part of the historic problems with the Canucks has been that their small guys were skilled and their big guys have been bruisers...the Canucks would be well served by big, talented and nasty d-men packaged into one player (Jovo was the last guy that gave the Canucks this...maybe Ohlund...Edler?).
  2. From the games I watched (which is pretty much all, plus a few live), I would say that Schenn is quicker than the way you view his play. He's slow, but he plays a controlled game and forces and boxes the speedy guys to the outside where they can be contained, especially with back check support. Unlike Gudbrandson, Schenn didn't give up the middle of the ice, his footwork was better than advertised, and actually made quick plays with the puck (hence, quicker than how you may have viewed him). For sure, Schenn won't win any straight line races, but he plays within himself and was far more effective (especially when paired with Hughes) than expected. I'm all for having Schenn back as the number six guy for the next couple of seasons. I would also be in favor of adding a player like Adam McQuaid to provide more grit on the backend. Just what I observed.
  3. and size. The team that Burnaby Joe has assembled is loaded with talent and size. Gotta laugh as I watch Gaudreau, Mangiapane, Bennett, Tkachuk, Monahan get manhandled by Zadorov, Johnson and Cole. I love how the Avs are constructed. Feeling a whole lot of envy right now.
  4. I like your view of the universe... Hockey is sort of a microcosm of life, in that nothing is absolute and that decisions made are never made in isolation, are circumstantial, and are based on available information and one's insight, isn't it?. I sense that is how you view the revisionist history and the present/future of the Canucks (and the Leafs for this particular thread). I find the discussions that takes place on CDC is counter to that, which makes it a very interesting and entertaining place. To answer your question, the sure thing and obvious is the former, but wouldn't it be great to hit a home run with a middle pick every once in awhile? That's the "dream" result that most everyone shares with the notion of stockpiling picks. But I'd rather have Tanev on the Canucks roster (injuries and all) than a second round draft pick that he would most likely return in a trade.
  5. I'm all for bringing in someone like Ralph Kruger. First, Ralph is a great first name. I was a huge Ralph (Dieter) Brock fan when he was QB'ing the Bombers when dinosaurs roamed the earth. But seriously, Ralph Kruger strikes me as someone with the experience (running a Premier League FC is probably one of the most difficult jobs in professional sports), leadership qualities and personality that could re-set the 50 year culture of mediocrity (sprinkled with a few bursts of winning runs). I especially like his humility and grace. And being from Winnipeg also helps (where I'm from...btw, Winnipeg has produced many CEOs and leaders in industry).
  6. If I may jump in to the conversation... I get what you're saying, but I am all for Jim Benning trading diminishing assets for draft picks or developing prospects, especially in the context of rebuilding a team. From what I can gather, the counter point is that it would have been better if JB was able to get something for players like Matthias, Hamhuis (maybe not a good example), and others rather than nothing. To your point about the deals the Leafs made where the first round pick was the core asset given up, the secondary assets (i.e., later round picks) provided them with the added leverage that allowed them to outbid another team. Assets are assets, and how they are deployed are all within the context of the deal that is being made and the competitive nature under which they are made. You make some strong/valid/factual points regarding the likelihood of 2-7 picks making the NHL but wouldn't you agree that stockpiling or acquiring draft picks for players that may not fit what you're doing as a team that you can later utilize in the marketplace a good thing? IMO, this really isn't a Leafs/Canucks argument (though the dialogue thus far is based on that), but moreso how Jim Benning has not been able to extract as much return as he could possibly have over the past few years. Personally, I am not altogether upset that JB hasn't been able to do much with players like Matthias...I'm somewhat disappointed that he's had more misses on the late picks than hits (though his work in the early rounds picking Boeser/Petterson/Hughes trumps that)...the list is long - Mackenze Stewart, Kyle Petit, Tate Olson, Carl Neill, Dmitry Zhukenov, Brett McKenzie, Rodrigo Abols, Jakub Stukel, Cole Candella, Matt Brassard have all turned into throw-aways. And the list will probably continue to grow. So, would having more picks in the late rounds result in more players that you toss in the BFI bin? Law of probability says yes, but you do increase your chance of unearthing an Adam Gaudette statistically.
  7. I actually find myself disliking ALL Canadian teams that are not the Vancouver Canucks. This spring, I'm pulling for the Blues, Avs and Bruins (yikes!!! on the Bruins). Don't know why, but I can't stand any of the Canadian teams...and I'm from Winnipeg and grew up a Jets fan as a kid (the one that moved to Phoenix).
  8. A young, big guy with skill? I'll take as many of these types of players as possible please. Gladly replace Goldobin, Granlund, Spooner with a developing player with the assets that Fischer possesses. I might be a little hesitant in giving up Kole Lind for Fischer, though (I have a suspicion that Kole Lind will find his game again sooner than later).
  9. Not gonna lie...I've always hated the Avs but right now, I'm a huge Avs fan. C'mon boys. Lay the boots to the Calgary Fakes.
  10. That would be the best case scenario. I would go as far as trading him for another bad contract, if trading partner is willing to take on full cap hit.
  11. ^^^^^This. Nelson has been remarkably durable (missed 12 games in the past five seasons, playing for Team USA in WC after Isles regular season), has great bloodlines (Dave Christian is his uncle), has size, two-way acumen, and is a UND alumni. I can see a first line made up of: Nelson (LW) -- Pettersson (C) -- Boeser (RW). Connolly, after a slow start to his NHL career has solidified himself as a bonafide top nine foward IMO. Tall (6'3"), but a little light (195 lbs), I can see him on a second line with Bo and Baertschi...Baertschi (LW) -- Bo (C) -- Connolly (RW). IMO, Connolly would be an upgrade from Leivo. A third line made up of Pearson (LW) -- Gaudette (C) -- Leivo (RW) could give the Canucks a top nine that could score goals, though Gaudette is still unproven as a third line center. After seeing Josh Anderson do what he's doing for Columbus, I would be hesitant to give up on Virtanen. He played his best hockey when he was lined up with Roussel, so I can see a real effective fourth line made up of Roussel (LW) -- Beagle (C) -- Virtanen (RW). That would leave a bunch of veterans on the outside looking in (Eriksson, Sutter, Granlund, Spooner, Schaller and Motte). I would buy out Eriksson, trade Sutter, not qualify Granlund, bury Spooner or Schaller, and have Motte and Spooner or Schaller as 13th and 14th forwards. Eriksson's buy-out would hurt for three years ($5.6M for two and $3.6M for the third), and ease off when the money is really needed.
  12. Really enjoying the beat down the Avs are laying on the Flames on the scoreboard tonight. Especially enjoying Mike Red Light Smith getting lit up.
  13. Hilarious post...made me laugh. BTW, isn't that what they say about LL?