• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

711 Esteemed

About tyhee

  • Rank
    Canucks Rookie

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    about a 13 hour drive from Rogers Arena

Recent Profile Visitors

1,775 profile views
  1. [Rumour] Canucks interested in Hanifin

    There are pros and cons to a Hanifin fit with the Canucks. Pro: He's strong in transition and provides offence at even strength. Con: He isn't and likely never will be a power play quarterback. The strength of his game is in zone entries and exits and the set patterns of the power play don't play to those strengths. Pro: The Canucks' prospects and young players are short of high-end defencemen. Con: The greater shortage is in right handed defencemen and Hanifin plays the left side. Pro: The Canucks are soft and Hanifin has good size at 6'3-206 (with more weight likely to come as he gets older.) Con: The Canucks are soft and Hanifin, despite his size, doesn't show a lot of grit and isn't particularly strong on the puck. Pro: Hanifin is young, already good and has room to develop. Con: When a player is weak on the puck and not gritty after three seasons in the league, it is unlikely he'll change his nature. He rates to get stronger, but it would be really surprising to see him change his style of play to become a gritty, strong-on the puck player. Further, his offence is largely in transition and while he'll likely improve on the power play, it is unlikely he'll suddenly develop into someone strong on the power play. He should as he gets older make fewer mistakes in his own end, but he has a long way to go to become good in his defensive reads. Con: It is extremely likely that there will be an expansion draft in 2020 on essentially the same rules as were available to Las Vegas in 2017. Bettman has already stated the rules would be the same, though nothing is official yet. Just because it isn't official doesn't mean one should ignore it. It is overshelmingly likely to happen. That being the case, it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that Hanifin would need to be protected while whomever is taken by the Canucks in the 2018 entry draft would be exempt. Accordingly, the price for Hanifin, if it included the 2018-7th overall pick, would be not only the player selected in that spot but also the difference in value between whomever the Canucks lose in that expansion draft and the player they would have lost if they had another protection slot. Presently it is hard to guess whether that difference in value would be large or small. On balance, I'd only be in favour of a trade for Hanifin if: 1. The Canes are selling low on him, which imo is extremely unlikely; or 2. The Canes are looking to win now and are willing to take established players to help them win now as opposed to futures; 3. The primary asset going to Carolina is a player at a position the Canucks have some depth in-which probably means a winger. The problem with this one is that Boeser or Pettersson would probably be overpayment and no other winger on the Canucks is close in value to Hanifin in trade value. While it would be nice if it could be done for something like Virtanen (or Baertschi) plus del Zotto (or Hutton or Pouliot) that doesn't look like enough value going to Carolina to get a deal done. If the Canes are high on Markstrom it is possible that a deal could look something like Markstrom, Virtanen (or Baertschi) and del Zotto (or Hutton or Pouliot) for Hanifin and either Nedeljkovic or Booth. It is likely though that the Canes would choose to sign Ward, Bernier, Lehtonen or another of the free agent goalies that will be available in a month (in Ward's case available now) rather than trade for Markstrom. Despite the report of the Canucks having interest it is tough enough to get the right deal for both teams that it is hard to see it happening.
  2. Michael DiPietro | G

    Because of the agreement between the NHL and Canadian Major Junior Leagues Di Pietro isn't eligible for the AHL until 2019-2020. He either plays in the NHL or the OHL this coming season. I think we can assume it won't be the NHL, so DiPietro will be spending another season playing junior-which makes his signing irrelevant to where Demko plays this coming season. The original plan was for Demko to play three seasons in the AHL (with part of the 3rd season probably getting some NHL games in.) If they stick to that plan then Di Pietro will be replacing Demko on the Comets for 2019-20. If they don't and promote Demko for this coming season it won't be affected by DiPietro, who will almost certainly join the Comets for 2019-20.
  3. [Waivers] Reid Boucher

    It's easy to think that and it would be nice but notwithstanding that both hockey-reference.com and hockeydb.com list Boucher as a center, he plays on the wing for the Comets (as he did for the Canucks.) Their #1 center this year was Michael Chaput. There was a time when the top line for the Comets was Chaput at center with Goldobin and Boucher on the wings. He's a sniper. Boucher was their leading scorer despite only playing 45 games for the Comets, so they're getting their best scorer back.
  4. Jakob Stukel | LW

    I agree with you about an elc at this time. Based on production Stukel is maybe worth a look on a one year AHL deal, to spend his first pro season either in Utica or, more likely, Kalamazoo, but there are probably better options for use of an NHL contract slot. If not signed to an elc he would re-enter the draft. A 21 year old North American who has never been drafted becomes an unrestricted free agent but a 21 year old who was drafted at age 19 but who doesn't sign with the club that drafted him goes back into the draft. From Article 8.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: 8.4 Eligibility for Claim. (a)All Players age 18 or older are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft, except: ... [parts not relevant to Stukel omitted] (iv) a Player age 21 or older who: (A) has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and (B) played hockey for at least one season in North America when he was age 18, 19, or 20 and shall be eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d) ...
  5. Hey JB where are our tough guys?

    I do believe the Canucks should trade Gudbranson, because imo it is very unlikely that he'll be signed in the offseason to any sort of reasonable deal by the Canucks and rather than have them overpay I'd rather see them get something that could become useful in future years. Imo Gudbranson's main contribution is pushback and grit (not entirely the same things) and I'm not aware of a way to adequately take those into account using Analytics.
  6. Loui Eriksson | #21 | LW/RW

    1. No, it isn't allowed in his contract, though it will be next season. 2. Yes he'd need to go through waivers, and nobody would put in a claim to acquire that contract.
  7. Cole Cassels | C

    Interesting the way things have turned around lately. Assuming the 14 points in 16 games mentioned by Sid and Ray above is correct, that translates to him going through his first 18 games this season with one point, an assist. Last season he had 6 goals and 5 assists for 11 points in 66 games. This year so far he's at 15 points in 34 games. His first season, 2015-16, was only 7 points in 67 games but Travis Green, his coach at the time, had warned not to take anything at least from the early part of that season because of the recovery from injury. By comparison, though, Gaunce in his 20 year old season had 29 pts in 74 games, in his 2nd season (to compare with Cassels' 11 point season) Gaunce scored 38 points in 46 AHL games (spending part of the season with the Canucks) and his 3rd season, equivalent to this one for Cassels, Gaunce played almost full time with the Canucks. It's a great relief to see Cassels start to come around and it's nice to be able to consider him a prospect, but imo he still has a long way to go. Because the forwards in Utica aren't very deep (with Chaput in Vancouver the choices go Boucher, Goldobin, then the much-dreaded Megna) it is possible he'll get an injury callup. On the other hand, he hasn't beaten down the door to deserve a callup and I'd be happy if he gets a contract extension and a look in training camp next season.
  8. [PGT] Anaheim Ducks vs. Vancouver Canucks

    1. Sedin-Sedin-Gaunce? The Sedins have historically thrived with speedy wingers who can get back quickly to cover on defence and get to an retrieve the puck for them while being able to contribute at least a little on offence, Burrows and Hansen being examples. Gaunce doesn't have great speed, isn't good enough with the puck to help them with their cycle game and is most effective defensively rather than offensively-while the Sedins are more effective in the offensive zone. There are quite a few posters who seem to think Gaunce useless because he's essentially a black hole offensively. I think he can be somewhat useful so long as he is giving up fewer net goals to the opponents' better offensive players than other players on his team. That means deploying him in a defensive role against better offensive players. The twins in their prime were gifted offensively other than speed-wise and were responsible defensively while not being particularly strong defensive forwards. Their best trait defensively was the ability to control the puck in the offensive zone so that the opponents were a long way from the Canucks' goal and usually didn't have the puck. In their late NHL years they are weaker defensively and most successful when deployed in the offensive zone. So how does one deploy a line of Sedin-Sedin-Gaunce? Using them against good offensive players means deploying the Sedins in a way they aren't well suited. Using them as an offensive line means deploying Gaunce in a manner in which he's particularly ill-suited. I can see the thought of putting a defender with offensive players in the thought that he'll cover for them, but Gaunce isn't the speedy guy best suited for doing that with the Sedins and would be a detriment to them offensively. The line wouldn't balance into a good one, it would imo just be useless. On a less important note, Gaunce isn't the best choice of someone to play on his off-wing. Generally playing off-wing gives some offensive advantage for a sniper while making things a little more difficult defensively. People may have noticed that Gaunce isn't the epitome of a sniper. 2. The lineup as constructed contains too many offensive-style defencemen who aren't very good defensively. Essentially, pretty much all of the defencemen other than Tanev need to play with someone like Tanev. Pouliot and del Zotto need a Tanev type of partner for the pair to be effective. Del Zotto isn't a guy I think should be paired with Dahlin in Dahlin's rookie year. Dahlin's great strength is on offence. He may turn out to be an exception but there's every reason to think he'll need to learn NHL defence. Playing him with an offensive defenceman risks the pair being blown up nightly and Dahlin not learning defence like he would from a strong-defending veteran. 3. Dahlen-Pettersson-Goldobin? Obviously that line has real offensive skill. It also puts two rookies with offensive skill who aren't used to the North American style of play with an offensive forward whose weakness so far in his career has been attention to detail defensively. They'd be an exciting line to watch. They also might also see the goal light behind Markstrom getting lit on a regular basis. I can't say that this line won't work because of defensive problems, but counting on two offensive rookies from a wider ice surface with someone who cheats in the defensive zone could be a recipe for many goals against. 4. Imo rushing Demko to the defensive tire fire that the current Canucks are and this proposed lineup would be risks ruining his development and his confidence (which two things are of course connected.) The plan based on the length of contracts for Markstrom and Nilsson seems to have been to have him be the starter in Utica for two seasons. This is his first. I really don't want to see him subjected to being left to fend for himself the way Markstrom and Nilsson are regularly this season. It risks ruining his confidence, changing the way he plays the game (not in a good way) and leaving him subject to the vocal criticisms of the Vancouver media and fans when it turns out he isn't ready to perform miracles. 5. Obviously there was some optimism in hoping to win the Rasmus Dahlin lottery, but that's nothing compared with the optimism that someone is going to take that Eriksson contract off the Canucks' hands. Finding someone to take the Gagner contract would be difficult as well. Yes, it is possible to move any contract-if you're willing to take back something equally bad or give up something with enough positive value. The Eriksson contract is so bad that you'd have to take taking back a disastrous contract or give up something really good to move it. 6. Of course, both Edler and Eriksson have no move clauses. That may not be much of an impediment, though, as players will tend to be more open to waiving when the team is poor, as the Canucks of 2015-18 are. While injuries have played a big part, it must be frustrating and potentially demoralizing to go through a period liike the Canucks' last ten games, with an overtime win and one regular win against 8 losses (1 in OT) which include losses of 5-1, 6-1, 7-1 and 5-0 as well as other losses in which the team gave up 7 and 5 goals. 7. I realize the NHL is trending more towards speed and less towards goons, but toughness and intimidation are still relevant. That lineup is imo just too soft.
  9. 2017-18 Utica Comets Thread

    I was hoping to have one of the Utica guys comment on this. I follow all the Comets reports I can get my hands on but don't normally watch them but will respond since it is now almost three days without comment from Utica. Cederholm didn't make the Comets out of training camp and started the season in Kalamazoo. He was called up because of injuries to Comets' defencemen and the earlier callups of Holm and Wiercioch (both of whom were re-assigned to the Comets.) From the reports I've read Cederholm was better placed in the ECHL than the AHL. The Comets have lost Subban via trade, have Sifers and Holm out with injury and Sautner temporarily called up to the Comets. Once Sautner, Sifer and Holm return, Cederholm's chances of sticking in Utica are better than they were simply because there is an extra place available because of the Subban trade. His stats in Utica this season so far are 0 points, 0 penalty minutes and -6 in 9 games. Stats through 9 games don't mean a lot. They are consistent with reports on his play, though. It would be very surprising if he is offered an extension on his current entry level contract.
  10. [Report] Canucks recall Ashton Sautner

    Wiercioch is healthy but if the Canucks call him up for more than one day, then they'd have to expose him on waivers again. Considering the callup is intended to sit in the pressbox while the team hopes we don't get even more defencemen go down with injury, it just isn't worth running the risk of losing the best d-man on the Comets right now. Losing somebody for free on a callup without playing would be ludicrous. Holm is recovering from injury (concussion.) There's no reason to bring up Chatfield or Brisebois, the rookie pros. It's a steep learning curve from junior to the AHL and they still have a long way to go. Brisebois is a better long term prospect than Sautner and many rate Chatfield a better long term prospect than Sautner as well. However, Sautner, with his two extra years of pro experience, is at least even with both of them on the depth chart for the short term. It's better not to interrupt the development of the better long-term prospect who is less experienced. Brisebois and Chatfield can play in Utica while Sautner sits.
  11. COACHES in VANCOUVER - I don't get it . . .

    Let's look at that ice time. They entered the league at age 20 (which for 2nd and 3rd overall picks is actually fairly old) and they weren't healthy scratches-but they weren't getting as much ice time as most of the other Canuck forwards, either. Among Canuck forwards in 2000-2001, the twins' rookie season when they were 20, the order for average ice time went: 1. Andrew Cassels 19:22 2. Markus Naslund 19:03 3. Brendan Morrison 18:22 4. Todd Bertuzzi 17:13 5. Peter Schaefer 16:18 6. Artem Chubarov 15:08 7. Matt Cooke 14:35 8. Trent Klatt 13:33 9. Henrik Sedin 13:31 10. Donald Brashear 13:27 11. Daniel Sedin 13:00 12. Harold Druken 11:59 13/14 Steve Kariya and Denis Pederson, 11:42 each etc So the twins were getting 9th most and 11th most ice time, just ahead of and just behind enforcer Donald Brashear. Think it went way up in their sophomore seasons? Think again. In 2001-2002 they were 10th and 13th among the forwards in average ice time, which was less than during their rookie seasons. Based on the order of ice time, they were given 4th line minutes. 1. Bertuzzi 19:40 2. Naslund 19:31 3. Linden 19:23 4. Morrison 19:21 5. Cassels 17:27 6. Klatt 15:27 7. Hlavac 14:46 8. Cooke 14:03 9. Brashear 13:58 10. Henrik 12:48 11. Letowski 12:47 12. Chubarov 12:37 13. Daniel 12:22 Their 3rd seasons, at age 22? Henrik moved up to 6th at 13:58, Daniel was 9th at 12:26. In their 4th season, age 23, 2003-2004, Henrik was 10th among Canuck forwards in average time on ice with 14:02 per game. Daniel was right behind in 11th place, 13:33 per game. So here we are, two guys drafted 2nd and 3rd, entering the NHL at the relatively late age for such early picks of 20, and in their FOURTH NHL season, at age 23, they're getting 4th line minutes (based on the minutes as they were handed out that year.) For 2nd and 3rd overall picks in their 4th season, that is shockingly low ice time and it can't be explained as the twins not being responsible defensively. Among Canuck forward in +/- in 2003/2004, the order was 1. Naslund + 24 2. Henrik + 23 3. Bertuzzi + 21 4. Daniel + 18. (Yes, I know, +/- isn't a good stat-goals are infrequent enough that the sample size can't help but be small, plus it is difficult to adjust properly for quality of competition, quality of linemates and zone useage. But I don't know an easy way to show defensive responsibility-advanced stats aren't readily available that far back and I don't think anybody was adjusting for QOC and zone starts back then.) It was the 2nd year in a row that the twins' +/- was way better than their ice time. In their 3rd season, 2002-2003, among Canuck forwards Henrik was 4th at +9 and Daniel tied for 5th at +8, while they were getting essentially 3rd line minutes. Even in their 2nd season, 2001-2, Henrik, while 10th in average time on ice, was tied 4th in +/- at +9. So may I suggest they were defensively responsible but getting 3rd or 4th line ice time right through their 4th seasons? May I suggest that Crawford, like all coaches before and after him, did not rush to play the kids? All stats are from hockey-reference.com, going from the Canucks' franchise page, season by season.
  12. Jack Rathbone | D

    Feeling old can be a terrible thing, so to make you feel younger ... When I entered UBC tuition for 1st year students in either Arts or Sciences was $428, of which B.C. government scholarships would cover up to 3/4 based on the results of the government scholarship exams (and then those would continue for future years depending on marks.) When I entered law school at UBC tuition for that faculty was, iirc, $540.
  13. There's been a fair bit of comment about the lack of centre depth in Utica. The last game the Comets played they were clobbered 6-1 and with Chaput being with the Canucks the Comets had an ECHL level rotation at centre. It was truly terrible. When Subban came to camp this fall and his defensive game was no better in training camp than it had been in the past, possibly worse, I think the Canucks gave up on him as a prospect. They might have tried to salvage something by trying him as a forward and he still has some skill so might make a splash some time in the future, but it wasn't unreasonable for the Canucks to decide to stop waiting on him as a prospect on defence. His play this season in Utica hasn't done anything to change that-he's had quite a few healthy scratches under Cull, more frequently than he did with Green the last couple of seasons. So while he still has potential, there's reason the Canucks weren't high on him. The Canucks have had several injuries at forward. While they have some guys who can play center or wing and so have some versatility, they've lost Dorsett for good, Sutter for a while still, Horvat for a few weeks and in Utica there are a lot of injuries as well. If this allows the Canucks to reassign Chaput to Utica, then the Comets get their best center back. That's worth something to the organization-though not worth much to the Canucks. Then again, Subban wasn't providing the Canucks with anything, so we get meh for the Canucks and a positive for the Comets. People can argue about whether the Canucks should have gotten themselves in the position of having such a weak center rotation in Utica, but the fact is that in the here and now the situation was what it was and something has been done to partly rectify it. There IS reason for this trade, it does provide the farm team with something the farm team was missing in exchange for an asset that wasn't doing the Canucks any good and, this season, not doing the Comets a lot of good. Good trade for the Comets, a nothing trade for the Canucks. Even if Subban develops into an NHL player, he wasn't doing that in this organization.
  14. Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

    14:36, according to https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/v/virtaja01/gamelog/2018 His last four games have included 3 of his highest 4 games so far this season in time on ice, the lowest of the three being 12:27 against the Islanders. The opne low toi game of his last 4 was Nov 30 against the Predators. His increase in time on ice happens to coincide with Dorsett and Sutter being out and Virtanen being placed on a line with Granlund and Gaunce. I wonder if his development might have been helped getting some special teams time which would have been more likely to have happened in Utica. It's hard to see that happening, though, as he seems to have earned his spot with the Canucks.
  15. Thatcher Demko | G

    As you say he started off hot. He then got injured in a game on October 21, didn't play at all until November 4 and then only 1 game. Then he sat again until Nov 19 and he's been a regular again since then. He hasn't appeared in the minors this season. His scoring has fallen off. He scored 2 points in each of his second and third games this season. He last had goals in consecutive games Nov 25 and 27 but has no points in 4 games since then. His total for the season so far is 4 goals and 3 assists for 7 points in 16 games.