• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

198 Good

About DarkIndianRises

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

204 profile views
  1. It’s possible, but it’s also possible that he ends up being Alexander Daigle. The bottom line is that you never know with prospects. Focus on doing the best you can, and let the chips falls where they may. Edmonton and Buffalo alone should prove that hoping and tanking isn’t necessarily a recipe for long term success.
  2. A few years back, if someone told the New Jersey Devils that they’d have both Nico Hischier and Jack Hughes, how would they have reacted? Sometimes, prospects, as good as they become, never quite live up to the hype.
  3. Post your All-Time Vancouver Canucks line-up + 2020 Team Canada line-up: Canucks: Pettersson-Linden-Bure Sedin-Sedin-Bertuzzi Naslund-Kesler-Mogilny Gelinas-Horvat-Smyl Burrows Edler-Reinhart Hughes-Bieksa Ohlund-Salo Hamhuis Luongo McLean Team Canada 2020: Marchand-McDavid-Mackinnon Huberdeau-Crosby-Marner O’Reilly-Bergeron-Stone Giroux-Point-Stamkos Scheifele Reilly-Hamilton Giordano-Makar Keith-Pietrangelo Parayko Hellebuyck Binnington
  4. Win the cup any way possible. I don’t see 1995 New Jersey or 2013 Chicago feeling guilty about having won cups, and those were half seasons.
  5. Miller-Pettersson-Toffoli Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen Ferland-Beagle-Motte Sutter Leivo in for Ferland if Ferland is still hurt, and Eriksson in the 4th line LW spot for Leivo and Ferland if both of those guys are hurt. Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tanev Benn-Myers Fantenberg Markstrom Demko
  6. D.Sedin-H.Sedin-Bertuzzi Pettersson-Linden-Bure Naslund-Kesler-Mogilny Burrows-Horvat-Smyl Brashear Edler-Reinhart Hughes-Bieksa Ohlund-Salo Mitchell Luongo Mclean 1) Burrows-Kesler-Linden can be thrown out there to shut down when the situation calls for it. 2) Bertuzzi-Horvat-Smyl can be thrown out there for toughness when the situation calls for it. 3) Mitchell and Bieksa can be used as a pure shut down pair when the situation calls for it. 4) Hughes and Reinhart can run the power play. 5) Brashear can be inserted into the line-up in case of injury and/or the Broadstreet Bullies start gooning it up. Odjick has tons of heart and was always willing to stick up for teammates, but wasn’t a good enough hockey player (also, Brash was tougher), while Dorset wouldn’t be able to intimidate the BSB. 6) I would actually be inclined to choose Markstrom over Luongo, but couldn’t stomach myself to disrespect Luongo due to the memories we shared with him (ie cup run, Olympics, Luongo stonewalling Dallas in 2007). 7) Mogilny-Pettersson-Bure for pure offense.
  7. Preface to posters: I love Podkolzin.....I’m just openly speculating about different ideas. Also, I’m not a capologist. [proposal] Would you trade Podkolzin as a sweetener IF...... 1) By trading Podkolzin, another team out there took on the contracts of Eriksson, Sutter, and Baertschi (Ottawa or Detroit?) (zero retention) 2) We were able to comfortably re-up and re-sign ALL of Markstrom, Toffoli, Virtanen, and Gaudette. 3) The Canucks could sign Tanev, or make a realistic competitive offer to sign Alex Pietrangelo (in which case, bye bye to both Tanev and Stecher if we get AP). Ps - to get rid of the above contracts, maybe you would have to add in Hoglander in an independent deal. For example - Pod gets rid of Eriksson and Baertschi, while Hoglander gets you rid of Sutter? (Zero retention).
  8. LOL. Yes, poor word phrasing on my part. :-p We will have to agree to disagree on Toffoli and Brock. Remember - in a hypothetical situation where we let Toffoli walk, we not only lose him for nothing, but we also would have essentially given up Madden+ in the process. At least if the Canucks were to hypothetically trade Brock, Jake, or Podkzolin, we would be able to get significant assets back in return. The other thing to keep in mind with Toffoli, is that he could realistically be signed to a 4-5 year deal at a good cap hit. In this case, Toffoli’s age would work to our advantage because he not only has the type of game that ages well, but he’s not a clear cut superstar that would command 8 million plus. Boeser on the other hand, is still young and is on a bridge deal. IF Brock goes back to the old Brock from a few years ago, or takes his game to a whole new level, he’ll get paid huge........not that it’s a bad thing to pay big for great players (it obviously isn’t), but it’s just another factor to keep in mind. Personally speaking, my hope is that we can keep Toffoli, and then use 2 out of the following 3 players (Brock, Virtanen, Podkolzin) to help improve in other areas of our line up.
  9. Keeping Toffoli and trading Brock wouldn’t save us much (if anything?) in terms of cap space, but the absolute worst thing the Canucks could do is to let Toffoli walk. The Canucks gave up significant assets for Toffoli and so for Toffoli to just walk away would be a big loss. If the Canucks were to trade someone else however, to reduce cap space, we would get assets in return in the form of picks, prospects, etc. So - to answer your question, it’s not just about reducing cap space. It’s about reducing cap space, getting assets back in return, and not being significantly weaker in a position after having traded said asset (I.e. trading Pettersson for a whole bunch of picks and prospects would leave us without a franchise center).
  10. My guess is that the Canucks will have the following priority in order: 1) Markstrom 2) Toffoli 3) Tanev 4) Virtanen 5) Stecher 6) Leivo I think Benning will do whatever he can to sign Markstrom and Toffoli. Tanev might be given a low ball offer a la Hamhuis and this *might* prompt Tanev to sign elsewhere a la Hamhuis style. The Canucks would then use Tryamkin to replace Tanev as the 2nd pairing defensive conscience for Hughes. I don’t see Stecher lasting beyond this season to be honest. I see him going the way of Ben Hutton (ie not being qualified). The Canucks will see a young cheap Rafferty as being the Stecher replacement. I don’t see Leivo coming back either given our depth on RW. That leaves our RW situation, which is an interesting one in my opinion. We have......... -Toffoli -Boeser -Virtanen -Podkolzin -Kole Lind Something will have to give here. I don’t think Benning will let Toffoli walk since he gave up an arm and a leg to bring him in. Given Toffoli’s age, he could be had at a decent AAV for a reasonably lengthy time. That leaves Boeser, Virtanen, and Podkolzin for that 2nd line RW spot. This is a big IF on my part, but I’ll go ahead and say it: IF Pod is NHL ready and looks like he’ll be a superstar, I can definitely see Benning using Brock to recoup the first that he lost in the Miller deal, along with getting a good prospect to recoup the loss of Madden......all the while reducing cap space. If Podkzolin still needs more time to develop however, then I think Benning will keep Brock around and will look at options for moving Virtanen (while replacing JV with the younger and cheaper Kole Lind). Next season? Miller-Pettersson-Toffoli Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Ferland-Gaudette-Lind Roussel-Beagle-MacEwan Edler-Myers Hughes-Tryamkin Benn-Rafferty Markstrom Demko
  11. This is what I would do: Miller-Pettersson-Toffoli Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen Eriksson-Beagle-Sutter (shut down line) (I’m assuming that Ferland and Leivo won’t be ready and even if Ferland was, he would still be too rusty to justify playing ahead of other players). Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tanev Benn-Myers Markstrom Demko
  12. I like your thoughts, but I also believe that moving Eriksson will require a TON of effort and won’t come easy. Assuming that Eriksson doesn’t retire after he collects his signing bonus, I think a sweetener will definitely be required to move LE. Teams trying to make the cap floor isn’t really a thing anymore. Since the Canucks risk losing Demko to the Expansion draft anyways, I figured that packaging LE with Demko makes the most sense, especially considering the fact that management wants to be in “win now” territory and so the idea of them moving on from Markstrom seems unlikely.
  13. Don’t concern yourself with 1994. If we are being honest, we probably had just as many calls go our way as well. Be thankful for our 1994 and 2011 runs, and look forward to the future. Life is full of victories and defeats and so there is no point in getting hung up on any of these experiences.
  14. Don’t go there or even think about 2011. That’s the best advice that I can offer. Be thankful that we had a tremendous run, and be thankful that we are on the rise again. Don’t look back on “what if’s” whether it’s with the Canucks, past failed relationships, untimely deaths of loved ones, or any form of tragedy no matter how severe (i.e. death of a parent, spouse, friend, etc.) or minor (I.e. watching your team lose in the finals). We are all soldiers in life marching towards whatever goal(s) we have in life. Victories and defeats are inevitable and so it only makes sense to not get hung up on any one thing. Onwards and upwards. As it relates to the Canucks, I’m pretty confident that we will all see at least 1-3 more cups runs during our lifetime (assuming that you are aged somewhere between 18-55). Statistical Probability works in our favor and is our friend in this case.