timberz21

Members
  • Content count

    2,992
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,336 Revered

About timberz21

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

5,554 profile views
  1. Crouse may be the only exception to the rule. Teravainen was a 22 years old with limited NHL and AHL success. He's might be considered a top 6 on a weak team, but I don't think he'll ever be a top 6 on any contender, which is why the Blackhawks gave up on him. Crouse, Florida might have giving up early on him, but still his development since being drafted has been pretty slow, I believe he was overrated his draft year because he made Team Canada at WHJC. As for DeAngelo, two teams already quit on him, so I don't think he's that much of a prized prospect. Also when you want to get rid of salaries, you don't trade away players under ELC for 3 years. They would trade players like Teravainen who are coming out of their ELC, otherwise you cap problems will resurface soon enough. You don't trade away a A prospect for peanut, because they're redundant, you trade them to get better or trade someonse else to make room for them.
  2. I don't understand why people think teams will give up first rounder or high-profile prospect to get rid of bad contrats. It never happens and teams always find a way to trade away bad contrats for a reasonnable price. Detroit traded Datsyuk's contrat at the cost of moving 4 spot down in the draft (from 16th to 20th). Plus, they got a 2nd rounder back as well (53rd overall). Usually to cost of moving down a few spot in the top 20 is a 28th to 35th overall. So basically it cost Detroit 20 rank in the 2nd round to get rid of Datsyuk. Why the hell would Tampa give up their 14th overall pick last year. Plus I dont see them having hardcore cap issues, they currently sit at 72.6 millions, with all their core signed
  3. With how this league works, I wouldn't be surprised if last year's standing meant squat and that the Waiver order starts alphabetically...meaning we would be 29th
  4. 20 vs 18
  5. I don't see what Burmistrov, Megna, Chaput, Gaunce, Goldobin have on Boeser to send him down. Even Eriksson, beside his contrat or Sutter should be 3rd line. I'd also make room for Boeser over Baerstchi, as I don't really see him getting much better than last year, I think he's prettty much at his peak right now. When I look at Nylander, Marner, Aho, Tkahcuk, Point, Rantanen, Guentzel, Konecky, they were all between 14 and 17min per game, except Rantanen at 18. Anything between 14-16 average is fine by me for Boeser. I'm not expecting Boeser to be 1st line all year, I'd like to see him spent time on all three lines. Boeser is way ahead of McCann or Virtanen 2 years again, not that these experiments should be considered a success. I'm confident Boeser could get 15/20 goals and 35/40 pts, which should warrant an NHL spot IMO
  6. I understand your arguments, but from my point of view, Boeser is 20 years old and seems to have good character. If he was 18, then I wouldn't want to bring him in a losing environment but at 20, I'd rather he gets 1 more year of NHL development, rather than winning anything in the AHL. Even if he's not in the conversation for the Calder this year, he'll be better in his sophomore year than if he played his rookie season next year. If they continue playing like this as we get to the end of camp, I cannot see how you can send them down when they did everything you asked for and JB saying he would make room for kids.If they continue to have a strong pre-season, you have to reward them with a roster spot. You don't tell them go buy your house for the next 20 years rightaway...they made the team, but it's still conditional that they keep playing like that in the first 10-15 games of the season, otherwise then you can send them down. Right now Boeser is showing me he can play top 6 in the NHL, he's not to score 30G and 70pts, but he can play top 6. However, if the intention is to keep Boeser in the NHL but playing him 10 minutes on the bottom 6, then 100% send him down. For Virtanen I think he's showing us he can play in the NHL, but I guess I can live with sending him down to play top 6 minutes, rather than playing bottom 6 in the NHL, i'm fine with both. But he would be one of the first callups.
  7. Read somewhere that the asking price for Ottawa Chabot, White and 1st. If its even remotely true...big pass.
  8. Don't think Pittsburgh is interested. Didn't Rutherford traded him twice already? From Carolina to Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh to Vancouver. Don't think he's too fond of him. Why bother taking a bad contract for an exciting young player, when we trade away another young exciting player. Athansiou might be a little older and already NHL ready, but he's still a 23 years with with 101 NHL games and 43 pts. I'd rather just wait and see how far Goldobin can go.
  9. It's not, but still feels like a goodbye a little bit. Class act again by the Sedin, very honest, very vulnerable admitting they didn't think they belong at first and very admirable wanting to remains Canucks until the end. I cannot fathom how the Sedins never won the Lady Bing trophy. Seriously, I wish for a 60 pts season by the Sedins and then retirement. I don't want to see them trying to stretch their careers and finish with 30 pts after that.
  10. Per Pierre Lebrun http://www.tsn.ca/canucks-sign-horvat-to-six-year-33-million-contract-1.850894 Same deal as Drouin, pretty good deal.
  11. Didn't know that.... I guess I jumped to conclusion from seeing him play and seeing him in his few interviews. Just doesn't strike me as a thinking kind of guy.
  12. ...and the new NHL Puppet is... At least, Shanahan and Quintal were guys that seemed to have a good head on their shoulders...but Parros, really? EDIT: Well seems like Parros is an educated guy. I guess I assumed he wasn't a posed, thinking kind of guy based on his role in the NHL. I stand corrected.
  13. "Benning “Like Stecher, if the young players earn it, I will find a spot for them.” #Canucks" Such an empty statement. I'm getting a little tired of it, we've been hearing it for 3 years. Started with Horvat, with no matter how good he was, he was penciled on the 4th line and sheltered like a baby. Then came Virtanen and McCaan, who were clearly not ready and didn't really earn it as much a Horvat did but made the team. Then it took Stechtcher an injury to make the team. From what I saw from Green in Utica, Vanek, Gagner, White, Chaput, Megna, Boucher, Del Zotto, Wiercoch will make the team over Goldobin, Boeser, Virtanen, Gaunce, Dahlen, Juolevi, Stetcher. (Boeser and Stetcher will stick around, but will be limited again) I feel like "Earning it", for a Canucks prospect/young player means: Not making any mistakes, not taking any chances, no place for creativity, following the the system to the letter, playing well defensively, offensive contribution is not a factor. I mean, we all saw it with Skille last year, who outperformed a lot of NHL player during camp....key words "during camp". After he was barely a 4th liner and now plays in the KHL. Skille, outperformed a lot of Canucks prospect, but that was desperation, you can't ask a young rookie to play like that. To me "Earning it", means the effort needs to be their, they will make mistakes, but able to learn from it, playing to their strenght, rather than playing a style that doesnt fit them. In the end, their talents level is so much higher, that we need to start investing in their development right now at the NHL level and let them expressed themselves on the ice and not look at the results but rather the progression. It doesn't mean that they need to be better players right now than most fringe veterans, they are already more talented, they need the experience. The decision to play young players shouldn't be based on which players give me the best chance to win today, but rather in the long term. Unfortunately, with the high turnover ratio of NHL coaches, that how everycoach approach their roster selection. Of course a guy like Skille is more appealing, he's tough, plays hard, plays the systems, but in the long run, you don't win with guy like him. Green as at least 2 years of a guaranteed job, if he invest in young players now, it will pay off in year 2 or 3 of his stint and might actually last 5 years. BTW, I'm not saying icing a line-up full of 20-22 years old. You need a balance, but for the rookies that do make the team, I don't want to see them on the 4th line playing 8 minutes per games. An offensive prospect should play in the top 6, a defenseman can't be sitting the 3rd period on the bench, etc. Anyways, that was suppose to be a short comment lol
  14. That whole letter on the jersey is overrated. IMO true leaders don't need or require a letter (C or A) on their jersey to speak in the locker room or on the ice. If anything having that letter adds an extra pressure on the players. Putting the C on Horvat while Sedin is still there, will only entice the medias to create false rumors about locker rooms turmoil, changing of the guard, battle between vets and young core, bla...bla...bla. If I were Horvat I wouldn't want to be the Captain while Henrik is still there. Even if Bo is the new #1 player on the team, he's better off leading in the shadow of Henrik, learning from one of the NHL's most professional and gentleman athlete there is. Let wait for the nature to run it's course, rather than rushing it. San Jose tried this with Marleau, Thornton and Pavelski, without much results. This is most probably the Sedin's last year, no point of rushing this IMO
  15. Really hard to stay awake when a guy has been playing a total of 36 games in the past two year. We've been waiting for this guy since his draft year, but has been nothing but a disapointment since...now he has 1 really good season in Sweden and suddenly he's the reincarnation of Markus Naslund? I'll quote you on that, and you can quote me on this....after being demoted to the AHL after training camp, Rodin will bolt back in Sweden before the end of the season.