DefCon1

Members
  • Content Count

    2,510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

997 Esteemed

About DefCon1

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Burnaby

Recent Profile Visitors

16,694 profile views
  1. I rather we do a miller trade than an Eriksson signing lol. People need to see that we have to give up something to get something and that would be fine with me.
  2. How do you know? We are probably making space for Pietrangelo or Ekblad
  3. well I hope Canucks can get an Tampa bay defender. It would be a waste if they went to red wings
  4. Because you cant win any games with an all kid roster. Its stupid and one thing I dont understand people who still dont get it. Plus you need to reach a cap floor.
  5. Doesnt need to take 2 years to build that D up with defensemen available now like Pietrangelo, Krug, Ekblad, OEL etc. All it takes is for Benning to make another Miller type of deal or a good signing. If Canucks could have made enough cap room, I would sign Pietrangelo, assuming we werent signing Tanev. Add in some up and coming prospect in Rathbone or Tryamkin plus a cheap depth D signing like Hamonic. Hughes-Pietrangelo Edler-Myers Tryamkin-Hamonic Of course it means no Tanev, Marky and assumes that Eriksson was somehow dumped and there was a Baertschi buyout. But its not hard to see that the D could be fixed much sooner than 2 years especially with Tryamkin and Rathbone knocking on the door.
  6. IMO Roussel, Virtanen, Eriksson and Sutter should all be moved. Keep Beagle as a 4th C for his PK and faceoffs, keep motte for his PK, scoring ability and clutch performance in playoffs. Keep Gaudette unless he can be traded for a 2 way Center. Add in Hoglander, Podkolzin, lockwood and possibly Lind. Bottom 6: Hoglander-gaudette/Trade-Podkolzin Lockwood-Beagle-Motte That would improve our bottom 6 scoring and help us with the cap problem. Out: Roussel, Leivo, Virtanen, Sutter Ericksson LTIR: Ferland
  7. Either way, if we want to improve and win the cup, we shouldnt have an Eriksson in the lineup. Look at Dallas and Tampa roster, all their players can score goals. So we need our bottom 6 to score goals on a more consistent basis especially the 3rd line.
  8. Boeser is more than decent though. I think if he ever heals up that wrist or whatever thats bothering him, he will still have a top 5 shot in the league. Canucks fans here just have a short term memory and forgot how dominant he was in his rookie season.
  9. So you wouldn't trade him if Columbus offered Jones? Just saying, he can be tradeable for the right price. Boeser for Ekblad straight up would be a fair deal for Canucks. Equal exchange of salary, similar age and both still have lots of untapped potential. Ekblad would definitely address our weakness while we give up some talent from position of strength. I think Boeser's void could be filled with Hoglander signing, Podkolzin and Lind. We don't have any upcoming 2 way D as good as Ekblad. Joulevi and Rathbone are more offensive minded and not as strong as our top forward prospects in terms of skill or potential.
  10. The only way Canucks trade Demko is by getting value back, and by value I mean either a high 1st round pick (top 15) or a top prospect defenseman that is close to making the NHL or a young NHL D that is on ELC. There is no way Benning will trade him for lower than that after Canucks have spend years developing him. Benning will also not allow him to walk into that Seattle team ready to be a starter with nothing to show for. I think most NHL teams learned their lesson from the Vegas expansion draft so they will probably protect their young players. IMO I think its best for Markstrom and Canucks to part ways, Marky would want to cash in on his last meaningful contract and get paid while Canucks need to think about expansion draft and flat salary cap for the next few years. Plus with a lot of goalies on the market either through free agency or trade, there is no reason for Canucks to panic. They can sign Khudobin or Lehner etc. and they can just go with a tandem of 1A/1B. I wouldn't even mind Fleury as a backup if Vegas retained 60% of that contract. If there is any time to let Marky walk and find a replacement, it would be this year with lots of options out there.
  11. I think Boeser will be given a chance to prove that he is still that goal scorer. After that back injury, he hasnt been the same so maybe a longer time is needed to see if he can overcome that. Remember he showed his skills in all stars and he showed he could score goals at will during his 1st year. That isnt a fluke because of how he would snipe goals tip shelf even one on one against top goalies.I hope he can return to that form and is given a chance to do so.
  12. Listen, every Canuck fan probably likes to have Markstrom signed but if we sign him to a huge contract and lose Demko, we could regret it. Demko is only 23 while Markstrom will be 31, so how long can Markstrom play? He seems to be getting injured more frequently too at this age, once in regular season and again in playoffs. Everyone hopes that Benning somehow keep both but it doesnt seem to be possible with our lack of cap room, pending expansion draft and needing room to sign Hughes, Petersson in the future.
  13. I trust that Demko will keep developing and getting better. This organization knows how to pick and develop goalies so I trust their scouting and development and their goalie coach. Remember we were the team that developed Marky. In FLA he was just a mediocre goalie with high expectations.
  14. He is playing behind the best defensive team with great D men and he is pretty old. I doubt he will get a bigger salary because of one cup run. He is a proven backup, I doubt he can play 60 to 70 games in regular season.