Phil_314

Members
  • Content count

    4,926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,063 Revered

About Phil_314

  • Rank
    Canucks Second-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

26,395 profile views
  1. I like that actually. Seems like Bo and Burr have good chemistry (did you see Burr follow on the rush on Saturday, and Bo just throws the pass to him to score off the rush?). If Bo can help revive Burr's offensive stats then this team could have some solid depth up front. Daniel would also be a definite upgrade on Sven who's good but not the star Daniel still is. For your second line though, I think Eriksson should go with Hank. With Sutter as a solid shooter, Loui's role fits on the line as the net-front guy with the hands for tip-in's and chances from up close. Then that 3rd line with Sven on it looks like a good 200-foot line with speed and decent scoring potential.
  2. Yeah, I'm not sure Boston's the best trading partner for us. Aside from Pastrnak and Forsbacka-Karlsson (kinda) they don't really have any likely top young forwards either, as their top prospects are all on the back end (Zboril, Morrow, Malcolm Subban), and being the Bruins their front group is mainly built on physical but less skilled guys (Trent Frederic and Zach Senyshyn as 1st round picks? Really?) who would be serviceable in the bottom-6 but not the top-6. If they would trade Pastrnak then sure (he's only 20 but a point/ game scorer), but highly doubt it.
  3. I'd do it if Arizona would. Definitely seems like a steal for us, given how we've essentially mishandled Jake's development and the team needs to groom a scoring center since McCann's dealt. While I do like Jake's drive as a straight-line, rugged guy I think if he's continually mishandled he could end up more like Steve Bernier/ 3rd line physical winger than the power forward he's been projected to become at his draft.
  4. Just realized it's December next weekend... WHERE did the time go?  #almostChristmas

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. Ghostsof1915

      Ghostsof1915

      What's December 3rd?

    3. chon derry
    4. Chip Kelly

      Chip Kelly

      Christmas is gonna come early this year when Labate and Pedan once he gets a call up tomorrow take the Leafs who misbehaved out back behind the woodshed for a good ol ass whoopin' Adrian Peterson style.

  5. More like (selling Loui at the deadline, hopefully he's on a hot streak then) 2 of Dickinson/ Ritchie/ Roussel and couple a couple of 2nd's (preferably the first two young guys) for Loui (plus Lehtonen for Miller). No way just for Nuke, PLUS we retain salary.
  6. I'd trade Tanev for Kadri (hopefully plus pick or decent prospect). Nazem's pretty much a cost-controlled Swiss Army knife. At only 26 years of age he's signed for 5 years at $4.5 million, and he's been touted for having become a more complete player (capable of helping his line-mates, driving possession, playing well in his own end and being physical) while still retaining decent offensive totals. Despite playing on the 3rd line at the moment, during his career he's played regularly in the top-6 before Matthews came to the city, and even how he's got 2 power-play goals to his credit. On a team like ours that needs to be forward-thinking given how Hank will inevitably retire one day soon, we need more centers who can at least play top-6 minutes while having some skill. Nazem fits the bill IMO, and I think that a center group of Kadri - Horvat - Sutter looks pretty darn good. Even if the team can't get an offensive center immediately, these two-way guys can at least negate damage and counter-punch as needed, and IIRC Nazem has also played on the wing, so if we need to stack lines he can play either up the middle or on the wing.
  7. Golden (K)nights? This evening landscape Plus it's Vegas, moolah baby!!$!$!!!$!! Doesn't sound the best, but at least it could make sense?
  8. In the context of his individual profile as a player (winger with scoring instincts), I was tempted at the prospect of a prospect like him being available. In the context of his being on the 2nd-lowest scoring team in the league (Sens) and getting waived by them after not putting up any points for them so far this season (similar to how the league-worst Panthers dumped Grabner seasons ago), I would not argue that J.B. should've picked him up. If he couldn't help them there, not sure how helpful he could be if, like some of you have been saying, he's not fit for the bottom 6 and there are contributors at least in our current top 6 (Twins, Sutter; Granlund, Eriksson as 2nd line winger depth). Plus, when Rodin comes back I wouldn't be surprised if he at least put up solid 3rd line if not weak 2nd line minutes.
  9. 1st, either Scherbak or McCarron and maybe a decent roster player, at least. I mean if Kes got two roster players and a 1st and Jim's hands were tied (hence trade return would've dropped), just think about what he could get with Edler. Sure Eddie's not a big point producer but he'd make their group look much better, and no way Bergevin doesn't realize that about a guy of his caliber. Just look at this solid group in front of Price, honestly reminiscent of the elite Predators defensive cores at least, if not better. Edler - Weber Markov - Petry Beaulieu - Emelin (I think Alexei played right side before?)
  10. In general, if we're getting a vet player who may be trending toward the end of his career, I'm against trading a major asset in his prime and a pick just to get that declining asset and a 1st round prospect (that should be the asset given for us to take on that declining contract). Sure Jost plays with Brock and Jarome's been good earlier on in his career, but Iggy's only got 3 points in 16 games! You're mistaken if you think that you'll get major production from him, so why would we be the ones adding the pick and maybe prospect, along with Edler, when in essence the only value comes in a (albeit quality) prospect? Steady Eddie's a 24 minute/ night kind of guy in his prime, and given his solid amount of minutes played as the top option on our D-core I think could get both alone, and maybe a high pick on top of that for him. So why should we be the team to add? Like the idea though of poaching for an older but serviceable vet to get a major future asset though, that's the direction I think the team should take.
  11. LIking how he wants to give minutes to Jake in the minors, I think that's the appropriate thing to do and overdue for his development. While I'm liking some of the roster players in place (Bo, Rodin, Sutter, Sven, Granlund, Tanev, Stecher, Tryamkin, Gudbranson, Markstrom for the future), and I'm also fine with his desire for the team to compete as that would likely lead to a more entertaining on-ice product, I hope he does this without adding major assets for major futures (in fact, optimally they would sell off vets for premiums to transition youth in where possible), and I hope the team drafts as high as possible (ergo lose competitive but close games). In his defense I must say that it's a tough line to toe, since teams rarely undergo rebuilds without experiencing major growing pains (both in the team culture and the fan base), but with the reputable vets at the helm to insulate the youth in the short term that should at least help them transition in better. Given where the vets are (1st liner Twins, solid complementary vets in Hansen, Burr; 1st D-man in Edler, #1 goalie in Miller) I think this is honestly as close to a strip-down of the roster as possible without outright exposing the kids (1st line/ 1st pairing/ starting goalie minutes should only be taken by players who are ready for it IMO).
  12. Twins - Sutter Eriksson - Horvat - Rodin Sven - Granlund - Hansen Burr - Gaunce - Dorsett Me likey how that roster looks, Loui could be the 2nd line upgrade J.B. has been looking for over Sven, and if Rodin plays well that's a potent top-9 group.
  13. TGIF

    1. Jaku

      Jaku

      Today is my Monday :(

  14. If they want Tanev, at least Draisaitl comes back. Nothing less IMO-- Trader Jim better gun for him to get a Johansen - Jones return for Tanev. He put up 51 points in 72 games and I think in his prime, he would be a solid #1 even if he's not a top-level center. Watching his play, he's already got size, hands, skill, a deft touch and the speed to be productive in an offensive role, and this team would be in position to give him that along with Horvat as the top 2 centers moving forward. He was successful with straight-line wingers like Hall, and I think he could gift goals to guys like Jake, Sven or Hansen on a platter with his dimes.
  15. I get the notion of keeping good guys to build around and fully support it, as without the foundation formerly bottomed-out teams (e.g. Oilers, Panthers, Blue Jackets) have seen prospects spoiled due to rushing and lack of roster insulation. However, as you pointed out there are other players already on the blue-line on the right side who are "fine" and productive as well (namely Troy and Guddy), and looking at the roster there is IMO already a foundation to build around, composed of players throughout the roster (italics denotes older vets insulating the youth but who should be moved soon before they pass their best before date if the right deal comes along, while bold denotes youth to allow to develop and form the next generation). Danny, Hank, Hansen, Sven, Bo, Eriksson, Sutter (Jake, Rodin? Granlund???); Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Gudbranson, Stecher, Tryamkin; Miller, Markstrom While some guys are question marks, on a rebuilding team it's fine to allow for some growing pains to fully allow these players to come to fruition in their development, and from the list above IMO the forward group is and has been in need of reinforcements for some time now. Short of Boeser (and maybe Stukel/ Brett McKenzie, depending on how rosy your glasses are) fact is the future forward group is pretty shallow, while the back end is arguably not short of ready candidates to log minutes. On a team that should be looking forward to the future and seeking to address the imminent need to replace both Twins' production in relatively short order, let's also be real that trading dead weights won't result in much of a return, and it takes quality assets to get quality back. In short, I agree that trading him won't fix the team as an individual move, but that it should come as part of a movement to shed vets to acquire quality as the team thinks more for the future, as that's what the team needs to do. Writing is on the wall, the team is bottoming, and I think that though he's not the problem he can be part of the team's overall solution moving forward, despite it meaning he could end up on another team.