EternalCanuckFan

Members
  • Content count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Neutral

About EternalCanuckFan

  • Rank
    Comets Regular
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,576 profile views
  1. I think I understand where Jim Benning is coming from but I'm curious if he would at least advise a player with a NTC if there is an offer from a team that makes sense for the Canucks. Is this one of those, "Hey, there's an offer for you, what do you think?" with a nudge and a wink for the player to suggest waiving the NTC, or is this a blanket approach of waiting for the player to say, "Hey, I want out and to play for a contender"? I'm OK with the former. I think it's his job. There was speculation from Elliot Friedman that the Canucks might have been looking at the end of the Sedin's current contracts as the period of "rebuild on the fly" whereas the full rebuild would commence after next season. I can buy the argument that perhaps ownership is focused on "winning now" because of a relationship with the Sedins. I do think, however, that if a good offer is on the table for the Sedins, especially from a contending team, then the Canucks need to at least let them know about it. For guys like Edler, Burrows and Hansen, I can understand the desire to keep some of them around for leadership. I'm not entirely on board the "trade all the vets" approach since you still need people to mentor the young players. That being said, again, if there is an offer for a guy like Burrows, then why not trade him? He's on an expiring contract and doesn't add any value in respect of the expansion draft. As for Edler and Hansen, I guess one issue is who do we replace them with? Hutton and Tryamkin have been decent and Sbisa has improved significantly, but are any of them really ready to eat Edler's minutes? This stretch without Edler and Tanev is interesting since we get to see this play out. I would expect that the team could get some assets back for Edler and Hansen but there could be a net loss. I think it's too much to expect a guy like Brock Boeser to come in next season and replace Hansen up front. I'm a bit more on the fence about Edler as Hutton has shown promise, and the ability to absorb extra minutes, but for all of Edler's faults, trading him would affect our defensive depth significantly. If the team is interested in getting picks then I'm guessing some guys in the bottom 6 and the farm might be expendable. I would expect to see Subban shopped for a mid-tier pick (4th or 5th), maybe even to Nashville since (besides the obvious presence of PK) they love their D. Pedan might also be expendable given Tryamkin's development. Even Chaput (F/O ability), Megna and Skille might be good depth players for a contender. Whatever the case might be, I'm not expecting too much activity or big movement from the Canucks. It's unfortunate to see them as a middling team without a lot in the pipeline for the future but it's good to see that they can still be competitive (even after their terrible stretch earlier this year) and hopefully the team can at least stop trying to buy.
  2. Edler doesn't need to go but as I'm sure it has been said before, he needs to play less and the Canucks need to surround him with better depth. Edler has been a serviceable #1 defenseman but I think he has been relied on too much. Edler did great when he was playing with Ehrhoff and his peak was 2011-2012 but the D-core that season was far deeper (Salo, Bieksa, Hamhuis) than what we have now. Even Ballard, Rome and Alberts were solid depth D. Tanev also started to make inroads that season. I personally think the team, and possibly Edler, has been missing Sami Salo (or a player like Sami Salo) immensely. The guy was injury prone, but he made the team so much better and the D-core was always more stable with him in the line-up. Bieksa was a good leader too but Salo always had a stabilizing effect in games. Judging from that line-up, guys like Hutton, Stecher and Tryamkin are playing at least 1 or 2 spots up the line-up than they should. It's not to say that they shouldn't be on the team but is more to say that they would benefit from having better veterans to play with and to learn the pro ropes from.
  3. Sutter has been a pleasant surprise so far this season. He has created plays better than expected and has shown consistent chemistry on the wing with the Sedins (dating back to last year). I'm still not sold on him as a second line center but he is a stable player and contributor on most nights whether or not it's on the scoresheet. I'm sure it has been brought up but I think he is so successful with the Sedins because like Carter, Burrows and Hansen, Sutter is a good forecheck. He doesn't need to run over guys - he has good speed and decent size, and smarts to know where to go. Pyatt was decent but a bit too slow. Bernier wasn't always the best at getting into position and wasn't as good at pick retrieval.
  4. I guess Jake got his stuff.
  5. If WD is fired soon, I think it will have as much to do with Virtanen as it will with the team's struggles. I'm not sure how much of it would be optics with the public but WD's deployment is not suspect only in respect of Jake. As we all know, there have been some strange decisions with Bo as well, even though he has played well. I don't know how much Lidster would have had to say about sitting Tryamkin but so far, Tryamkin has been playing well so the decision to sit him for so many games over a guy like Larsen has to be questioned. I don't know if I feel that WD deserves to be fired or if that will change the trajectory of the team. I would, however, feel better if the team made a clear move to focusing on developing our young players first and foremost which would include playing them in situations that they can excel in without fear of being benched the moment they make a mistake.
  6. I agree that it seems like the lack of goals is due to low percentage plays. The only caveat to this is that we have been having "east-to-west" plays where the puck is being thrown across the ice for a shot. The problem is speed. To generate higher percentage plays, we need to: have faster foot speed in order to have our players maneuver across the ice faster; move the puck faster - whether that's a pass or shot; and not fear making an imperfect play by trying to make the perfect pass or perfect shot. I haven't had the opportunity to watch too many games but in the games I have watched, passes in the o-zone to set up chances are often just that tad bit slower than what's necessary to catch a goalie off center and shots take just that half second longer to release. All of your other points exacerbate the above things too. Having guys drive the net hard when you make plays faster increases the percentages that a bounce will go your way.
  7. Wish I could tell you, but from what I listened to (I don't get off early enough from work to catch these games), he looked ready to play and he brought quite a bit of physicality to the lineup.
  8. If there was a way to bring up Subban to addition instead of Larsen, I would be on board with that. I think they'll have to demote someone or put a person on waivers to do it though unless we have more folks going to IR. I would actually be more curious about Tryamkin and Stecher. Tryamkin helps to offset Stecher's size limitations.
  9. Didn't get to watch the whole game but from what I can tell, positives were Horvat, Hansen, Tryamkin and Markstrom aside from the unfortunate attempt at poke checking Hoffman. I think WD's job is on the line but, as 1040 was talking about this morning, do you really want to bring up Green now? Not really all WD's fault but coaching staff made a strange gaffe sending Sbisa out with the net empty. Bizarre situation. I was listening to 1040 when that happened and could hear the incredulity from Dave Tomlinson and Jon Abbott (respectfully, of course). That alone seems to indicate lack of communication on the bench (if it was a mistake) or a puzzling judgment call (if it was intended). Anyone know when Rodin will be back? I know he's no saviour but he is the closest thing to an offensive dynamo that we have who we won't have to give up assets for. When he comes back, I would like to see: Sedin-Sedin-Rodin Granlund-Sutter-Eriksson Baertchi-Horvat-Virtanen Burrows-Gaunce-Hansen Dorsett Skille would be demoted and Burr can swap in and out with Dorsett. If they decide to send Jake down, then have Hansen with Horvat. Hansen has been playing well so hopefully that lineup would allow for minutes to be spread out well.
  10. Nice to see Bo get one. I thought JV played poorly to start but finished more strongly. Didn't see him engage the body as much, but their line had some good chances, especially Bo and Baer. While this losing streak is obviously disappointing, I can't say this is a surprise. Scoring was going to be an issue. I think we all knew that. It's too bad Rodin aggravated his injury. If the Canucks keep JV up after Rodin is back, I think they should demote Skille and then keep Burr as a scratch. He can coach and show the juniors a professional work ethic off the ice. On D, nice to see Stecher play well but I think he gets sent down because of next year's expansion. D looks less steady than first few games. Hopefully the guys can somehow get some rest or at least energy with the road trip.
  11. One could make the argument that Stecher fills Tanev's role better than Tryamkin but it'll be interesting to see if this motivates Tryamkin or instead generates discontent with the Canucks. Perhaps something needs to click for Tryamkin that spending a bit of time in the AHL is not a failure. Hopefully Stecher's call up shows him that the Canucks will give opportunities if a guy plays well.
  12. Simply seeing the resilience of the team to tie the game is a huge positive. This is a good learning environment for some of the young players, as long as the coaching staff can find good roles for them to fill. An earlier poster said that if Virtanen will only be used in a checking role, he should probably be sent to Utica. I agree to an extent. If his minutes are extremely limited (e.g. less than 12 minutes a game), then he probably should be sent down. If not, then maybe it's not so bad for him to continue learning the ropes of the pros and to occasionally be provided the opportunity to play in a scoring role.
  13. That's fair. His severe lack of size will always be a huge potential impediment to his game breaking ability. So far it hasn't hurt him as much (at least from what I can tell), but you're right that he lacks many of the physical tools to break through the lack of time and space that elite checkers will take from him. The matchup issue is a big problem for Gaudreau and the Flames, but they have found a way to make the most of it over his first two seasons so it will be scary if they can figure out how to help him out. If I were Gulutzan, I would play Brouwer with Gaudreau to try and give top defenders a physical presence to deal with. It might be asking too much of Tkachuk to do that on Bennett's line at 18 years old (without Brouwer's backup), but I think that would give them more balance. Versteeg is a good complimentary player, but he's not exactly a physical presence over an 82 game schedule. But what do I care? I'm not a Flames fan :P.
  14. I think Gaudreau will be fine as long as he doesn't go into a prolonged slump. It's not like he wasn't getting chances tonight. If I'm not mistaken, he didn't get to play or practice with his teammates because his contract was signed so late. That means not having time to figure out new systems as well. He played really well at the World Cup because, well, he was surrounded by amazing talent. The Flames are not that kind of team. I don't know if he'll repeat with a huge point total this season but I think once their team gels, he'll still be plenty dangerous together with Monahan.
  15. Yeah, that's how I thought the Canucks would line up after final cuts. It seemed to play to everyone's strengths. You could even switch Baertschi and Hansen to Sutter to make Horvat's line more of a checking line (if they want Sutter's line to focus more on producing offence). Burr and Skille could switch in and out. I don't know why they keep insisting on playing Gaunce on the wing. He played reasonably on the wing but seems to excel at center.