Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 7 votes

6 players the Canucks miss.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
197 replies to this topic

#181 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,260 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:40 PM

Seems like Team 1040 agrees with me on Chris Higgins as well. Not a playoff performer.


Really? Gee, well I guess that's that.

/thread

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#182 Henrik Kesler

Henrik Kesler

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 13

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:45 PM

The only two I'd really agree with out of this list is Ehrhoff and Malhotra. Samuelsson/Salo were aging, as good as they were. Torres is hit and miss (though I'd love to have him back) and Hodgson just didn't fit in here

Malhotra anchored a third line and was being talked about for the Selke in the early going of the 10-11 season. He won face-offs, he shut down other teams top players, he was a rock on the PK, and he's a leader in the locker room. You can't be a puck possession team if you aren't winning faceoffs, using Kesler as the shutdown man takes him away from offensive play, and our PK faltered when it was needed most.

People are saying Garrison is an upgrade on Ehrhoff. I thought he was an upgrade on Salo? He can't be both. Garrison has been a fantastic addition, but no one has replaced what Ehrhoff brought to the team. His first pass and ability to skate the puck out of trouble were a huge part of why our PP was dominant and why the team's transition game was excellent in 10-11. Edler cannot replace Ehrhoff. He cannot skate the same way, he doesn't get shots through the same way, and his first pass isn't on the same level. The drop pass play we've all come to hate worked when Ehrhoff was here as well, because he would drive the opponent into their own end before dropping it back. Edler's dropping the puck back at the center ice line for some reason.

I think the two biggest priorities for the team have to be 1) A third line center who can win faceoffs and anchor the PK, taking some of the pressure off of Kesler and 2) a smooth-skating, puck-moving defenseman who can replace what Ehrhoff brought to this team. Though that isn't exactly an easy task to complete.


Truth.

In addition to winning faceoffs, anchoring the PK, and shutting down oppenents top players, pre-injury Manny brought someone who could provide 30-40 points from a 3C playing a defensive role. That's huge because it means you're driving play to the opponents end of the ice and setting up offensive zone starts for your best offensive players, something this team was awful at this year. I still think that if Manny didn't get injured all of this "sky is falling, blow the team up" talk wouldn't be so bad because the Canucks would be Stanley Cup Champs.

#183 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,260 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:45 PM

If Garrison is more vital to playoff success, then why is it that with Ehrhoff, the Canucks made it to the 2nd round and Stanley Cup Finals, and without, they have been bounced in the 1st round twice in a row?


Well, the Canucks also had Tanner Glass in those two playoffs.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 10 May 2013 - 08:46 PM.

Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#184 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:27 PM

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN

the league??

There's your problem

Edited by gushybear, 10 May 2013 - 10:27 PM.

July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..


#185 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,534 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:56 PM

Really? Gee, well I guess that's that.

/thread

regards,
G.


No sense debating with you because it appears you swear by any move that the Canucks management make, and everything they do is perfect. Now resorting to comments like this and stating Tanner Glass was an actual contributor to the Canucks playoff runs and discounting Ehrhoff's contributions to the club, despite the Canuck management thinking he was the most valuable defenseman for the 2 years he's been here.

regards,
PK.

EHRHOFF WATCH 2015/16
rsz_0121christian_ehrhoff_jeff_vinnicknh


#186 Raph

Raph

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 09

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:27 AM

update on Mikael Samuellson: 4GP, 1G, 1A. Past his prime player outperforming most of the Canucks roster.

#187 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,295 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:25 AM

I've seen a couple people around here say Samuelsson is soft which I find kind of odd, because one of the reasons I was excited about him coming here was the edge he had too his game.

#188 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,260 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:12 AM

No sense debating with you because it appears you swear by any move that the Canucks management make, and everything they do is perfect. Now resorting to comments like this and stating Tanner Glass was an actual contributor to the Canucks playoff runs and discounting Ehrhoff's contributions to the club, despite the Canuck management thinking he was the most valuable defenseman for the 2 years he's been here.

regards,
PK.


It appears that you are set on disagreeing with any move that the Canucks' management choses to make. I do not agree with every move that Canucks' management chooses to make. What I am doing is disagreeing with you, on this particular subject. There is a difference.

Team 1040 gives an opinion which agrees with your position. So what? They are not the final word on all things hockey. I have a sneaking suspicion that alternative points of view on Higgins are out there, if anyone wanted to take a few moments to find them. Would those make your opinion invalid, or would you merely dismiss them as they do not agree with you?

What is the criteria of a "playoff performer"? Higgins was brought in to be a 3rd line checker and to provide some secondary scoring. Ehrhoff was here to score points and also defend against scoring attempts. In 2011 finals, Higgins had 1 assist and was -2 in seven games where the Canucks had 23 goals scored against them. This says to me that he fulfilled his primary reason for being here, but was not that successful in his secondary role. Ehrhoff scored 1 assist and was -7 in that series. This suggests to me that he was unsuccessful in his primary reason for being here, and his secondary role. So does this mean that Higgins was more of a playoff performer than Ehrhoff?

You miss the point on my Tanner Glass observation. Your comments suggest that Ehrhoff was *the* reason for the Canucks getting to the finals, merely because he was here (yes, I'm sure you will qualify your position to one of "Ehrhoff wasn't the only reason, but he was a major piece").

I do recognize Ehrhoff's contributions. I have said so in a multiple of posts. I also recognize that Ehrhoff has deficiencies, and I believe that they outweigh his positives, particularly when we are talking about contracts the size of the one he got from Buffalo.. Did he get team awards each year he was here? Sure, because he got lots of points, not because he was a particularly good defenseman. He was also placed in a position to get lots of points so I don't find it too surprising he was able to get points. Your post suggests to me that you believe these awards somehow negate the downside of Ehrhoff's game.


regards,
G.

PS - I have that "regards" thing copyrighted. Just saying.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#189 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,260 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:19 AM

I've seen a couple people around here say Samuelsson is soft which I find kind of odd, because one of the reasons I was excited about him coming here was the edge he had too his game.


The criticism I have of Samuelsson is that his "edge" was usually only evident when the other team was not inclined to hit back.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#190 Deadweed

Deadweed

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 11

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:10 AM

Crying over spilled milk?
What this current roster missed was these-

1. The 2011 Alex Edler who hits everything in sight
2. Daniel Sedin
3. Henrik Sedin
4. The healthy beast Ryan Kesler
5. Healthy Bieksa
6. Ballard

#191 Drouin

Drouin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,095 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 13

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:12 AM

Torres, Salo, and most of all ... Malhotra.

#192 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,295 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:21 AM

The criticism I have of Samuelsson is that his "edge" was usually only evident when the other team was not inclined to hit back.

regards,
G.


I don't share that opinion, but what I didn't like was him talking dumb penalties when he got ticked off( much like Bertuzzi would do).

#193 Drouin

Drouin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,095 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 13

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:22 AM

I don't share that opinion, but what I didn't like was him talking dumb penalties when he got ticked off( much like Bertuzzi would do).

He was also pretty lazy

#194 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,295 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:23 AM

True.

#195 KraKassian

KraKassian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 13

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:46 AM

Here we go,

it was a bad enough complex that Canucks fans had needed to always compare the team to the Bruins, and then the year after the Kings and now the Sharks.

Do you guys honestly go around trying to recreate the exact team that beats us most recently?

Logan Couture plays nothing like Cody Hodgson, why even make that comparison? Doesn't really matter if their development is similar since the type of play each of them is developing is entirely different, that's like comparing the development of Kassian to someone like Tarasenko.

If I have to sit through a year reading about how the Canucks need to get more like the Sharks(before that it was the Blackhawks, Bruins, Kings) I'm going to lose my mind, if anything we need to get back to who the CANUCKS were in 2010/2011 instead of trying to slap every other team's plan onto our own.

#196 Henrik Kesler

Henrik Kesler

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 13

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:56 AM

Here we go,

it was a bad enough complex that Canucks fans had needed to always compare the team to the Bruins, and then the year after the Kings and now the Sharks.

Do you guys honestly go around trying to recreate the exact team that beats us most recently?

Logan Couture plays nothing like Cody Hodgson, why even make that comparison? Doesn't really matter if their development is similar since the type of play each of them is developing is entirely different, that's like comparing the development of Kassian to someone like Tarasenko.

If I have to sit through a year reading about how the Canucks need to get more like the Sharks(before that it was the Blackhawks, Bruins, Kings) I'm going to lose my mind, if anything we need to get back to who the CANUCKS were in 2010/2011 instead of trying to slap every other team's plan onto our own.


This makes too much sense for most here to comprehend.

#197 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,534 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:31 PM

It appears that you are set on disagreeing with any move that the Canucks' management choses to make. I do not agree with every move that Canucks' management chooses to make. What I am doing is disagreeing with you, on this particular subject. There is a difference.

Team 1040 gives an opinion which agrees with your position. So what? They are not the final word on all things hockey. I have a sneaking suspicion that alternative points of view on Higgins are out there, if anyone wanted to take a few moments to find them. Would those make your opinion invalid, or would you merely dismiss them as they do not agree with you?

What is the criteria of a "playoff performer"? Higgins was brought in to be a 3rd line checker and to provide some secondary scoring. Ehrhoff was here to score points and also defend against scoring attempts. In 2011 finals, Higgins had 1 assist and was -2 in seven games where the Canucks had 23 goals scored against them. This says to me that he fulfilled his primary reason for being here, but was not that successful in his secondary role. Ehrhoff scored 1 assist and was -7 in that series. This suggests to me that he was unsuccessful in his primary reason for being here, and his secondary role. So does this mean that Higgins was more of a playoff performer than Ehrhoff?

You miss the point on my Tanner Glass observation. Your comments suggest that Ehrhoff was *the* reason for the Canucks getting to the finals, merely because he was here (yes, I'm sure you will qualify your position to one of "Ehrhoff wasn't the only reason, but he was a major piece").

I do recognize Ehrhoff's contributions. I have said so in a multiple of posts. I also recognize that Ehrhoff has deficiencies, and I believe that they outweigh his positives, particularly when we are talking about contracts the size of the one he got from Buffalo.. Did he get team awards each year he was here? Sure, because he got lots of points, not because he was a particularly good defenseman. He was also placed in a position to get lots of points so I don't find it too surprising he was able to get points. Your post suggests to me that you believe these awards somehow negate the downside of Ehrhoff's game.


regards,
G.

PS - I have that "regards" thing copyrighted. Just saying.



I guess its fair for you to disagree with me, everyone has their own opinions.

Doesn't change the fact that the Canucks have had poor playoff success since the departures of Ehrhoff, Torres and Samuelsson.

Doesn't change the fact that Alex Edler has played like crap without his partner Sami Salo

The title of the thread was 6 players the Canucks miss. Not 6 players Gillis should of kept.

In hindsight, the Samuelsson/Sturm for Booth trade looked good, although I showed my displeasure for moving Samuelsson at the time. Didn't turn out the greatest.

Letting Torres go, lots of people were upset, especially seeing Sturm signed right after.

Letting Ehrhoff go, in hindsight it may have been tough to keep him, but perhaps shipping out the struggling Ballard would of freed of capspace.

Letting Salo go, again lots of people were upset, and it severely affected Alex "potential Norris winner" Edler.

Trading Hodgson, in hindsight if he truly demanded a trade, then yeah it had to happen, but people still despise the trade and will for years to come IMO.

EHRHOFF WATCH 2015/16
rsz_0121christian_ehrhoff_jeff_vinnicknh


#198 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,260 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:39 AM

IDoesn't change the fact that the Canucks have had poor playoff success since the departures of Ehrhoff, Torres and Samuelsson.


And anything that has been written here, by anyone, doesn't really convince me that this *could* be nothing more than mere coinidence.

Do you really believe that having Ehrhoff, Torres and Samuelsson would have given the Canucks the edge over LA last season? Might the Canucks picked up a few more goals? Sure, I'll say that that would be a possibility. I would also say that there would be a very good possibility that Ehrhoff would have given up the puck often when confronted by the big and fast Kings forwards.

I also suggest that Samuelsson would have likely disappeared against the larger Kings team. Might Torres have hit a guy or two? Maybe. How much of a difference maker was he against Boston?


Doesn't change the fact that Alex Edler has played like crap without his partner Sami Salo


I wouldn't have minded Salo still being here. If Edler needs to have a guy like Salo in order to play effectively, then yes, the Canucks miss Salo. This being said, when would the Canucks ever be able to cut the Sami Salo apron strings? Another aspect of holding on to Salo is that it would impact on developing younger players like Tanev, and now Corrado.

If Edler can not function effectively without Salo, what would be the situation for the Canucks when Salo (assuming he was still here) did finally choose to retire? I see three possibilities: 1.) Edler will pick up his socks and become the quality d-man that he has the potential to become, even without Sami Salo; 2.) Edler will continue to have issues, not be worth the contract he has, and it would be beneficial for the Canucks to trade him; 3.) the Canucks will find a new Sami Salo.

For #3, do the Canucks have this in Tanev?


The title of the thread was 6 players the Canucks miss. Not 6 players Gillis should of kept.


And yet, when it comes down to it, the latter is what is being discussed.


In hindsight, the Samuelsson/Sturm for Booth trade looked good, although I showed my displeasure for moving Samuelsson at the time. Didn't turn out the greatest.


Didn't turn out to be the greatest mostly because of injury issues to Booth.

Might there be a lack of chemistry between Booth and Kesler? Perhaps. There also could be some blame on the fact that they haven't really had a RW playmaker to work with. And Samuelsson would not have been that guy.


Letting Torres go, lots of people were upset, especially seeing Sturm signed right after.


So what if Sturm was signed? They filling different roles with the team. The Canucks needed somebody to fill a top-6 spot, on a short term basis. Sturm certainly wasn't the guy (I wouldn't have signed him), but neither was Torres. So what was the problem?


Letting Ehrhoff go, in hindsight it may have been tough to keep him, but perhaps shipping out the struggling Ballard would of freed of capspace.


Shipping out Ballard is a separate issue from keeping Ehrhoff. Having cap space from moving Ballard does not mean signing Ehrhoff to a bad contract is an okay thing. And isn't this moving into the realm of "players Gillis should of kept", rather than players who the Canucks miss?



Trading Hodgson, in hindsight if he truly demanded a trade, then yeah it had to happen, but people still despise the trade and will for years to come IMO.


Hodgson shouldn't be on this list. His body of work with the Canucks is insufficient for the team to "miss" him, IMO. Malhotra yes, Hodgson, no.

Who cares if Hodgson wanted a trade? I am of the opinion that Hodgson would have been moved last year of this, regardless of whether or not he wanted to stay. He was a guy who is better suited to be a top-6 center, but only had a third line center spot available. The team would be better served moving him rather than trying to hold on to him.


regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.