• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.
Ossi Vaananen

[Rumour/Speculation] Hudler/Canucks

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

A lot of good points here. After more thinking, it makes me wonder why JB would sign Hudler instead of letting a prospect player (Gaunce) take a spot.

 

Why do we need Hudler? If they really need a #2LW (because they don't want to put Baertschi there), then why not let Granlund have a go? We traded Shinkaruk for him, and Shink may be a top 6 player one day. So why not Granlund?

 

Daniel - Henrik - Eriksson

Granlund - Sutter - Rodin/Virtanen

Baertschi - Horvat - Hansen

Etem - Gaunce - Burrows/Dorsett

 

I think Granlund could take a step this year if given the chance. He has the skills and speed. If he continues to play on the 4th line, he'll just continue getting 4th line points.

What if we have injuries? We will. Many at some points of the year. Hudler is meant for this roster. He's icing on the cake.

 

Dont forget he was amazing in Detroit's cup run too. He's exactly what we need to lead us to the playoffs, and hopefully a lengthy cup run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we have seen a variation of this tweet every week.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, b3. said:

I feel like we have seen a variation of this tweet every week.

Well it's managed 7 pages of discussion in an otherwise dead off season. 

 

I SAID GOOD DAY SIR.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mll said:

They don't want Baertschi there because they don't want to put pressure on him to produce - LW2 is his spot once he's ready.  Like C2 is Horvat's spot once he's ready.

 

They aren't goint to shift that pressure to Granlund or Virtanen who are further back in their development.  There is also no way that Granlund is better than Baer at producing offence.

 

Btw, WD doesn't want Baertschi with Horvat because it's taking Horvat away from his game.  So they'll either have to put Baer on the 4th and they won't put him with the likes of Gaunce or Dorsett, compromise on Horvat's development or put Baer on the 2nd.

 

Why would it take Horvat away from his game? Horvat and Baertschi have good chemistry together and they were putting up decent numbers despite playing with low ice time. Sutter isn't the answer at 2nd line C even tho he was playing well offensively last year he's better in the 3rd line C role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard a lot about this.

 

First of all let's look at the monetary side. We have about 3.4 mill in cap space with 23 forwards signed.

Those forwards include Etem, Gaunce, Virtanen and Granlund. 

I think we can agree that Etem and Granlund will be part of the roster. With Virtanen and (maybe) Gaunce as candidates to be sent down.

 

But right now they are not sent down. If we sign another F one would need to clear waivers. Somebody correct me on this ; who can be sent down without waivers? I think only Virtanen? Maybe Gaunce? Pretty sure Rodin, Granlund and Etem received one-ways. Does Burr have a NMC or can he be sent down?

 

Of course we can also bounce a D but that isn't practical. Biega got a one-way and Tryamkin has a "NHL or KHL" deal, with Pedan as the helper.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that Burrows will be gone next year. We all love him, and few may love him as much as I do, but we won't re-sign him. He will get a much better deal elsewhere. If we can put him in a deal for something resembling a top 6 under 30.. we will do it.

 

I don't want EK. But who else is out there?

Pirri is still available.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ossi Vaananen said:

 

Thoughts?

Rather have Pirri than another retread declining Czech like Vrbata is.

 

98 percent chance he does not sign here. Doesn't make sense he was a Lady Byng finalist at one time.

 

No toughness. Old. 

 

Sedin-Sedin-Ericsson

Hudler-Sutter-Hansen

 

Wtih the exception of Hansen and maybe Sutter, that is easily one of the softest top six group of players in Canucks history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chip Kelly said:

Rather have Pirri than another retread declining Czech like Vrbata is.

 

98 percent chance he does not sign here. Doesn't make sense he was a Lady Byng finalist at one time.

 

No toughness. Old. 

 

Sedin-Sedin-Ericsson

Hudler-Sutter-Hansen

 

Wtih the exception of Hansen and maybe Sutter, that is easily one of the softest top six group of players in Canucks history. 

Sedin Sedin Burrows

Raymond Kesler Samuelsson

 

That's pretty close. 

 

When the Sedins make up a third of your top 6, it's always going to be fairly "soft". Like I've been saying for awhile though, this team is closer to being a team like Detroit or Tampa than it is to a team like LA or Boston. We need to surround our skilled guys with other skilled guys that can put the puck in the net.

 

The size and grit will come through drafting and timely acquisitions, you can't force a complete identity change overnight. Until then we might as well play to this teams strength, which is skill. If everyone's so convinced we wont make the playoffs, what does it matter anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

Sedin Sedin Burrows

Raymond Kesler Samuelsson

 

That's pretty close. 

 

When the Sedins make up a third of your top 6, it's always going to be fairly "soft". Like I've been saying for awhile though, this team is closer to being a team like Detroit or Tampa than it is to a team like LA or Boston. We need to surround our skilled guys with other skilled guys that can put the puck in the net.

 

The size and grit will come through drafting and timely acquisitions, you can't force a complete identity change overnight. Until then we might as well play to this teams strength, which is skill. If everyone's so convinced we wont make the playoffs, what does it matter anyways?

I get your point for sure. The best years 2010-2012 and before that the WCE years the team was a skill team and an offensive juggernaut with some grit mixed in but not featuring as anything close to being known as a tough or heavy team.

 

When Torts tried to make this team stand up to L.A. if was so unnatural for them to play aggressive and constantly hit and get involved in fights that they totally tired out a few games after playing L.A. and went into a tailspin after the whole Torts vs Hartley incident obviously.

 

To nitpick though Samuelsson could play with some piss and vinegar for a skilled swede, he could play with edge at times, and Burrows and Kesler have always had that in their games even though they were forced to tone down their antics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chip Kelly said:

I get your point for sure. The best years 2010-2012 and before that the WCE years the team was a skill team and an offensive juggernaut with some grit mixed in but not featuring as anything close to being known as a tough or heavy team.

 

When Torts tried to make this team stand up to L.A. if was so unnatural for them to play aggressive and constantly hit and get involved in fights that they totally tired out a few games after playing L.A. and went into a tailspin after the whole Torts vs Hartley incident obviously.

 

To nitpick though Samuelsson could play with some piss and vinegar for a skilled swede, he could play with edge at times, and Burrows and Kesler have always had that in their games even though they were forced to tone down their antics.

Yea, you can't force a square peg into a round hole. This team won't be able to just pretend to play a certain way, you need the right personnel. Until we draft and sign those players this team won't be a heavyweight team.

 

As for Samuelsson, I agree I thought he played with grit, but so does Hansen. Also Burrows grit came from his forechecking and going hard to the net, which Eriksson is capable of doing. As for Kesler vs Sutter, they're both big guys that can skate but Kesler obviously played with much more of an edge.

 

Bottom line is, that lineup wasn't intimidating anyone physically, but no one complained when they put up big points. This team needs another 40-50 point player if it wants to make the playoffs IMO. If that player happens to be Hudler, so be it. I just wanna watch skilled hockey again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Chip Kelly said:

Rather have Pirri than another retread declining Czech like Vrbata is.

 

98 percent chance he does not sign here. Doesn't make sense he was a Lady Byng finalist at one time.

 

No toughness. Old. 

 

Sedin-Sedin-Ericsson

Hudler-Sutter-Hansen

 

Wtih the exception of Hansen and maybe Sutter, that is easily one of the softest top six group of players in Canucks history. 

Soft is the new hard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mll said:

Gaunce Granlund Etem.  If I am the opponent - I send out my scoring lines.

All three were inconsistent and at times even shift by shift.  If one struggles - it probably drags the whole line down because there's no stable reference point.  I don't think an all 'youngster' line helps development.

Gaunce and Granlund both were superb two way & defensive players at lower levels. 

 

They would be on the fourth line. If they come out bringing it on any given night?  They keep getting shifts. If they don't just shorten the bench...

 

Both have good motors by the way.  I'm not sure I share your observation regardless.

Edited by Canuck Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the dirt on Pirri though anybody know?

 

25 year old 20 goal scorers no matter how streaky are not left this long without contracts.

 

Something has to be going on with him mentally or with his private life. Maybe has a bad attitude, lazy work ethic etc?

 

Gotta be more than just waiting for teams to clear cap space and not wanting to sign what would be a bargain short term deal.

 

I say the Canucks should sign him for 1 year and experiment. Low risk, Decent reward if he plays well.

 

Kris Russel too. Either before training camp teams are going to make a move or two to create cap space or these 2 guys and the other unsigned guys with NHL experience will be playing in the KHL or somewhere else in Europe this year.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hudler would be pretty versitile and a great addition for any team that is going for it. He would not look out of place if someone from the top line went down, he can provide secondary scoring or the grit needed for a third line. My only problem is that if they add Hudler and take a spot away from a younger guy then I would be really confused on where the direction of the club is going. rebuilding, retooling, stay in the middle or going for the prize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want Hudler taking a young player's spot or even taking Burr's spot. I also don't think we should be handing out 2,3,4 year contracts to players like Hudler as it would probably end up just being another Vbrata situation if it doesn't work out.

 

If Calgary didn't want him then why would we pay more or give him longer term than Calgary? Honestly if we were going to go down the Pirri/Hudler route I would rather have signed Raymond for 2 years - that guy's speed was a killer and he was a Canuck through and through.

 

This team needs to keep finding  youth, speed and size now in the forwards. We have these types of players coming through now.

Edited by alfstonker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ButterBean said:

Why would it take Horvat away from his game? Horvat and Baertschi have good chemistry together and they were putting up decent numbers despite playing with low ice time. Sutter isn't the answer at 2nd line C even tho he was playing well offensively last year he's better in the 3rd line C role.

Horvat has had good chemistry with everyone, especially Dorsett and Kenins. I see Rodin on the 2nd line if he plays well in the pre season. He can play left or right and shoots left, so maybe Baertschi/Rodin- Sutter- Hansen/Rodin for the second line. That might put Horvat between Etem and Hansen on the 3rd. Etem- Horvat- Hansen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

Horvat has had good chemistry with everyone, especially Dorsett and Kenins. I see Rodin on the 2nd line if he plays well in the pre season. He can play left or right and shoots left, so maybe Baertschi/Rodin- Sutter- Hansen/Rodin for the second line. That might put Horvat between Etem and Hansen on the 3rd. Etem- Horvat- Hansen

Your line combinations are why I don't think we should sign Hudler.  We should go with the guys we have.  Plus, Gaunce deserves a fair shot too.  Isn't Hudler kind of small and soft?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im all for signing Hudler to a 1 year deal. Push back the youngsters and let them brew in the AHL until the trade deadline when the Canucks will probably be out of the playoff race (namely Virtanen) and then trade Hudler to contender. Win-win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DeltaSwede said:

Im all for signing Hudler to a 1 year deal. Push back the youngsters and let them brew in the AHL until the trade deadline when the Canucks will probably be out of the playoff race (namely Virtanen) and then trade Hudler to contender. Win-win. 

That sounds like a Leaf's "tank" plan, doesn't it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that Hudler is holding out for multi-year & JB is firm on a 1 year deal. 1 year 2.5M take it or leave it. He's not part if our future, but could be a win/win: Hudler provides offence & Canucks offer very little competition for top 6 minutes, so he can earn his next contract.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.