Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Benning better sign Tryamkin longterm FAST


*Buzzsaw*

Recommended Posts

On 22 January 2017 at 3:03 AM, tas said:

are you sure?

Yep. It is always good to have a couple smaller offensive puck moving defencemen but it is equally important to have size in your own corners and in front of the net. 

 

Although, the game currently appears to be focusing on faster players the league is still fundamentally a fast and physical game. Where intimidation is still alive and well, especially when you get into a tough 7 game series.  Who would players like Granlund/Baer rather drive the net against: Gudbranson/Tryamkin or Stecher/Hutton?

 

Each player has their own role on the team, having 6 Stecher's in defence would not bring success. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team sports are all about balance, and a mix of players that fit certain roles, and excel. Having a hockey team that can adapt to any style of play and still win, or better still forces the OTHER team to adapt to your style of play and win. Tram suits his role well. I wish fans weren't so impatient, he's not Norris calibre yet. He has the ability to be top 4 by the looks of it. Next season when we have a better idea when players are ready to leap into the AHL, the team will have better grasp of who stays, and who to move. 

 

It's been great to see that late round picks, and UFA's turn out as well as Tanev, Hutton, Stetcher, and Tram. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HarryCanuck said:

Yep. It is always good to have a couple smaller offensive puck moving defencemen but it is equally important to have size in your own corners and in front of the net. 

 

Although, the game currently appears to be focusing on faster players the league is still fundamentally a fast and physical game. Where intimidation is still alive and well, especially when you get into a tough 7 game series.  Who would players like Granlund/Baer rather drive the net against: Gudbranson/Tryamkin or Stecher/Hutton?

 

Each player has their own role on the team, having 6 Stecher's in defence would not bring success. 

and yet I never said anything even remotely contrary to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nik is turning into something rare, a really big D man thats mobile. Thats more impressive to me than any other aspect of his game right now. 

 

I'm hoping once the Canucks brass and scouts have their expansion draft meeting (which I think is supposed to be soon) Jim locks up Bo and Nik. It will be a nice boost for the fan base and signal the start of the next era imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

You indicated that a big, strong, primarily defensive Dman like Tram has little value in today's NHL.

no, i said defencemen that provide no offense aren't worth a lot of money in today's nhl.

 

care to find a contract that refutes that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xereau said:

Chris Tanev.  He makes A LOT of money for what he brings.

I would argue that he's underpaid.

 

that said, he's arguably the very best no-offense shutdown defenceman in the league and plays on the first pairing (generally), yet is paid pretty average second pairing money, which perfectly illustrates my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, xereau said:

Chris Tanev.  He makes A LOT of money for what he brings.

Tanev is underpaid. He's a legit #2 D-man being paid less than what 2nd-pairing D-men get on the open market these days.

 

On 1/29/2017 at 9:43 AM, HarryCanuck said:

Who would players like Granlund/Baer rather drive the net against: Gudbranson/Tryamkin or Stecher/Hutton?

It's clear players have no problem driving the net against Gudbranson. Chances are he's not a good enough skater to turn and skate around and take away their angle.

 

Gudbranson has been bad-to-average his whole career defensively. Players have no trouble going up against him and putting up volume shots/chances/goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 30 January 2017 at 0:40 AM, tas said:

and yet I never said anything even remotely contrary to that. 

You said "dmen that contribute no offense aren't worth a hell of a lot of money in today's nhl"

 

The thread is discussing Tryamkin, a big punishing Dman who is good at clearing the net....not putting up points. I believe he (and players like him) are very valuable and worth paying. It was my opinion that you were undermining him and the value  he brings to the Canucks.  It is very unlikely he will  be a point producing D man as he does not play this role but that does not mean he is not valuable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1 February 2017 at 0:11 AM, kanucks25 said:

Tanev is underpaid. He's a legit #2 D-man being paid less than what 2nd-pairing D-men get on the open market these days.

 

It's clear players have no problem driving the net against Gudbranson. Chances are he's not a good enough skater to turn and skate around and take away their angle.

 

Gudbranson has been bad-to-average his whole career defensively. Players have no trouble going up against him and putting up volume shots/chances/goals.

Firstly, I do not believe Gudbranson is a top pairing D man. I also do not believe he is being taken wide as regularly as you suggest. He does get caught out in a miniority of situations but the other elements of his game far exceed the drawbacks you are focusing on. 

 

I hope they keep him on a bridge contract, I'd like to see the Canucks with a big defence (x 3 or 4) and a couple skilled PMD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, HarryCanuck said:

You said "dmen that contribute no offense aren't worth a hell of a lot of money in today's nhl"

 

The thread is discussing Tryamkin, a big punishing Dman who is good at clearing the net....not putting up points. I believe he (and players like him) are very valuable and worth paying. It was my opinion that you were undermining him and the value  he brings to the Canucks.  It is very unlikely he will  be a point producing D man as he does not play this role but that does not mean he is not valuable. 

valuable and worth a lot of money are different things in the nhl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

That's certainly logical. I don't know how anyone could possibly think that valuable has any connection with being worth a lot of money.

which is why i specified "in the nhl".

 

a big, physical, good-skating shutdown defenceman is a valuable asset to have, and yet you still don't pay $5 mil for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...