-Vintage Canuck-

[Official] 2017 Training Camp Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Agreed on Boucher, i never thought he'd pan out. 

 

But how much depth? 1 ageing RW that won't be here past Feb? I'd rather have Boeser have a 40 point year than have the 3rd round pick that we maybe get for Vanek. 

 

But I'm biased, I didn't want Vanek in the first place. 

Why not have Vanek at a 40-50 point pace and the third and Boeser dominating in Utica and playing ~25 games up here at a ~40 point pace?

 

Boeser gets more coaching, training and gelling with future team mates to tear it up even more his first full year next year, still gets NHL games and we have more injury depth and additional rebuild assets. I know, sounds horrible, right? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I don't disagree with this. Like, at all!

 

But...

 

We also watched Skille, Magna, Chaput and others last year.  We're also hedging against atrocious hockey!

touche 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Why not have Vanek at a 40-50 point pace and the third and Boeser dominating in Utica and playing ~25 games up here at a ~40 point pace?

 

Boeser gets more coaching, training and gelling with future team mates to tear it up even more his first full year next year, still gets NHL games and we have more injury depth and additional rebuild assets. I know, sounds horrible, right? :rolleyes:

IF it panned out exactly that way, sure its fine. But what worries me is the situation where Vanek gets 25-30 points and no one wants him at the TDL and Boeser doesn't have a stellar AHL year either. What then? Each way has its risks. I guess if Vanek is a bust like Prust we can always call up Boeser before the TDL.

 

I don't know anything about Cull, he might be a great coach I have no idea. AHL time under a meh coach isn't a great idea either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

IF it panned out exactly that way, sure its fine. But what worries me is the situation where Vanek gets 25-30 points and no one wants him at the TDL and Boeser doesn't have a stellar AHL year either. What then? Each way has its risks. I guess if Vanek is a bust like Prust we can always call up Boeser before the TDL.

 

I don't know anything about Cull, he might be a great coach I have no idea. AHL time under a meh coach isn't a great idea either. 

But if Boeser looks like a possible Calder candidate we can't take that from him either. Which would make it black and white, either he's in or he's out.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coolboarder said:

Yes, I am aware of this rules.   It is all about giving a chance to young players.   We are at a rock bottom and we have nothing to lose.

Exactly, so why not let all the kids develop in Utica together and build chemistry with each other? Why put BB into a losing situation just to prove he can play there?  Does that seem like a good environment for a young player to grow in?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

But if Boeser looks like a possible Calder candidate we can't take that from him either. Which would make it black and white, either he's in or he's out.

Wouldn't he be an even better candidate next season, after a year of development?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we will see if Benning is truly continuing his rebuild or just giving the fans what they wanted to hear.....

 

My thought is that Benning will start the season with a Veteran line-up and is hoping that they have some success, so that he can move some of them at the TDL, and in the mean time will bring up rookies to fill in for injuries

 

Look for those players that are not waiver exempt to be the fillers......aka McEneny, Pedan and Gaunce to be the 7th and 8th Dman and the 13th forward

 

If he lets Broeser, and Virtanen have spots, then maybe he is trying to compete now for a more competitive team, and not at all worried if he looses a couple of fringe prospects....

 

For the record............I would keep McEneny and Gaunce when he comes back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, stawns said:

Because injuries are going to hit and probably several of them and depth to cover them is critical to success.

Sarcasm is our color of life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, stawns said:

Wouldn't he be an even better candidate next season, after a year of development?

And he'd be even better a year after that!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

IF it panned out exactly that way, sure its fine. But what worries me is the situation where Vanek gets 25-30 points and no one wants him at the TDL and Boeser doesn't have a stellar AHL year either. What then? Each way has its risks. I guess if Vanek is a bust like Prust we can always call up Boeser before the TDL.

 

I don't know anything about Cull, he might be a great coach I have no idea. AHL time under a meh coach isn't a great idea either. 

Happy the Canucks added Vanek. They need scoring then fans question why JB brings in offensive players lol.

 

Hard to imagine a veteran goal scorer with a cheap contract wont get attention lol...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Happy the Canucks added Vanek. They need scoring then fans question why JB brings in offensive players lol.

 

Hard to imagine a veteran goal scorer with a cheap contract wont get attention lol...

really? his value wasn't high before a meh performance with Florida. He's going to have to have a very good year to fetch more than that trade. I just see him as unnecessary to this years club, he's not going to be the difference between playoffs or not and I'd prefer to see Boeser. Sue me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

really? his value wasn't high before a meh performance with Florida. He's going to have to have a very good year to fetch more than that trade. I just see him as unnecessary to this years club, he's not going to be the difference between playoffs or not and I'd prefer to see Boeser. Sue me. 

He was a 50 point guy last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, stawns said:

Wouldn't he be an even better candidate next season, after a year of development?

If he can play in the NHL now, why not?  Not every solid rookie will play on a winning team right off the bat. Kane and Toews didn't start winning until their 3rd year, Doughty and his kings weren't relevant until his 3rd year, Tavares took 4 years until his Islanders made any noise, it took Stamkos 3 years until they made the post season. So big deal if Brock and co. take a few years to have a winning season. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stawns said:

He was a 50 point guy last year.

sure but his last 20 games were not what Florida expected, just 2 goals. I just don't see Vanek being able to produce at the same rate as Detroit, with the PP group he's going to have here. I get why Jim signed him, but I still don't see him as necessary to this years team. This is a good summary of the pro's and con's of Vanek, I just think we're more likely to see more of the con side of the equation with him this year given our current situation: http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/pros-and-cons-canucks-potentially-signing-thomas-vanek-1.22287079

Edited by Jimmy McGill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SergioMomesso said:

If he can play in the NHL now, why not?  Not every solid rookie will play on a winning team right off the bat. Kane and Toews didn't start winning until their 3rd year, Doughty and his kings weren't relevant until his 3rd year, Tavares took 4 years until his Islanders made any noise, it took Stamkos 3 years until they made the post season. So big deal if Brock and co. take a few years to have a winning season. 

Well there's really not a spot without sacrificing depth and sending him down with all the kids has zero downside.  Why not let them gel,  build chemistry together and be the go to guys in Utica?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

sure but his last 20 games were not what Florida expected, just 2 goals. I just don't see Vanek being able to produce at the same rate with the PP group he's going to have here. I get why Jim signed him, but I still don't see him as necessary to this years team. This is a good summary of the pro's and con's of Vanek, I just think we're more likely to see more of the con side of the equation with him this year given our current situation: http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/pros-and-cons-canucks-potentially-signing-thomas-vanek-1.22287079

What current situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stawns said:

What current situation?

Our teams talent level. Our PP looks to be just as anemic as last season. We don't have a PP QB d-man. Even with Vanek Detroits PP was barely better than ours. Is Vanek really going to produce at a 50 point rate on our team? Doubtful, so if thats actually the case I would just simply prefer to see Boeser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.