The Status of This Year's Team is Clear: A Big Head's Take

[King Heffy]

35 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Part of my rant goes from the last 3 years, but Edler is someone who should of been a healthy scratch to be better and there were other players who could of played that 1 game. Eriksson definitely should of been scratched many times and wasn't, Ganger is another one but I can give the coach the benefit of the doubt for Gagner because of Sutter and Horvats injuries. Boeser was a mistake by Green at the beginning who really didn't think he was ready, Virtanen was a healthy scratch over Eriksson, Goldy another one now sent down who imo played better then Eriksson. 

 

Your last sentence is actually disturbing they're the ones making the most money out of everyone, when your making millions of dollars to produce and your not I'm sorry, but a message needs to be sent no matter how old you are, when you're making that much damn money to lead a team and set examples for your youth, it's a wake up call not learning.

Eriksson is actually responsible defensively and is a useful forward.  Goldobin still hasn't figured out that gliding back to the defensive zone is an issue.  Goldy got the wake-up call because there's no spot in our lineup for a guy who refuses to backcheck.  Virt seems to have learned and is putting in a more consistent effort as the season progresses.

 

 

[Westcoasting]

6 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Eriksson is actually responsible defensively and is a useful forward.  Goldobin still hasn't figured out that gliding back to the defensive zone is an issue.  Goldy got the wake-up call because there's no spot in our lineup for a guy who refuses to backcheck.  Virt seems to have learned and is putting in a more consistent effort as the season progresses.

 

 

I was actually more surprised by goldobins lack of offensive output or shots on goal i should clarify. I think he only averaged 1 shot per game!

[Baggins]

15 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Hey I am not taking anything away from Hank as a player, he has been one of our greatest players ever to don the jersey. I have watched him ever since he was drafted. My concern is that he has carried the "gentlemanly" handle ever since coming into the NHL and it was so bad they used to be called the Sedin "Sisters". Not something you want your "Leader" to be known for. I really believe he would have been better served to carry on with the team without the burden of carrying the "C". Same with Bure when he was here. This team might have had a different outcome in 2011 if Kessler, Bieksa or even Burrows was the Captain at that time IMO.

I think you're putting too far much on a letter. Hank with an A and Kesler with a C wouldn't have changed the number, or significance, of the injuries on th e team. It wouldn't have helped Lou stop more shots either. There's no magic in the the letter.

[Baggins]

12 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Starting to really question some of the coaching decisions actually, and I do like Green and believe he will be a successful coach but his inability to healthy scratch veteran players and scratch youth on a rebuild team is kind of pissing me off. 

 

Chicago(Quenneville) wasn't happy with Seabrooks game and made him a healthy scratch and that's on a winning team not a rebuild team yet. Then just saw Dallas(Hitchcock) did the same with Spezza made him a healthy scratch again on a winning team not a rebuild team.

 

Both these players are veterans with big contracts but their coaches weren't scared to make them a healthy scratch because they weren't happy with their play and they expect them to play better. So why is it any different here in Vancouver, just because we're not on a winning team and in a rebuild we let the veterans get a free pass because we don't want to win?

 

Spezza had 1 point in his last 7 games and hadn't scored a goal in over 10 games but he played again and scored 2 goals looks like he got the message. Eriksson had gone longer than that without a point he went 18 games before scoring a goal, but I guess he's played so well he deserved to be in the lineup over youth.

 

I'm just kind of sick and tired of watching our coaches(WD and TG) lacking experience in benching Veterans when they clearly should be a healthy scratch, and taking the easy path way out and scratching youth instead, because they're afraid to make that decision. 

Were Seabrook and Spezza sat out because of poor play or poor production? There's a difference. Ericksson may not be producing as hoped, but he has been playing well.

[cbdoubleu]

Stopped reading when you said we're not sure Juolevi will amount to much.

 

Canucks fan: Thank you Penguins for giving up on Pouliot.

Same Canucks fan: Juolevi is probably a bust.

[TheGuardian_]

I hit Vancouver in the blazing sun,
on the 9th of February ’61.
And from the 10th of February through ’til May,
it rained in port all night and day.

 

The more they try to keep me down,
the better I live in this here town.
Yeah, the more some posters try to grind me down,
the better I like Vancouver Town.

 

I can see those tankers sailing down,
with Alaskan oil all shlurpping round.
They’ll take a sip from Trudeau’s cup,
and leave our coast all fuddle-cuddled up.

 

The more they try to keep me down,
the better I live in this here town.
Yeah, the more they try to grind you down,
the better I like Vancouver Town.

 

I passed a church and I had a grin,
there’s a sign said “Tired of sin, come in.”
And written in lipstick loud and clear,
“well, if not, phone this number here.”

 

The more they try to keep me down,
the better I live in this here town.
Yeah, the more they try to grind you down,
the better I like Vancouver Town.

 

To lots of chaps t’was a terrible blow,
but the topless waitresses had to go.
The problem was, when you come to grips,
they had no place to put their tips.

 

The more they try to keep me down,
the better I live in this here town.
Yeah, the more they try to grind you down,
the better I like Vancouver Town.

 

Ding dong dell, pussy’s in the well.
Been down there for more than a year.
No wonder the water tastes blooming queer.

 

The more they try to keep me down,
the better I live in this here town.
Yeah, the more they try to grind you down,
the better I like Vancouver Town.

 

The Lions need a quarterback,
the Canucks are glad to get Horvat back.
But are they Australian teams, I wonder?
They always seem to be right down under.

 

Rolf Harris

 

Yeah, this isn't my first rodeo with Vancouver teams sucking for a long time, hell the song hit the charts. And to think there are posters here that think things happening with the team now is a first.

 

 

[MikeyD]

2 hours ago, cbdoubleu said:

Stopped reading when you said we're not sure Juolevi will amount to much.

 

Canucks fan: Thank you Penguins for giving up on Pouliot.

Same Canucks fan: Juolevi is probably a bust.

The difference being is both were expected to be #1 d-men. Neither of them are anywhere close to that projection now. Pouliot is a good depth defenseman, maybe a 5-6 guy. Juolevi, if he reaches that point I'll be happy now. Either way, waste of an early draft pick. 

[TheGuardian_]

10 hours ago, Baggins said:

Were Seabrook and Spezza sat out because of poor play or poor production? There's a difference. Ericksson may not be producing as hoped, but he has been playing well.

The team should not pay 8 million for "well". If he is doing the best he can then that contract deserves a firing. 8 mil for, well, really?

 

Actually he is producing right along the lines of his previous season's, just a little off.

 

Eriksson at 2.5 mil, very good.

[ohmy]

10 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

The difference being is both were expected to be #1 d-men. Neither of them are anywhere close to that projection now. Pouliot is a good depth defenseman, maybe a 5-6 guy. Juolevi, if he reaches that point I'll be happy now. Either way, waste of an early draft pick. 

It was actually a very smart pick. We have no top defensive prospect in the pipeline besides Juolevi. A few depth guys maybe but no possible top 3 guys. I am hoping to have 3 picks in first two rounds so we can use 2 of them on D prospects. It is the only area the Canucks are lacking in prospect depth. Other than that this team is looking great for the future.

[MikeyD]

2 minutes ago, ohmy said:

It was actually a very smart pick. We have no top defensive prospect in the pipeline besides Juolevi. A few depth guys maybe but no possible top 3 guys. I am hoping to have 3 picks in first two rounds so we can use 2 of them on D prospects. It is the only area the Canucks are lacking in prospect depth. Other than that this team is looking great for the future.

I felt there were better d-men in the draft. He was supposed to be the best defensively and he hasn't shown really any of that potential yet. 

[TheGuardian_]

15 minutes ago, ohmy said:

It was actually a very smart pick. We have no top defensive prospect in the pipeline besides Juolevi. A few depth guys maybe but no possible top 3 guys. I am hoping to have 3 picks in first two rounds so we can use 2 of them on D prospects. It is the only area the Canucks are lacking in prospect depth. Other than that this team is looking great for the future.

But how good will Groot be? Have to treat him the same as other prospects and assume he will be on the team.

He has really picked up his game in the mother land.

[The Lock]

On 1/17/2018 at 9:49 AM, TheGuardian_ said:

Players that are on losing teams will eventually give up. If the management is responsible, ala "tank", which I don't think this team is doing, then the players can feel it is not their fault, that they are better than the team's record. It is when they lose no matter how hard they try that they start "accepting" losing.

 

I stopped the tanking idea after the McDavid draft, but having better odds is not so bad either. That is the thing, I do think this team is doing the very best they can and this is where they are at.

 

The professionalism is coming in the form of acceptance that the team is as good as it is and not getting bent out of shape over the standings. All these players have been or are hyper competitive and losing should be almost unbearable. Teams/players can have a winning attitude and they can also have a losing attitude,.

 

In pro hockey it is worse because these guys learn they will be paid no matter what.

No. Players then lose respect for the team losing rather than giving them a chance to try and win games. I remember being in a soccer league. I was on the actual worst team in the league 1 year. I can tell you first hand that if that was the intention, a lot of kids would leave soccer at that point. Instead, we stuck it out and the next year (with a few new players) we had the best record in the league. I don't see your logic in this at all.

 

I noticed how you altered your 3rd paragraph from what you were saying before. Even though I guess you're not going to admit it, at least you changed your tone from earlier.

 

The thing about your last paragraph is that's putting a stereotype that comes from maybe 1 or 2% of NHL players in the league, and putting that stereotype on the rest of the league. There are a few players in the league who will play from paycheck to paycheck, but if most NHL players played the game like they did a regular boring office job, they would never have made the NHL in the first place. You seem to forget the passion put into practicing and working hard to even get drafted, let alone get into the NHL.

 

If your argument is that that mentality dies from losing while trying, then your suggestion of purposely losing would have an even greater devastation on their mentality. They don't just shrug that kind of thing off dude and I'm still wondering why you're even arguing that it's okay to purposely lose and somehow we'll come out "unscathed" from it. 

[spur1]

Now back to the topic ...... A take on this team. 

Dowd is here to stay. 

Guddy gone at the trade deadline unless he signs a good deal. 

Pouliot is better but a bit like Boucher but there is a lot of hope for both. 

Dowd is a Sutter protege.

Gaunce cannot score if his life depends on it and it does. However his defence is almost flawless. 

Vanek is a tough one. I say sign him for 2 years on a good deal. 

After you trade him for a second and a 6th. That is if we don’t go on a 5-7 game winning streak. 

Granlund on the bubble and in play. 

Gagne in play unless he has a NMC. 

Virt probably will never be a goal scorer like Brock however his size and speed will intimidate the heck out of the opponents not to mention his defensive play. 

This team may not make the playoffs this year but this team is on the verge of greatness. 

 

[CanadianRugby]

19 hours ago, Baggins said:

Ericksson may not be producing as hoped, but he has been playing well.

 

47 minutes ago, spur1 said:

this team is on the verge of greatness. 

 

[Baggins]

11 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

The team should not pay 8 million for "well". If he is doing the best he can then that contract deserves a firing. 8 mil for, well, really?

 

Actually he is producing right along the lines of his previous season's, just a little off.

 

Eriksson at 2.5 mil, very good.

Contracts don't come with guarantees. Ericksson's contract was pretty reasonable for his previous production. It doesn't matter how much a player makes, it's how he plays. Ericksson gets his money whether he sits or plays. So as long as he's playing better than a younger guy, the better option, he'll get the ice time.

[EdgarM]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎18 at 2:24 AM, Baggins said:

Were Seabrook and Spezza sat out because of poor play or poor production? There's a difference. Ericksson may not be producing as hoped, but he has been playing well.

For 6 million dollars he needs to be playing better then that.

[EdgarM]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎18 at 12:48 AM, Baggins said:

I think you're putting too far much on a letter. Hank with an A and Kesler with a C wouldn't have changed the number, or significance, of the injuries on th e team. It wouldn't have helped Lou stop more shots either. There's no magic in the the letter.

You don't think what a Captain says in the locker room overrides what anybody else says? What would you think when your Captain sees his brother getting punched out by a Weasel such as Marchand and do absolutely nothing about it. What kind of message does that send? I beg to differ that its just a letter. Kessler went "beast Mode" in the playoffs and who followed him?

[TheGuardian_]

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

If your argument is that that mentality dies from losing while trying, then your suggestion of purposely losing would have an even greater devastation on their mentality. They don't just shrug that kind of thing off dude and I'm still wondering why you're even arguing that it's okay to purposely lose and somehow we'll come out "unscathed" from it.

The players don't purposely lose, management tanks the "team" and the players can blame management. It is when they lose year after year, hundreds of games not just a season, that acceptance creeps in. They start the year with renewed enthusiasm but are waiting for the other shoe to drop, they have a "fragile confidence" and if management doesn't change the shape of the team enough they start doubting the "team" itself.

 

Eventually the pro player start to realize that their bodies are the factor driving their careers and salary, that is one reason why some players play so much better in "contract" years.

 

If the team was tanking from a management plan, then it would not be on the players, but if management is trying for the playoffs and the team keeps losing, then the players start looking around the room and doubt can occur. Too many years of failure will result in acceptance.  

 

One other thing to consider is that almost none of these players have ever had to deal with being on a losing team before and are not equipped for losing season after season. That is why a planned tank works, one maybe two season intentionally tanked and the rebound. The players didn't/don't get a chance to get used to losing.

[TheGuardian_]

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

Contracts don't come with guarantees. Ericksson's contract was pretty reasonable for his previous production. It doesn't matter how much a player makes, it's how he plays. Ericksson gets his money whether he sits or plays. So as long as he's playing better than a younger guy, the better option, he'll get the ice time.

Did you look at his production? He was playing with the best Bruins his second year, but look beyond his contract year to the previous 4 years. 8 million per year for three years? For that? At his age he is not likely to improve.

[J.I.A.H.N]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎11 at 9:56 PM, Horvats_Big_Head said:

After a great start to the year, which saw a remarkable uptick in quality of play versus previous years, the boys caught the injury bug. They are now 2-11 without Horvat in the lineup. Boeser has been an absolute stud, he and the Sedins can't carry this team. So the results are to be expected. 

 

That leaves us in the position we are now, tanking for a shot at the #1 pick and drafting our #1 D man that has eluded this franchise since birth. Yes, Horvat may come back in time and the team could get healthy for a miracle run at the playoffs, but this is very unlikely. We should be tanking which means trading our top UFA assets at the deadline. This would include trading Vanek (a 2nd?) and Gudbranson (3rd?) no question. 

This drop in play and in standings, was caused by injury to key players, not by intentionally tanking. Now that we are at a position, where we are almost mathematically out of it, yes we should trade players that will not resign, or that are UFA's..........simple asset management for a club that will not have those assets regardless in 2 years either way.

 

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎11 at 9:56 PM, Horvats_Big_Head said:

 

This does NOT include trading one of our top young Defensemen, BEN HUTTON. Hutton needs to stay, as we are still not sure if Juolevi will amount to much. I sure think he will but Ben Hutton is our insurance piece. Plus he still could get better. Defensemen progress slower than forwards sometimes. Ben is just in a slump right now and will improve. Trade the vets and all of our useless prospects, such as Cassels. We traded Subban and that was great, but we now have too many prospects who we know will not amount to anything. 

Sorry, Ben Hutton is young, but whether he is a "TOP" young defensemen is extremely debateable, I am not advocating him  bein traded, yet, as I would like to see another year before moving him.....but if the right deal comes along......I would move most

 

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎11 at 9:56 PM, Horvats_Big_Head said:

 

Overall, it has been a very good first half of the season. Some of the most exciting Canucks hockey I've seen in over 5 years. And we are tanking for just one more year, then next year I expect us to take another step forwards. We are about to cash in on a lot of prospects ready to take over, and boy is it going to be a great ride. 

Maybe in energy, but really hard to gauge.......maybe the first half of the first half, before the injuries........2nd half has been disappointing, especially our goaltending....Oh well, better things ahead!

 

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎11 at 9:56 PM, Horvats_Big_Head said:

 

I added a poll to make this thread more interesting. Again, I need to stress that we cannot trade Ben Hutton. 

Well, it is basically a 50/50 split............I think most fans would say yes, "IF" a good offer was made.....................it won't!........