[PGT] Minnesota Wild vs. Vancouver Canucks

[Gaudette Celly]

16 minutes ago, The Great 8 said:

Oh now that I look it seems like they traded all there best players.. do you know if he’s been producing the same without them or if the majority of his points came early in the season? He seems like a really good prospects but I watched some of his highlights from earlier this season and it looked like he was getting tons of secondary assists on a stacked power play.

Haven't followed him closely enough to differentiate, but he's certainly put up a lot of points the past couple months.

[EdgarM]

25 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Please remind me who my idols are as I am having trouble keeping up with you.   I don't "worship" any professional hockey player but there are many I respect immensely and these two, who I barely know, are near the top of that list as both players and human beings.    

 

I am not in favour of letting anyone "hang around".   If you cared to actually read anything I post versus what you seemingly want to read, I have said for the entirety of any discussion on the Sedins that I would only bring them back if the contract and roles made sense to the team.   Unlike you, I don't have a crystal ball to know all the options to the team this summer and into next season.   I do know that if I have two players that can still put up points and my team struggles to do so and I have younger players that can learn to run a PP from two of the best, that would be a consideration for me.   

 

For you, and several others that now seem to be following along with you (you have a fan club!), I am entirely sure how you can think that re-evaluating all options is in any way not helping the progression of your team?  It is like the 189 fellow who wants to trade OJ for everyone out there - when I replied that I would "consider" one of his/her/its trade recommendations, they lost it as that somehow was wrong answer.   Bizarre to me how many people on this site seem to think hockey moves are black/white.

 

Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble on the whole worship thing.    

I get that your stance is bring them back only if the price is right, I get that. I do not profess to have a "crystal ball" but I do know that there are many options out there, do you refute that? Do not bring up the "points" thing because many have explained this to you including myself, moot point.

Fan club? please......... This whole argument has nothing to do with what eventually happens that is pretty obvious a lot of us are just expressing OUR THOUGHTS on the make up of the team and what its going to look like going forward.

If I am going to "evaluate" whether these guys can help the team then I must take into consideration how they FIT IN to the rest of the team and I must take into consideration their defensive liabilities. Not just that they can produce "points", what a simpleton way to look at the situation, so obviously its not just "black/white".

[EdgarM]

25 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Please remind me who my idols are as I am having trouble keeping up with you.   I don't "worship" any professional hockey player but there are many I respect immensely and these two, who I barely know, are near the top of that list as both players and human beings.    

 

I am not in favour of letting anyone "hang around".   If you cared to actually read anything I post versus what you seemingly want to read, I have said for the entirety of any discussion on the Sedins that I would only bring them back if the contract and roles made sense to the team.   Unlike you, I don't have a crystal ball to know all the options to the team this summer and into next season.   I do know that if I have two players that can still put up points and my team struggles to do so and I have younger players that can learn to run a PP from two of the best, that would be a consideration for me.   

 

For you, and several others that now seem to be following along with you (you have a fan club!), I am entirely sure how you can think that re-evaluating all options is in any way not helping the progression of your team?  It is like the 189 fellow who wants to trade OJ for everyone out there - when I replied that I would "consider" one of his/her/its trade recommendations, they lost it as that somehow was wrong answer.   Bizarre to me how many people on this site seem to think hockey moves are black/white.

 

Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble on the whole worship thing.    

I get that your stance is bring them back only if the price is right, I get that. I do not profess to have a "crystal ball" but I do know that there are many options out there, do you refute that? Do not bring up the "points" thing because many have explained this to you including myself, moot point.

Fan club? please......... This whole argument has nothing to do with what eventually happens that is pretty obvious a lot of us are just expressing OUR THOUGHTS on the make up of the team and what its going to look like going forward.

If I am going to "evaluate" whether these guys can help the team then I must take into consideration how they FIT IN to the rest of the team and I must take into consideration their defensive liabilities. Not just that they can produce "points", what a simpleton way to look at the situation, so obviously its not just "black/white".

[Rob_Zepp]

3 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I get that your stance is bring them back only if the price is right, I get that. I do not profess to have a "crystal ball" but I do know that there are many options out there, do you refute that? Do not bring up the "points" thing because many have explained this to you including myself, moot point.

Fan club? please......... This whole argument has nothing to do with what eventually happens that is pretty obvious a lot of us are just expressing OUR THOUGHTS on the make up of the team and what its going to look like going forward.

If I am going to "evaluate" whether these guys can help the team then I must take into consideration how they FIT IN to the rest of the team and I must take into consideration their defensive liabilities. Not just that they can produce "points", what a simpleton way to look at the situation, so obviously its not just "black/white".

Of course I don't refute there are many options out there, including the Sedins, because how can I refute what I have been saying all along.

 

Yes, defensive coverage, points, etc. etc. are all part of the equation.  NOW  you are sounding like a reasonable individual assessing whether there is a fit for them next year.    Odd thing here - that is EXACTLY all I have been saying!   

[EdgarM]

19 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Of course I don't refute there are many options out there, including the Sedins, because how can I refute what I have been saying all along.

 

Yes, defensive coverage, points, etc. etc. are all part of the equation.  NOW  you are sounding like a reasonable individual assessing whether there is a fit for them next year.    Odd thing here - that is EXACTLY all I have been saying!   

OK now we are getting somewhere here Rob. We are not talking about their past accomplishments, we are not talking about what they could possibly bring next year(100 points?), we are talking about assessing whether it makes sense to bring them back next year. Think about ALL of the POSSIBILITIES and you will see what a lot of us have been saying.

Yes they may or may not give us point production  but at what cost? Will that in any way ,shape or form help the rebuild or the future of this franchise? They are a part of a core who attempted to win a cup for 17 + seasons for this city and failed. Do you really think they can minutely help now?

[gameburn]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:44 PM, oldnews said:

My guess/hope would be that Gagner might be gone, Jokinen is just a space-filler/contract to enable the Motte return, the Sedins are looking less and less likely to command two spots, Boucher isn't looking like an NHLer,  and Dowd has been ok, but he'll be in tough to take a spot from a guy like Archibald.  Also wouldn't be surprised if Baertschi were dealt, but for now I'd hope/like to see something like:

 

Leipsic Horvat Boeser

Pettersson Granlund Virtanen

Gaunce Sutter Motte

Baertschi Gaudette Eriksson

Archibald

 

If Gaudette isn't ready, perhaps Gagner holds a place for another year - or Gaunce can move to center and Archie into this spot...

That's a very interesting lineup. You keep Pettersson on the wing and Gaunce too.  Of course with injuries... who knows who will be center on any given night.

 

I like Archibald, as well as Biega, two sides of the same coin. 

 

What your lineup suggests is a team that can be pretty hard to play against.  Virtanen and Gaunce are getting better by the game, which helps with that.  Only helps point out the tricky situation in goal and on defense.   Clearly, if Pettersson and Gaudette (and of course Boeser) are elite players... the weakness will be on the back end.  Only Juolevi (maybe!) and Tanev are world class.  It's a start though, and Stecher has barely tapped his potential.

[Rob_Zepp]

3 hours ago, EdgarM said:

OK now we are getting somewhere here Rob. We are not talking about their past accomplishments, we are not talking about what they could possibly bring next year(100 points?), we are talking about assessing whether it makes sense to bring them back next year. Think about ALL of the POSSIBILITIES and you will see what a lot of us have been saying.

Yes they may or may not give us point production  but at what cost? Will that in any way ,shape or form help the rebuild or the future of this franchise? They are a part of a core who attempted to win a cup for 17 + seasons for this city and failed. Do you really think they can minutely help now?

They can probably bring a combined 100 points and excellence to a powerplay.    That helps the franchise in many different ways - simply ask ANY young player about the value of seeing how any aspect of the game is done well.   I can think to my own early years in sport, learning bits and pieces from as many veterans as possible was very important.   

 

They were not part of any "core for 17 years".   They were also, themselves, young guys who took better part of six seasons to become that for the team.   They didn't "fail", if you consider failure to be not winning the cup then I guess they did but for better part of a decade they were the best team in Canada and for a few years arguably the best in hockey.   One game away from a cup is pretty cool.   Different refs and fewer key injuries and I guess you would see them differently?

 

Anyway, I don't know why you cannot lump the Sedins in with every single other player the Canucks may consider for next year.  As UFAs, they are owned nothing by the Canucks and vice versa.   If Vancouver can find equivalent scoring and PP expertise with better defensive play then I would say, go for it.  I don't personally believe they have as much depth to say that is a no brainer a this stage but you seemingly think that is the case.    

 

However, to think the Sedins cannot minutely assist this or any other team is beyond a strange thing to say.   Any two players in the league who can be core to a top 10 powerplay or put up combined 100ish points can be of value.   Any two.   If the Vancouver Canucks don't have a fit for them next year, they don't.   However, at this stage, I do not believe that is a slam dunk at all.   You seemingly do.

 

I am pleased this has taken 83 posts to say the same thing to you one more time.  I look forward with rapt attention and anticipation for number 84.  

[EdgarM]

35 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

They can probably bring a combined 100 points and excellence to a powerplay.    That helps the franchise in many different ways - simply ask ANY young player about the value of seeing how any aspect of the game is done well.   I can think to my own early years in sport, learning bits and pieces from as many veterans as possible was very important.   

 

They were not part of any "core for 17 years".   They were also, themselves, young guys who took better part of six seasons to become that for the team.   They didn't "fail", if you consider failure to be not winning the cup then I guess they did but for better part of a decade they were the best team in Canada and for a few years arguably the best in hockey.   One game away from a cup is pretty cool.   Different refs and fewer key injuries and I guess you would see them differently?

 

Anyway, I don't know why you cannot lump the Sedins in with every single other player the Canucks may consider for next year.  As UFAs, they are owned nothing by the Canucks and vice versa.   If Vancouver can find equivalent scoring and PP expertise with better defensive play then I would say, go for it.  I don't personally believe they have as much depth to say that is a no brainer a this stage but you seemingly think that is the case.    

 

However, to think the Sedins cannot minutely assist this or any other team is beyond a strange thing to say.   Any two players in the league who can be core to a top 10 powerplay or put up combined 100ish points can be of value.   Any two.   If the Vancouver Canucks don't have a fit for them next year, they don't.   However, at this stage, I do not believe that is a slam dunk at all.   You seemingly do.

 

I am pleased this has taken 83 posts to say the same thing to you one more time.  I look forward with rapt attention and anticipation for number 84.  

I guess we value the Sedins entirely different then and that's OK. What it all boils down to is that it is a business and a business that charges people to entertain them. If they are entertained then they will pay to see the product on the ice. I get excited watching Bo and Brock and Guddy perform. You, I guess, am entertained by whatever the Sedins still do. I watch them and I see them trying to be who they once were but they can't, father time has caught up to them. If that entertains you, then fill your boots, but I would like to remember them when they were at the top of their game and I am so ready for the next chapter of this book. Thanks for chatting with you but I think we have come to an impasse and its time to move on.

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I guess we value the Sedins entirely different then and that's OK. What it all boils down to is that it is a business and a business that charges people to entertain them. If they are entertained then they will pay to see the product on the ice. I get excited watching Bo and Brock and Guddy perform. You, I guess, am entertained by whatever the Sedins still do. I watch them and I see them trying to be who they once were but they can't, father time has caught up to them. If that entertains you, then fill your boots, but I would like to remember them when they were at the top of their game and I am so ready for the next chapter of this book. Thanks for chatting with you but I think we have come to an impasse and its time to move on.

So I cannot enjoy Bo/Brock/Guddy if I also think the Sedins still may be able to play in the NHL?    Where I have I said, anywhere, that I am "entertained" by the Sedins?   Why do you invent things for me to have said?    

 

To make this really easy.  I respect the crap out of them.  I think they are still NHL players.   I think the Canucks should consider re-signing them if the price works and they have roles that suit both them and the team.    

 

Where in any of the above is there a statement about not liking the young players?   Where is anything about being entertained by the Sedins and that being part of the evaluation process?     

 

Why do you keep making stuff up?

[EdgarM]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

So I cannot enjoy Bo/Brock/Guddy if I also think the Sedins still may be able to play in the NHL?    Where I have I said, anywhere, that I am "entertained" by the Sedins?   Why do you invent things for me to have said?    

 

To make this really easy.  I respect the crap out of them.  I think they are still NHL players.   I think the Canucks should consider re-signing them if the price works and they have roles that suit both them and the team.    

 

Where in any of the above is there a statement about not liking the young players?   Where is anything about being entertained by the Sedins and that being part of the evaluation process?     

 

Why do you keep making stuff up?

Oh man I really have to spell it for you. I said I(ME) am entertained by the said players and I(ME) am not entertained by the Twins play. Never said anything about how you felt about those said players. 

By you wanting to resign the Twins I would imagine you are entertained by them otherwise why would you want to see them back?

You obviously believe they have something to give to this team, ON THE ICE, I think they would be better served on the sidelines. 

I also have respect for them and I actually think they can still play in the  NHL, just don't want them on this team. 

If they could skate a little better, could play on the PK on occasion and have  lead us to at least one Stanley Cup, I would be saying the same thing as you,

"Why not resign them for one more year?".

[appleboy]

6 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Aren't you one of those who keeps advocating so loudly for "tanking"?

Are you content with what we have now? If not what's your plan Stan? Do you want to just keep doing minor repairs for ever ? I want to tear the roof off and do a complete reno. Sometimes that's how your money is best spent.

What I am saying is that being content with the same problems year after year is more of a loser attitude then saying I will except some discomfort for the best at the end. I will live with some pain to get a real winner.

 

For those who said that the twins give the club hope. Wow

Hope fore what?

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Oh man I really have to spell it for you. I said I(ME) am entertained by the said players and I(ME) am not entertained by the Twins play. Never said anything about how you felt about those said players. 

By you wanting to resign the Twins I would imagine you are entertained by them otherwise why would you want to see them back?

You obviously believe they have something to give to this team, ON THE ICE, I think they would be better served on the sidelines. 

I also have respect for them and I actually think they can still play in the  NHL, just don't want them on this team. 

If they could skate a little better, could play on the PK on occasion and have  lead us to at least one Stanley Cup, I would be saying the same thing as you,

"Why not resign them for one more year?".

I have never said one they should be "re-signed" let alone for my entertainment.   I have said, and continue to, that they should be considered for the offense they still bring, their PP prowess and perhaps other things the coaches like about them.    All of that would have to come in a balance against cons and the value of whatever contract they sign.   I would assume that is how all UFAs are evaluated.

 

Yes, I believe they have something to give ANY team but perhaps not enough to make the cut - but to assume they don't before the summer's work is done and all picks and other UFAs are evaluated etc seems silly to me.   

 

Once again, as this seems hard, I am saying why not consider them if it makes sense.   If the cost is too high for what they can bring, make a business decision.   However, if you can get 100ish points and a great PP from two players for a reasonable sum AND the other parts of their game are deemed a decent trade off with the good parts by the coaching staff why does it matter what name is on the back of the jersey?

[khay]

On 3/10/2018 at 9:00 PM, oldnews said:

Not sure you can speak for Green tbh.

In what context did Green state that he saw Granlund as more of a bottom 6 forward?  In the past or present that may be, but if you start peeling away a number of veterans....

 

And Granlund is a better defensive forward than Gagner.

 

If you take it by shot differentials:

Granlund 38.2% offensive zone starts, 46.1% corsi

Gagner  46.9% ozone starts, 46.4 corsi

 

On ice goals against per 60

Gagner 3.1

Granlund 2.4 - in harder minutes.

 

Granlund may be a better bottom six forward than Gagner, but imo he's also a better candidate to move up the lineup and play with skiled forwards.  Perhaps you use Gagner in that instance because he'll be playing easier minutes, but my point in general is that Granlund is the better player, and if this team has enhanced depth throughout the lineup, I'd opt to use the better player with Pettersson - I think they'd both benefit from it (and Granlund may enable him to spend less time playing without the puck).

 

Sorry for the late reply; I just got back from a short holiday.

 

It took a bit of effort to dig it out but I was able to find the clip. Have a listen to this clip at around 2:48: https://www.nhl.com/canucks/video/pregame--green-vs-panthers/t-282627458/c-57780003.

 

Around 3:08, TG says, "I don't see Granlund as top 6." Of course, things can change; it's up to Granlund to change TG's mind as he says in the clip.

 

I don't really like making points using corsi and stuff. I agree with you that Granlund appears to be better than Gagner defensively, but I have to question if it really is true. If Gagner was playing with Sutter in a defensive role, would he put up a similar corsi stats/GA number as Granlund? If a player is tasked to just focus on defending, it may actually help your defensive numbers. An analogy would be, if you are told to defend the fort and focus all your resources on defending the fort, you may survive the onslaught by the enemies. But say you are tasked to go out and attack the enemy on the field (go on the offensive) as well as defend the fort, then you might end up losing the battle on the field (i.e., fail to score) but more importantly, give up the fort. What I'm saying is that those favourable defensive stats for Granlund may be due to the fact that Granlund is tasked to defend and defend only; analogous to just having to defend the fort. On the contrary, Gagner has the task to go on the offensive, which may lead to losing the fort (i.e., get scored on).

 

So, I don't know for sure if the corsi stats you presented answer this question of who is better defensively. Having said that, my opinion is the same as yours in that Granlund is a versatile player and can play scoring role as well as defensive role at least as well as Gagner. This has been proven by his 19 goals while playing with the Sedins and his ability to play with Suttter in a defensive role this season. And hence, I agree that Granlund may be more suitable to play with Pettersson. I mean, if Pettersson is supposed to be Daniel + Henrik, then Granlund will surely score 20 goals playing with him.

 

My concern is more regarding the reality of Gagner being signed for 2 more seasons. If Gagner, as you say, is worse than Granlund defensively, but offensively they are similar, then isn't it beneficial for the team to use Gagner in an offensive role and Granlund in a defensive role? Especially in light of TG's comment of Granlund as bottom 6 player?