Battles at camp

[Schmautzie]

3 hours ago, Father Ryan said:

I like this as a skeleton to start with. That gives you the following forwards: Leipsig, Virtanen, Granlund, Gagner, Archibald, Eriksson, Gaunce, Gaudette, Dahlen and Goldobin to compete for the 5 spots (I'm presuming we run with 13 forwards and 8 D). The easiest decision is Virt and Eriksson; they stay here. Gaudette, Gaunce and Dahlen are all sent down; I like Gaudette, but the free agent signings will make it just a little too difficult to make the team...this year. Dahlen, I think, needs one year to adjust to the NHL...but only one. Gaunce, I just don't see as a true NHL player, especially now that our depth is finally getting a little skill to go with the numbers.

 

Now we're down to Leipsig, Gagner, Archibald, Goldobin and Granlund. Archie is on a 2 way, and would be the easiest loss to absorb. He goes down. Granlund is too good as a Swiss Army knife, he stays. It may not be a popular decision, but... send Gagner to the minors. If he's claimed, then we are not losing a lot. If he clears, then Utica has a really good vet. Leipsig and Goldobin stay with the team.

 

The wingers for the top six: Eriksson, Goldobin and Leipsig. The bottom six: Virtanen and Granlund. Use Eriksson to slide up/down the line-up, along with Granlund. The spare forward that looks on from the press box is whomever is slumping, needs a maintenance game or has just enough of a minor injury to keep him out of the line-up for a game or two.

First call ups - Gaudette, Archie, Dahlen

 

Then - TDL. Provided all of these guys are still here (or in Utica), I would hope to move Gaunce, Gagner and one of Leipsig or Goldobin. I would dearly love to move Eriksson, but I think that's one more year away, so that we aren't on the hook for his salary for too many years. After all, when is Luongo going to retire and screw our cap situation all to hell?

 

Call me an optimist but I think Eriksson is going to have a bounce-back year. I think that he may mesh with Pettersson and be a mentor for him as well.

[kingofsurrey]

1 hour ago, Schmautzie said:

Call me an optimist but I think Eriksson is going to have a bounce-back year. I think that he may mesh with Pettersson and be a mentor for him as well.

Hoping you are correct.... but really dreaming Canucks can find another Bobby Schmautz  or Darcy Rota type player for our club. 

[Nucker 67]

I wonder if there will really be much in the way of battles at camp. I think these guys will be on the team this coming year (placement in depth chart to be determined):

 

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser

Eriksson - Sutter - Gagner

Roussel - Beagle - Granlund

_______ - Schaller - Virtanen

Leipsic

 

That leaves Pettersson, Dahlen, and Gaudette to "battle" for the last spot. My guess its Pettersson. 

 

My other guess is Goldobin gets traded. If they send him to Utica he would need to clear waivers, and I don't see him clearing. He's too good (a young player). Might as well get something for him if there's no room for him on the Canucks. Better than losing him for nothing.

[combover]

Unless some trades are made I think there’s only two forward spots to “ battle” for.  Goldobin gaunce Pettersson Leipsic motte Gaudette who requires waivers and who doesn’t is the only battle.

 

Gagme eriksdone boeser Horvat bearcheese sutter shaller virtanen beagle grandlund Roussel .....

edler tanev mdz pooalot stecher hutton biega gud  

Markstrom and Nielsen. 

 

So again unless there’s a trade we have

11 forwards locked in

8 d 

2 goalies 

 

21 of 23 spots. Unless you believe the “we will make room” BS.

 

[kingofsurrey]

10 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

I wonder if there will really be much in the way of battles at camp. I think these guys will be on the team this coming year (placement in depth chart to be determined):

 

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser

Eriksson - Sutter - Gagner

Roussel - Beagle - Granlund

_______ - Schaller - Virtanen

Leipsic

 

That leaves Pettersson, Dahlen, and Gaudette to "battle" for the last spot. My guess its Pettersson. 

 

My other guess is Goldobin gets traded. If they send him to Utica he would need to clear waivers, and I don't see him clearing. He's too good (a young player). Might as well get something for him if there's no room for him on the Canucks. Better than losing him for nothing.

Someone will get injured in camp and free up one spot.

[vannuck59]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 12:43 PM, combover said:

Unless some trades are made I think there’s only two forward spots to “ battle” for.  Goldobin gaunce Pettersson Leipsic motte Gaudette who requires waivers and who doesn’t is the only battle.

 

Gagme eriksdone boeser Horvat bearcheese sutter shaller virtanen beagle grandlund Roussel .....

edler tanev mdz pooalot stecher hutton biega gud  

Markstrom and Nielsen. 

 

So again unless there’s a trade we have

11 forwards locked in

8 d 

2 goalies 

 

21 of 23 spots. Unless you believe the “we will make room” BS.

 

Really , after camp and pre season IR is going at least 2 to 3 guys . Ganger is going to  see the press box and Eriksson, they will have to put out or they will buried

Management will see that the best top 6 will be iced. This is a break or make year for these two vets. Last year our best line was Horvat's line so this year will be no different . we don't need a third or forth liner making 6 mill a year . If he is out played by the  kids put him on IR . Long term emotional problems cant hack it

[Rob_Zepp]

On 7/18/2018 at 12:43 PM, combover said:

Unless some trades are made I think there’s only two forward spots to “ battle” for.  Goldobin gaunce Pettersson Leipsic motte Gaudette who requires waivers and who doesn’t is the only battle.

 

Gagme eriksdone boeser Horvat bearcheese sutter shaller virtanen beagle grandlund Roussel .....

edler tanev mdz pooalot stecher hutton biega gud  

Markstrom and Nielsen. 

 

So again unless there’s a trade we have

11 forwards locked in

8 d 

2 goalies 

 

21 of 23 spots. Unless you believe the “we will make room” BS.

 

Ya, I believe the "we will make room" BS.   

[RonMexico]

44 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Ya, I believe the "we will make room" BS.   

The problem with announcing they will do this is that myopians everywhere take it as gospel and look for every reason for a younger player to make it over a veteran player.

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, RonMexico said:

The problem with announcing they will do this is that myopians everywhere take it as gospel and look for every reason for a younger player to make it over a veteran player.

However, good fans and knowledgeable hockey people will take it as sincere statement that they will stand by - so I guess they care more about those people than the myopians.   

[Baggins]

14 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

However, good fans and knowledgeable hockey people will take it as sincere statement that they will stand by - so I guess they care more about those people than the myopians.   

The problem Rob is many fans don't actually judge it objectively. Their desire to have the rookie on the team often blinds them to reality and common sense will go out the window.

 

There's more to the decision than just a better preseason. It is after all preseason when most teams are also having a look at prospects. A rookie needs to be more than a little better than a veteran to make a GM move the veteran and put all his faith in the rookie. A GM also has to keep depth for call ups in mind as well as waivers. Imo a rookie doesn't need to be better to force a move, he needs to be head and shoulders better. Sometimes making room for a rookie comes after the regular season begins. Sometimes it's a numbers game to protect depth.

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, Baggins said:

The problem Rob is many fans don't actually judge it objectively. Their desire to have the rookie on the team often blinds them to reality and common sense will go out the window.

 

There's more to the decision than just a better preseason. It is after all preseason when most teams are also having a look at prospects. A rookie needs to be more than a little better than a veteran to make a GM move the veteran and put all his faith in the rookie. A GM also has to keep depth for call ups in mind as well as waivers. Imo a rookie doesn't need to be better to force a move, he needs to be head and shoulders better. Sometimes making room for a rookie comes after the regular season begins. Sometimes it's a numbers game to protect depth.

I can't wait to see a certain section of CDC/media go in to  mode when/if Pettersson gets papered down for the initial roster 

[Mo Grit]

Quote

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser

Eriksson - Sutter - Gagner

Roussel - Beagle - Granlund

_______ - Schaller - Virtanen

Leipsic

Nucker has his starting line-up just about right, I'm thinking.  No rookies in there, yet.  Favorite to lose their spots to performing rookies are Granlund and Baertschi.  Erikson and Gagner will be protected by their salaries until trade partners can be found.  Virtanen, Leipsic and Horvat all get to play bigger if our UFA's prove worthy of Benning's judgment, and enforce some much-needed accountability both on-ice and off. I am though, very surprised to see no love for Motte from other posters.  His speed and energy ethic looks a great fit with the new signings, and Green's playbook.  What's the knock on him guys?

 

The embarrassing team turtle against the Flames last play-offs has to be the lowest point in Canuck history, and there's been lots.  Signing these type of character UFA's is exciting because we can't know at this time what chemistry they might spark in others.  Very smart man-management hockey moves from Mr Benning.  He finally has a couple of lieutenants in the locker room, to nail up any hiding places and discover for once which guys are here to bleed hockey, and which ones simply turn up to suck on their million dollar paycheck.  As gifted as Hank was, he never appeared to me anyways, as having much talent for inspiring others - no  fear factor perhaps for want of a better analogy.  I hope we don't burden any of our more skilled players with the captaincy.  Green will do the right thing here, absolutely confident in him.

 

Our D is a real weakness.  I'd try for a couple of crease clearers at this time, if only to give our growing prospects some protection.  Don't care much if their skating is poor as long as they can reach the bench after a physical shift.  If they can be found, then risking our two diamond D rookies becomes less of a gamble.  Demko gets the start, its folly to further delay his career just by hanging on to our present D corps.  Waive the two big Swedes and scout for a solid veteran back-up, perhaps with Demko's input.  Those 3 would be the only rookies on an opening roster, I'm not sure Jim should or would risk icing any more than that many rookies per game, unless they're bursting out of Utica.  Fantastic year coming for our fanatical Comet fans, almost wanna move there already!

 

Last topic looking for your opinions.  Every NHL team owns prospects, many of whom if we're to be blatantly honest, were higher picks than ours and naturally also project higher.  So, can we develop ours better than they can theirs?  Do we have the right coaches down the farm?  We can be optimistic, but that seems now to be where Trevor's focus needs to be.  Before the first puck-drop last year, would any Canuck fan given the choice, have swapped Vegas' roster for ours?  Not one I'd guess, certainly none of our owners or management.   And now no longer as desperate as in recent times, surely both our Canucks brass and fans can afford the coaches a little patience.  Have we not learned from the Vegas experience that mixing for a little decent chemistry could vault this present group into play-off contention?  Passionate hockey looks to be coming our way again, and if that allow our prospects cook with a little confidence away from the heat, then Jim's UFA signings will be stamped as genius GM'ing.

 

Suddenly, its a great time to be a Canuck fan, as many here have already posted, and really well written.

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

The problem Rob is many fans don't actually judge it objectively. Their desire to have the rookie on the team often blinds them to reality and common sense will go out the window.

 

There's more to the decision than just a better preseason. It is after all preseason when most teams are also having a look at prospects. A rookie needs to be more than a little better than a veteran to make a GM move the veteran and put all his faith in the rookie. A GM also has to keep depth for call ups in mind as well as waivers. Imo a rookie doesn't need to be better to force a move, he needs to be head and shoulders better. Sometimes making room for a rookie comes after the regular season begins. Sometimes it's a numbers game to protect depth.

All very true but this notion from some that any team would play poor veterans (irrespective of their deal) over other options who were better is being willfully ignorant.   Management and coaches are not put in place to fail and lose, they are put in place to build and win.   Sure they make mistakes - EVERY team does - but no team's management or coaching staff will make moves they feel will make their team worse.   NO ONE does that on purpose.   This implication from some that certain veterans have a lock on a position and just have to show up to claim it is absurd.   

[Gaudette Celly]

Quote

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser

Eriksson - Sutter - Gagner

Roussel - Beagle - Granlund

_______ - Schaller - Virtanen

Leipsic

I just don't see any way Gagner makes the opening roster short of player moves or injuries.  He would need to beat out Goldobin, Leipsic, and Gaudette and I don't see him being better than all three.

[Schmautzie]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

I just don't see any way Gagner makes the opening roster short of player moves or injuries.  He would need to beat out Goldobin, Leipsic, and Gaudette and I don't see him being better than all three.

.....and Pettersson makes four.

[kingofsurrey]

10 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

All very true but this notion from some that any team would play poor veterans (irrespective of their deal) over other options who were better is being willfully ignorant.   Management and coaches are not put in place to fail and lose, they are put in place to build and win.   Sure they make mistakes - EVERY team does - but no team's management or coaching staff will make moves they feel will make their team worse.   NO ONE does that on purpose.   This implication from some that certain veterans have a lock on a position and just have to show up to claim it is absurd.   

I don;t think its a veteran getting a lock on a position.

 

I just think vets some times get more opportunities to shine..... as well as if they make a mistake they are not penalized by getting restrict opportunities..

Basically vets have earned the right to a better look..... 

 

I think management operates like this as  this keeps all the other vets happy as well.   Gotta keep the room...   Pretty sure most teams function like this.

 

If  a  rookie wants to earn a spot... they need to very much out perform the vet.  Thats why younger players really need to focus on consistency and training habits.. approach to the game etc...  They need to earn the respect of the older players as well...

 

I sure wish i could have had the skills to pursue hockey an elite level......

[Rob_Zepp]

9 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I don;t think its a veteran getting a lock on a position.

 

I just think vets some times get more opportunities to shine..... as well as if they make a mistake they are not penalized by getting restrict opportunities..

Basically vets have earned the right to a better look..... 

 

I think management operates like this as  this keeps all the other vets happy as well.   Gotta keep the room...   Pretty sure most teams function like this.

 

If  a  rookie wants to earn a spot... they need to very much out perform the vet.  Thats why younger players really need to focus on consistency and training habits.. approach to the game etc...  They need to earn the respect of the older players as well...

 

I sure wish i could have had the skills to pursue hockey an elite level......

Great post and accurate.

 

Seen soooo many with the skills, very few with the head or the heart......

 

 

[kingofsurrey]

10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Great post and accurate.

 

Seen soooo many with the skills, very few with the head or the heart......

 

 

I was at an event when Linden was the speaker.  Trev mentionned that growing up he was never the best player on any of the teams....

Yet he was only one to make the show.

 

To me he meant.....

It really usually comes down to character, committment , approach and dedication doesnt it.... Skill is not enough without the other things...

[Rob_Zepp]

3 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I was at an event when Linden was the speaker.  Trev mentionned that growing up he was never the best player on any of the teams....

Yet he was only one to make the show.

 

To me he meant.....

It really usually comes down to character, committment , approach and dedication doesnt it.... Skill is not enough without the other things...

None of the most skilled guys I grew up with made it to the "show" let alone professional hockey (well, a couple to the A but that was it).   Trevor is right, it was the guys who never too a shift off, never missed a practice, never cheated on a drill and never took a short cut to a puck - those are the guys who made it.

[Westcoasting]

On 7/17/2018 at 10:28 PM, kingofsurrey said:

Hoping you are correct.... but really dreaming Canucks can find another Bobby Schmautz  or Darcy Rota type player for our club. 

Schmautz was a real beauty! And tough too. and a crazy slap shot that seemed to fly everywhere lol. Very first game i was at he nailed a fan a couple rows below us. Then i realized what my uncle meant when he told me to always be watching the puck. We were up high too  good times.