Tanner Pearson | #70 | LW

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Less and less question marks every year. 

that's a really good point.  JB is clearly building us a winning team.  

Pearson would be great in a third line role, but he's showing he can second line minutes (maybe best in shorter periods of time?) too, which is great.  

[Borvat]

30 minutes ago, Alflives said:

that's a really good point.  JB is clearly building us a winning team.  

Pearson would be great in a third line role, but he's showing he can second line minutes (maybe best in shorter periods of time?) too, which is great.  

True but then they need 3 legit top six wingers.  This would be a deep line up and ideal IMHO.

 

? - Pete - Boesser

? - Horvat - ?

Pearson - Gaudette - Leivo

Roussel - Beagle - Virtanen

 

EDIT:  I guess this is why we likely see Baertschi back next year and back on Bo's wing.  Could work if he stays healthy and they add a legit top six LW and RW. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Borvat

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Borvat said:

True but then they need 3 legit top six wingers.  This would be a deep line up and ideal IMHO.

 

? - Pete - Boesser

? - Horvat - ?

Pearson - Gaudette - Leivo

Roussel - Beagle - Virtanen

To be a good team, that can compete year after year as a true contender, that's exactly what we need.  Add to that our need on D for another legitimate puck carrying D man, and we have four spots to seriously upgrade. 

[Borvat]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

To be a good team, that can compete year after year as a true contender, that's exactly what we need.  Add to that our need on D for another legitimate puck carrying D man, and we have four spots to seriously upgrade. 

The defense is a tough one.  I am torn on Hutton but I do think Tanev needs to be moved solely because he isn't durable enough and a bit one dimensional.  I guess Edler will be back and I do really like Stecher's game.  Stecher's underlying stats are pretty good.  Problem is again this team really doesn't have a "legit" top pairing. Not sure what you get for Tanev +.  

 

Next year:

Edler - ? 

Hutton  -  Stecher

Hughes - ?

 

In the wings - Woo, Juolevi, Rathbone and the rest.   

 

Not really eye popping.   I can see why Benning states they need 3 - 4 D.  I think he likes Hughes, Stecher and Edler but after that........

 

 

[aGENT]

25 minutes ago, Borvat said:

The defense is a tough one.  I am torn on Hutton but I do think Tanev needs to be moved solely because he isn't durable enough and a bit one dimensional.  I guess Edler will be back and I do really like Stecher's game.  Stecher's underlying stats are pretty good.  Problem is again this team really doesn't have a "legit" top pairing. Not sure what you get for Tanev +.  

 

Next year:

Edler - ? 

Hutton  -  Stecher

Hughes - ?

 

In the wings - Woo, Juolevi, Rathbone and the rest.   

 

Not really eye popping.   I can see why Benning states they need 3 - 4 D.  I think he likes Hughes, Stecher and Edler but after that........

 

 

And we might not ever. At least one with a legit 1D. And we are still rebuilding, so it's not surprising we're not there yet.

 

But if not, I'd happily accept a D similar to what we had last generation with a core full of #2 and #3 D's that we managed to win multiple President's cups with and go to game 7 of the final. That's quite do-able with where we look to be heading IMO.

 

Otherwise, the only way we're getting a #1, is to have a guy we draft, develop in to one (or maybe perhaps a Seth Jones type trade should we accumulate the required assets).

Edited April 12, 2019 by aGENT

[PhillipBlunt]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And we might not ever. At least one with a legit 1D. And we are still rebuilding, so it's not surprising we're not there yet.

 

But if not, I'd happily accept a D similar to what we had last generation with a core full of #2 and #3 D's that we managed to win multiple President's cups with and go to game 7 of the final. That's quite do-able with where we look to be heading IMO.

 

Otherwise, the only way we're getting a #1, is to have a guy we draft, develop in to one (or maybe perhaps a Seth Jones type trade should we accumulate the required assets).

That's a tad melodramatic, aGENT. Come 2096, the Canucks will most likely have a passable top defense pairing.

[smithers joe]

edler...hughes

hutton...stecher

juolevi...tanev

[PhillipBlunt]

21 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

edler...hughes

hutton...stecher

juolevi...tanev

I certainly hope this isn't the defense come October.

[WeneedLumme]

16 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

edler...hughes

hutton...stecher

juolevi...tanev

Works for me. That's a pretty solid looking D corps. And the best thing about it is, we could easily see that lineup the very next time we see the Canucks play, since it doesn't require us to outbid 30 other teams to overpay for some aging free agent.

[73 Percent]

Hughes doesn't play the right side as far as I'm aware.

[-AJ-]

4 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Hughes doesn't play the right side as far as I'm aware.

He doesn't regularly now, but I recall him saying he's quite comfortable on both sides. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

He doesn't regularly now, but I recall him saying he's quite comfortable on both sides. 

for some reason that sounds dirty. 

[-AJ-]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

for some reason that sounds dirty. 

That or you just have a dirty mind

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Hughes doesn't play the right side as far as I'm aware.

Can and does. As well as Tryamkin and Brisebois IIRC.

[WeneedLumme]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Can and does. As well as Tryamkin and Brisebois IIRC.

Yup. In fact, I don't even remember seeing Tram play LD.

[Borvat]

50 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And we might not ever. At least one with a legit 1D. And we are still rebuilding, so it's not surprising we're not there yet.

 

But if not, I'd happily accept a D similar to what we had last generation with a core full of #2 and #3 D's that we managed to win multiple President's cups with and go to game 7 of the final. That's quite do-able with where we look to be heading IMO.

 

Otherwise, the only way we're getting a #1, is to have a guy we draft, develop in to one (or maybe perhaps a Seth Jones type trade should we accumulate the required assets).

Don't disagree just pointing out the facts.  But the majority of Cup winning teams have a legit #1 or #1 and #2.  3 runner ups (1982 / 1994 /2011) isn't quite getting the job finished.

[PhillipBlunt]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

for some reason that sounds dirty. 

[Father Ryan]

3 hours ago, Borvat said:

The defense is a tough one.  I am torn on Hutton but I do think Tanev needs to be moved solely because he isn't durable enough and a bit one dimensional.  I guess Edler will be back and I do really like Stecher's game.  Stecher's underlying stats are pretty good.  Problem is again this team really doesn't have a "legit" top pairing. Not sure what you get for Tanev +.  

 

Next year:

Edler - ? 

Hutton  -  Stecher

Hughes - ?

 

In the wings - Woo, Juolevi, Rathbone and the rest.   

 

Not really eye popping.   I can see why Benning states they need 3 - 4 D.  I think he likes Hughes, Stecher and Edler but after that........

 

 

I'd think that Tanev would fetch a low 2nd, at best; more likely a 3rd + a 'B' level prospect that we can bury in Utica. As thin as we are, they need some help also when we started pulling players up here for injuries. That's the main reason they won't make the playoffs...playing an ECHL defense against AHL teams (because their AHL D is here!).

Biggest need we have, right now, is an RHD. Hutton-Stetch proved to be a good pairing; Hughes-Schenn looked pretty good also. That leaves Edler with...? If we don't get to fill that spot in free agency or trade, then Brogan Rafferty looks to be next up. You don't want to overplay Biega, and Chatfield needs another 1-2 years before ready. Woo, I just can't see here next year; Rathbone needs a couple of years, likely. Even if we get Soderstrom (finally spelled it right!), I doubt he is ready for the NHL next year.

[Borvat]

1 hour ago, Father Ryan said:

I'd think that Tanev would fetch a low 2nd, at best; more likely a 3rd + a 'B' level prospect that we can bury in Utica. As thin as we are, they need some help also when we started pulling players up here for injuries. That's the main reason they won't make the playoffs...playing an ECHL defense against AHL teams (because their AHL D is here!).

Biggest need we have, right now, is an RHD. Hutton-Stetch proved to be a good pairing; Hughes-Schenn looked pretty good also. That leaves Edler with...? If we don't get to fill that spot in free agency or trade, then Brogan Rafferty looks to be next up. You don't want to overplay Biega, and Chatfield needs another 1-2 years before ready. Woo, I just can't see here next year; Rathbone needs a couple of years, likely. Even if we get Soderstrom (finally spelled it right!), I doubt he is ready for the NHL next year.

Rafferty may be a player and so could Teves.  He and Teves will likely both need to spend some time in Utica (they are both waiver exempt) before either will possibly be ready.  Never know I guess.  A legit top pairing RHD is a necessity and I'm not confident it should be Tanev going forward.  

[Kootenay Gold]

2 hours ago, Borvat said:

Rafferty may be a player and so could Teves.  He and Teves will likely both need to spend some time in Utica (they are both waiver exempt) before either will possibly be ready.  Never know I guess.  A legit top pairing RHD is a necessity and I'm not confident it should be Tanev going forward.  

I could see Rafferty possibly making the team out of training camp and getting 3rd pairing minutes.

 

Edler - Stetcher

Hughes - Tanev

Hutton - Rafferty ? Biega ? Schenn ? Sautner ?

 

 

With all of the injuries that the Canucks incur over the season; I am not a fan of moving Hutton until Juolevi is rehabbed, up to speed, and ready to go.