[PGT] New York Rangers at Vancouver Canucks | Mar. 13, 2019

[canuck73_3]

4 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Hard pass.

 

Troy Brouwer, part 2.

Brouwer was 30 and 3 years removed from a 20+ goal season. 

 

Ferland is 26 and will hit that mark for the 2nd year in a row this season. 

 

Not a comparable wadr

[gameburn]

2 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I would easily take LE over Lucic, Neal, Perry, Spezza, Backes and especially Moulson. Moulson was so bad that not only did Buffalo waive him they refused to even let him play for their AHL team and loaned him to another AHL team. 

Spezza and Backes?  Have they really fallen that far? 

Yes, Moulson sounds worse, agreed.  Had forgot about him entirely.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, gameburn said:

I wish you were the owner making that argument to Benning (or the other way around, for that matter.)   'Cause you are right: drafting and development is the key for this team.  Any GM who can get Hughes and EP as late in the draft as he did is outstanding.  Trades, contracts, signing UFAs... it looks like it's a totally different set of skills for a GM.   Not an easy job.

I think that's probably the general consensus position among the Canucks management and coaching staff.

 

I really agreed with their approach last summer - loved the Beagle, Roussel, Schaller signings (Schaller may not be turning out, but that doesn't matter much).

 

I think they should stay the course and continue with the transition - metered - as it has been imo for the most part all along. 

 

I don't think my position is very distinct from what they've been doing - I'm just not necessarily on board with the idea that this coming July 1st will be the time to depart from it.

[D-Money]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

Brouwer was 30 and 3 years removed from a 20+ goal season. 

 

Ferland is 26 and will hit that mark for the 2nd year in a row this season. 

 

Not a comparable wadr

Ferland is going to cost more, and demand longer term. His contract will extend into his 30's for sure.

 

Maybe he'll be more productive in the short term. But he's also been more injury-prone. A definite thumbs-down for me.

[canuck73_3]

Just now, gameburn said:

Spezza and Backes?  Have they really fallen that far? 

Yes, Moulson sounds worse, agreed.  Had forgot about him entirely.

Backes is too slow Spezza produces the same isn't as solid defensively, only reason I'd take Spezza is his deal expires this year. 

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

I believe you're referring to Patrik Berglund. He didn't retire as far as I know, but he mutually agreed to terminate his contract. I think it went beyond hockey reasons as to why he did that as he seemed to have lost passion in the game after the way his situation was handled when traded.

We have another Swede that forfeited money when he thought, for whatever reason, he didn't have the desire or health etc to honestly take the money. Markus Naslund with the Rangers.  Heck, Sundin forfeited almost $10 million he could have cashed if he'd have accepted the 2 year deal here.

 

I think if nothing else works,  management must take a more hard line approach.  The only hard line they can use is tell him, after his NMC expires this summer, is to threaten to move him to Utica for as long as his contract runs. (Although I'm not sure how good his influence would be to our young prospects). He will have taken $27 million from Aquilini's pockets by this Summer, I suspect he'd walk away from the remaining 3 years here if presented with that alternative. 

 

And please no tears for Louie.  No it was not his fault, that a rookie management caved to an owner's fantasies of going back to the final when clearly it was past time for a strip down, by offered him that deal, but he has been well paid for coasting through 3 seasons.  Hand cuffing the team from using that cap space for a more productive addition. I don't know why he'd even want to play anymore in front of Vancouver fans or his team mates for another 3 seasons. That is the only thing I do feel sorry for him about. It must be hell to get up for home games.

.

.

.

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Ferland is going to cost more, and demand longer term. His contract will extend into his 30's for sure.

 

Maybe he'll be more productive in the short term. But he's also been more injury-prone. A definite thumbs-down for me.

He's played 71, 76, 77, and if he plays the rest of this year 71 this year. He's not that injury prone either especially with the role he plays 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, gameburn said:

Spezza and Backes?  Have they really fallen that far? 

Yes, Moulson sounds worse, agreed.  Had forgot about him entirely.

I don't know if I'd consider Backes to be as bad a signing as his peers.

 

For the reason that he can handle hard minutes - is a nasty s.o.b. to play against, still has that huge, punishing frame....

He has 'only' 16 pts in 58 games this year - but is a 57% faceoff guy - two hits a game....deepens their bottom six, makes them harder to play against - and could be a real, prototypical playoff asset if he's healthy.

So - he's an expensive, 'overpaid' bottom 6 at this point, but at least he has utility/effectiveness - unlike guys like James Neal, who are relatively one-dimensional and when they're not producing, they're a near full-stop loss.

I think this is in part what redeems LE as well - he's serviceable and still provides very good defensive presence - but no one can argue that these attributes make them worth 6 million in  the present.

 

On the other hand, I'd say they are clearly worth 3ish million - and I have no problem with signings like Dorsett, Beagle, Roussel as a result - I think these kinds of player deserve more than they've traditionally got.

[stawns]

45 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

The NHL is getting younger and faster, 6 year deals for 28 year old UFA's doesn't seem to be working. 

The NHL has always had young stars who come in and change the game, it's not a new phenomenon.  In fact, I'd say this is a time when youth are having less of an effect on the game, as a whole.

 

If there's more young players in the league, it's because they're cheaper, not better, than veterans.  

 

 

[gameburn]

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think that's probably the general consensus position among the Canucks management and coaching staff.

 

I really agreed with their approach last summer - loved the Beagle, Roussel, Schaller signings (Schaller may not be turning out, but that doesn't matter much).

 

I think they should stay the course and continue with the transition - metered - as it has been imo for the most part all along. 

 

I don't think my position is very distinct from what they've been doing - I'm just not necessarily on board with the idea that this coming July 1st will be the time to depart from it.

What I like about what you are saying is that the recent uptick in the team's credibility is not enough to give up on the draft and development approach.  Because if mgt really thought this team was only a player or two away from a playoff run... then they would have traded youth and picks for those players at the recent TDL.  They didn't which is good, but there were rumors that the team might consider buying rather than selling.  

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

The NHL has always had young stars who come in and change the game, it's not a new phenomenon.  In fact, I'd say this is a time when youth are having less of an effect on the game, as a whole.

 

If there's more young players in the league, it's because they're cheaper, not better, than veterans.  

 

 

Yeah - vetrans may be commanding contracts that they don't live up to, but at the same time, some are being forced out of the game somewhat prematurely.

Their longer terms / having earned better deals through longer term performance in part makes them less attractive options - as does things like the 35+ rule, that makes 35 yr olds a greater risk than younger players, and tends to work against them in the market - as do some of the other conditions in the present.  There also seems to be a somewhat greater volume of young players that could reasonably be considered NHL ready/potential, so that has to factor in as well as that is precisely the type of depth teams can move up and down into their lineup and back to the AHL without losing them.  There are clear advantages to having NHL ready youth - but that doesn't necessarily make them better players at the NHL level in the shorter term.

[Baer.]

27 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

No it wasn’t a clean hit. It was an accidently on purpose and I believe a guy in the nhl would play better than to flail his elbow like that accidently.

 

its the same as when some is reaching for the puck and you lower your shoulder last second into their chin but look the other way. And you can justify it by going “ oh sorry bout that, I didn’t see you there.

Agree to disagree

[D-Money]

7 minutes ago, stawns said:

The NHL has always had young stars who come in and change the game, it's not a new phenomenon.  In fact, I'd say this is a time when youth are having less of an effect on the game, as a whole.

 

If there's more young players in the league, it's because they're cheaper, not better, than veterans.  

 

You obviously aren't paying attention. 7 of the top-10 scorers in the league are 25 years old or younger. Only 1 (Crosby) is over the age of 30.

[DrJockitch]

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'd add to the idea that the young core needs to emerge before/instead of gambling big in free agency....

 

That the supporting cast, depth, foundation - whatever you want to call it - also must be contender quality.

 

Imo players like Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Leivo, etc have to also be contending quality - and can do as much to improve a team as any high end signing - while not representing anywhere near the term or risk of big signings.  Arguably a team's depth is the most affordable, less risky way of significantly improving a team - and I think that's been one of th strengths of this managment group - although it largely gets obscured when the team isn't healthy - is deeply unhealthy - as has been the case at times, not just in recent years but almost as a signature of the franchise.   Given that reality I think I'd continue to try to build deep clubs with a steady stream (not a teardown bottleneck, but a consistent source) of youth that have been drafted and developed, hopefully emerging with some continuity.  I think that is every bit as much a 'key' as landing a particular lottery pick or marquis free agent.

Sometimes I think I just like to be contrary with @oldnews.

I do agree that with the players you listed and Guddy etc we would have been better if healthy but we wouldn't have been good the last few years.  At the best that these players have demonstrated we still are not that good of a team.  This year with EP emerging and Marky improving dramatically we may have been a playoff team if healthy but I still don't think so.  Who ever stays healthy anyway.  All teams deal with injuries.

Even at its best this team would be first round fodder.  Has a long way to go.

I agree with what you said about not signing EK, he hasn't been sturdy is getting older and the scar tissue is starting to build up and as you noted plays same position of our best prospect.

I wouldn't agree with going after much in the mid range market.  I just think when you get these guys in their early thirties looking for a retirement contract in a city they really have no connection with is a recipe for Louie Erikksen.  We can survive one of those but not two or three.  I guess this more of a lack of faith on my part on Benning's pro scouting and contract negotiations.

I also look at a lot of the UFAs this year and see red flags.  Ferland's concussion problems are building up though he feels like the perfect player for us, he may not be able to maintain his style much longer.

Don't know what the solution is other than equipping JB with more pics and waiting because his history in trades and signings is really mixed.

[Canuck Surfer]

3 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

EP is 6'2" but thin, he will grow into his body and add 25 lbs yet, Brock is 6'1" and Horvat under league average at 6'.

The Canucks will have 4 players 5'10" and under, 4 - 5'11" and under, 3 - 6' and under, 5 - 6'1" and under, all those are under the league average of 6'1 3/4".

16 players under the league average "size". That is more than any other team except Tampa.

 

Boeser is playing well over 200 lns, Virtanen 215ish, Horvat over 220lbs...

 

No. not fighters, but should hold up to play off physicality.

 

EP? Who knows, but hop he gains some weight...

[gameburn]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Yeah - vetrans may be commanding contracts that they don't live up to, but at the same time, some are being forced out of the game somewhat prematurely.

Their longer terms / having earned better deals through longer term performance in part makes them less attractive options - as does things like the 35+ rule, that makes 35 yr olds a greater risk than younger players, and tends to work against them in the market - as do some of the other conditions in the present.  There also seems to be a somewhat greater volume of young players that could reasonably be considered NHL ready/potential, so that has to factor in as well as that is precisely the type of depth teams can move up and down into their lineup and back to the AHL without losing them.  There are clear advantages to having NHL ready youth - but that doesn't necessarily make them better players at the NHL level in the shorter term.

If teams were constructed with no regard for money/cap, I suspect that they would be older.  And the differences in performance between teams would be greater.  I have mixed feelings on this: no one wants a league like major league baseball where money rules, on the other hand what we have now is becoming increasingly bizarre. 

[canuck73_3]

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

The NHL has always had young stars who come in and change the game, it's not a new phenomenon.  In fact, I'd say this is a time when youth are having less of an effect on the game, as a whole.

 

If there's more young players in the league, it's because they're cheaper, not better, than veterans.  

 

 

Biggest difference now to 20 years ago is instead of the Messier, Leetch, Holik, Federov type players getting the monster deals it's the McDavid, Matthews, Marner, Kucherov types getting the majority of them. And with more Neal, Lucic, Eriksson performances its becoming harder for 30+ Age players to get those deals now. 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, gameburn said:

What I like about what you are saying is that the recent uptick in the team's credibility is not enough to give up on the draft and development approach.  Because if mgt really thought this team was only a player or two away from a playoff run... then they would have traded youth and picks for those players at the recent TDL.  They didn't which is good, but there were rumors that the team might consider buying rather than selling.  

I don't think this team is anywhere near ready to 'give up' on the draft and develop approach - and don't think they will even after they become consistently more competitive.

 

I don't buy any rumour that suggests they were considering departing from that at the deadline - I see only evidence to the opposite effect and think it was relatively predictable.

 

The thing is - if you continue with a metered draft and develop approach, there's no reason to abandon it once you're rethinged your team.   That is precisely what enables teams like Detroit (in the past, when they made 20ish straight playoff appaerances) - or Boston, who many would have thought should 'rebuild' after their Cups - to remain competitive regardless.  They are good examples that steady retools can work - even if you don't those high picks in the interim....On the other hand, of course there are counterpoints/examples, - but for me, I don't think/see the team departing from their underlying process - at least I hope they don't get wooed by new-age 'team-builders'.

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

I don't think this team is anywhere near ready to 'give up' on the draft and develop approach - and don't think they will even after they become consistently more competitive.

 

I don't buy any rumour that suggests they were considering departing from that at the deadline - I see only evidence to the opposite effect and think it was relatively predictable.

 

The thing is - if you continue with a metered draft and develop approach, there's no reason to abandon it once you're rethinged your team.   That is precisely what enables teams like Detroit (in the past, when they made 20ish straight playoff appaerances) - or Boston, who many would have thought should 'rebuild' after their Cups - to remain competitive regardless.  They are good examples that steady retools can work - even if you don't those high picks in the interim....On the other hand, of course there are counterpoints/examples, - but for me, I don't think/see the team departing from their underlying process - at least I hope they don't get wooed by new-age 'team-builders'.

And just think how good Boston would be if they had gone with Barzal and Connor instead of Senyshyn and Zboril. Even with what those here would call major misses, they're a legit contender. 

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Sometimes I think I just like to be contrary with @oldnews.

I do agree that with the players you listed and Guddy etc we would have been better if healthy but we wouldn't have been good the last few years.  At the best that these players have demonstrated we still are not that good of a team.  This year with EP emerging and Marky improving dramatically we may have been a playoff team if healthy but I still don't think so.  Who ever stays healthy anyway.  All teams deal with injuries.

Even at its best this team would be first round fodder.  Has a long way to go.

I agree with what you said about not signing EK, he hasn't been sturdy is getting older and the scar tissue is starting to build up and as you noted plays same position of our best prospect.

I wouldn't agree with going after much in the mid range market.  I just think when you get these guys in their early thirties looking for a retirement contract in a city they really have no connection with is a recipe for Louie Erikksen.  We can survive one of those but not two or three.  I guess this more of a lack of faith on my part on Benning's pro scouting and contract negotiations.

I also look at a lot of the UFAs this year and see red flags.  Ferland's concussion problems are building up though he feels like the perfect player for us, he may not be able to maintain his style much longer.

Don't know what the solution is other than equipping JB with more pics and waiting because his history in trades and signings is really mixed.

I'm proposing two mid range targets

One is Nelson - a 27 year old that might - who knows - not take a huge term - although I've wanted him for years and his emergence may make it simply too late to land him at reasonable terms = I don't know but I'd sure as hell be finding out  - and would look to add a player of that mold to our forward group = versatile, two way, big-bodied and mobile player.

Stralman is 32 and for that reason alone may be able to be signed to Beagle, Roussel type term, but would probably cost more cap by virtue of being a RHD, a top 4 and a guy that can/will probably play 20 minutes a night. 

Obviously there comes a point at which the frenzy dictates that you have to tap out - and I'd do so at a given point - but those are probably the top range - middle tier - players I'd be pursuing - and failing them, I'd simply look to add as good of comparables at more reasonable term/cap that I could.  If it boiled down to simply a cheap and short term Luca Sbisa, so be it - but the one area I might be a bit more dogged is a forward that brings a bit more size/weight/heaviness to the forward group.  I'm always in favour of a Nelson, Jenner type - one way or the other - and again, failing that, I'd take a Zack Kassian lol - happily!