Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Signing] Canucks sign Micheal Ferland


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Agreed.

 

I just have a soft spot for Baer.

 

Fine to trade him though. He's not suited to a checking role

though it's not his strength, it's certainly not his weakness........his 200ft game is very underrated imo.  Putting him on the left side with Sutter and Jake gives them three legit lines that can attack and score, while still being solid defensively.  TG now has the depth to switch things up to match up against different styles of opposition, so he wouldn't be pigeonholed on sutter's line........I think we'll see a lot of player movement between lines for all the wingers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

There ARE no certainties and that's what makes it so great.  That any underdog can get on a roll (especially with a hot goaltender and healthy team) and the guys who should win (TB) often don't.

And this is why a lot (most?) of us have limited regard for analytics and fancy stats.  In the end we are talking about people, not machines, and it completely ignores so many other factors -- injuries, chemistry, team dynamics, personalities, coaching, etc.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

It's funny, as much as Dorsett confounded him, what happens when he thinks he's evaded Ferland only to be faced with Roussel?  Or Beagle, or Sutter, or Virtanen, or Gaudette, or any number of guys that will hound him every shift.

Image result for my god it's full of stars meme

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Agreed.

 

I just have a soft spot for Baer.

 

Fine to trade him though. He's not suited to a checking role

I do too.

I think I've changed my mind - I thought he's likely to be traded - but I don't necessarily see the point of dealing him.  And I really like Baertschi - would be sad to see him go - unless that were to a really good situation.

They may get a future (if they could get a young RHD prospect, maybe) - but they're also approaching competitiveness (and generally have a pretty solid set of futures)  - and he could just be the guy that makes a huge difference, particularly if someone like Roussel (or other) isn't healthy.

 

Maybe it makes the most sense to take advantage of the wealth of depth they have under the cap, and keep an 'extra' top 6 forward in the mix?

LE/Goldy = probably getting pushed out of the mix - but Baer, maybe it's wisest to keep him.

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Agreed.

 

I just have a soft spot for Baer.

 

Fine to trade him though. He's not suited to a checking role

Start the conversation with Buffalo..

Baer, Tanev  for Ristolianen..       anything can happen.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I do too.

I think I've changed my mind - I thought he's likely to be traded - but I don't necessarily see the point of dealing him.  And I really like Baertschi - would be sad to see him go - unless that were to a really good situation.

Even if he's not moved before camp, it's extremely rare to go into any season without injuries.  Undoubtedly a spot or two, or more, will open up and he'll be a more than adequate fill-in, assuming he doesn't earn a top-6 spot to begin with.  We could certainly do worse with a fill-in, considering the likes of what we've had to use the past few years.

 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hutton Wink said:

Even if he's not moved before camp, it's extremely rare to go into any season without injuries.  Undoubtedly a spot or two, or more, will open up and he'll be a more than adequate fill-in, assuming he doesn't earn a top-6 spot to begin with.  We could certainly do worse with a fill-in, considering the likes of what we've had to use the past few years.

 

yeah - and say, hypothetically, during Roussel's absence both Pearson and Baertschi are performing well.

Roussel returns - posing a 'problem".

Well, if the market for Baertschi is not worthwhile, perhaps the one for Pearson would be?   I like Pearson, but adding Miller and Ferland has changed the makeup of the top 6, to the point where having a skilled, slightly less heavy Baertschi is not in the context of an absence of size and grit in their forward group - so the relative wealth of heaviness in their top 6 with Horvat, Ferland, Miller, Pearson - might give them a bit more option if they need to move someone - the smaller skiled forwards may not be the default any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

though it's not his strength, it's certainly not his weakness........his 200ft game is very underrated imo.  Putting him on the left side with Sutter and Jake gives them three legit lines that can attack and score, while still being solid defensively.  TG now has the depth to switch things up to match up against different styles of opposition, so he wouldn't be pigeonholed on sutter's line........I think we'll see a lot of player movement between lines for all the wingers.

 

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I do too.

I think I've changed my mind - I thought he's likely to be traded - but I don't necessarily see the point of dealing him.  And I really like Baertschi - would be sad to see him go - unless that were to a really good situation.

They may get a future (if they could get a young RHD prospect, maybe) - but they're also approaching competitiveness (and generally have a pretty solid set of futures)  - and he could just be the guy that makes a huge difference, particularly if someone like Roussel (or other) isn't healthy.

 

Maybe it makes the most sense to take advantage of the wealth of depth they have under the cap, and keep an 'extra' top 6 forward in the mix?

LE/Goldy = probably getting pushed out of the mix - but Baer, maybe it's wisest to keep him.

 

I'd prefer to keep him. He's a very smart and crafty player but I think his talents would be wasted on Sutter.

3 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Start the conversation with Buffalo..

Baer, Tanev  for Ristolianen..       anything can happen.

I don't see that happening. We need a healthy Tanev to anchor Hughes IMO. Allow the kid to really jump up in the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, luckylager said:

 

I'd prefer to keep him. He's a very smart and crafty player but I think his talents would be wasted on Sutter.

I don't see that happening. We need a healthy Tanev to anchor Hughes IMO. Allow the kid to really jump up in the play.

?  I haven't proposed playing Baertschi with Sutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking back on the period heading into the draft and free agency......

 

As usual, it's pretty comical = what the prevailing rumours were.

 

The Canucks were linked to virtually every small forward winger out there (not going to bother naming all the Zuckers again).

 

In swamped all the proposals to round out the forward group with virtually no grit.

Likewise with the blueline - linked to every small pmd on the market - while mocking the idea of signing Myers.

 

None of it made sense.

 

And then GMJB - completely accross the grain - did precisely what made sense and what a lot of us were asking.

 

I think the ball is now in the players' and Green's court - the management, coaching and scouting staffs have done a great job imo.

 

Game on.

Edited by oldnews
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tas said:

you don't consider turning over 20 of 23 roster spots and going from a rapidly declining, last kick at the can team to a rapidly rising, contending for the playoffs team, including bottoming out entirely in the middle, in 5 offseasons, a quick turnaround?

This is a really interesting point in all of this. It calls into question how people perceive time in regard to the word "turnaround". Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Yeah, don't think you know what that word means, because quite ironically it applies directly to those who can NOT see the long term plan or big picture but only what's right in front of their face, always reacting to every move in isolation instead of seeing it in context of the overall plan.

 

 

Not only condescending but borderline trolling.

 

It's been explained countless times but the "stubbornness" is on the part of the eternal critics who either ignorantly or willfully are blind of what's happened.

 

Thats funny. Because there only a handful is people that believe it hasnt changed and they all exist on this very board. At what point does the one look into the mirror and accept what the world is telling him?  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Likewise JB and Linden came in the first year with a view to analyze the team and roster, while starting to make changes.  Kesler was forced on them, they moved out NTC Garrison for Dorsett, and got Vey as the first of many younger stop-gaps to fill the emerging holes.  Yes they admitted they were giving that core another shot that year, as part of the overall process of analysis and where to start making the changes, NOT as "a different plan that then changed."

Haha. Is that what you tell yourself. Then why did canucks strategy from day 0 to year 2 remain the same. In fact we doubled down. Incomes Prust And Sutter who Benning brought in and stated.  

 

“In the playoffs, he was good when the games meant something and that when he’s at his best. And he gives us the edge we need to compete in the playoffs

 

Now I know you will try to spin it but Jim’s plans were clearly on the team making another post season run. And wow Sutter sure has been good in the playoffs for us. Lol. 

 

Quote

The following years were of moving out older players and NTCs and bringing in stop-gaps and placeholders - a.k.a. TRANSITIONING - 

eriksson NTC

vanek NTC

suter ntc

beagle ntc

rousell ntc

 

 

Quote

typically younger ones with upside with the prospective hope they could even become part of the new core; players exactly like Baertschi, Vey, Etem, Pedan, etc., while we waited for draft picks to be chosen and developed.

In which that list cost us 2x 2nds, 3rd, 4th and a 6. Strategy really paid off. 

 

Also which prospects were we waiting on.  At the time our cupboards were empty. It’s really only been the last 3 draft in which we started loading up on prospects. 

 

Quote

Along the way we've been able to draft higher-end talent and brought them into the roster, all the while making sure they are properly sheltered by capable veterans, NOT signing them as "mixed messages trying to make the playoff so Aqualini makes more money."

 

Boesers been in the league for two seasons. Guadette, Petey and Hughes played there first season last year. Seems like your trying to forget the first 4 years of JB tenure

 

Quote

Now we're at the point where the Sedins are gone and the kids have taken over and are now the core.  They are productive and have bottom-6 sheltering, so we can now add complementary pieces around them to fill out the roster into a competitive playoff team.  Oh look, the team's been completely rebuilt -- how'd that happen??
 

How by failing as what we attempted to accomplished and being rewarded by the league draft system. 

 

This whole “lets not tank” ended up happened and we get to see the high end benefits as a result. 

 

 

Quote

The team was transitioned, rebuilt, whatever you want to call or label it, in a mere five years, and if you want to play the "changed plans mixed messages" game then fine, then you have admit they did it in just four or less -- even more remarkable. 

 

I think the did it in three and yes they have done a good job when they had one main focus. 

 

But we still have a long ways to go before we can really say it’s complete. This team hasn’t made the post season in 4 years.  Hughes has played 5 games. Petey only has one Pro season under his belt and people are already planning the parade. 

 

 

Quote

Some saw it early on, some eyes were opened along the way, and MOST are seeing it now.  The truly STUBBORN ones are those who by their own ego and short-sightedness were in denial and missed the boat the entire time by criticizing everything out of (admitted) ignorance and lack of perspective. 

 

Thats why you few clowns are in the minority and the rest of us are in the majority.  Lol. There’s literally 10 of you and they are all here on this board. Haha. 

 

The funny part is JB could come out tomorrow and state the plan has changed and you guys would still find a way to defend it.  Same thing happen when WD was a coach, he was a god and all his moves were perfect.... until he got canned. Now us, who didn’t wear homer glasses get to sit back and watch the white knight crew spin there webs. It’s quite entertaining. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

?  I haven't proposed playing Baertschi with Sutter.

Baertschi and Sutter have no chemistry together.  I like Sutter as a player, but hes more of a winger in this NHL considering his inability to distribute the puck to players like Baertschi.  Having said that, i have no idea where he'd fit right now.  

 

With Ferland coming, I really thing that allows Miller to play 3rd line centre.  The only way to win in this league is with 3 scoring lines and a 4th checking unit, which Beagles should be.  

A line of Leivo/Miller/Virtanen would wreak havoc for the opposition.  Almost as much as Pearson/Horvat/Ferland

 

Pearson - Horvat - Ferland

Baertschi - Petterson - Boeser

Leivo - Miller - Virtanen

Roussel - Beagle - Motte   

 

Edited by EddieVedder
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...