team toughness going into the stretch

[theo5789]

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

I don't think the team needs a face-puncher, more so an overall team response. For example, the game against San Jose in Vancouver. The way Sutter reached the point where enough was enough. That's what I'm talking about...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...I'm talking about BALLS!

And Sutter did just that as exampled. Pearson stood up for his teammates earlier in the year. I think if it comes down to it, that we have a team prepared to do so. At the end of the day, the important part is we win the game/series no matter how we get there.

[189lb enforcers?]

Toughness issues and team identity that way have greatly improved since those past, several embarrassing seasons.

 

I can’t complain, but do miss the Firkland bit of swagger. 

 

It’s so much better than what used to be... 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I don't think the team needs a face-puncher, more so an overall team response. For example, the game against San Jose in Vancouver. The way Sutter reached the point where enough was enough. That's what I'm talking about...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...I'm talking about BALLS!

yes - more 'pack' mentality.

One person I look at in this sense is Horvat.  I realize it might not be his nature - and the last thing we need is him in the penalty box - but I'd like to see a bit more 'in your face' from him. He's understandably mentored under a few of the most level-headed people in the game - but I'd probably prefer a bit of a shift in leadership towards more measured heated, 'angry', pushback in the right situations/circumstances.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

that's a good question.

 

on the matter of who is, all-things-considered more effective at this point, it would be an interesting calculation.  I think the shutdown aspect of Horvat's line might take a hit with that deal, but they do have other players that could step up in a secondary scoring role and dedicate two Sutter and Beagle lines to shutdown....assuming they remain healthy.  (sidenote - Motte is a serious loss to the team's shutdown effectiveness imo).

 

But I would make that deal in a heartbeat - because Backes expires a year earlier (and I would value that cap hit in two years moreso than LE's possible on-ice impact) - so I would not be surprised if 'we' had to add to make that happen - that is unless Boston sees a viable role for LE in their lineup and would prefer live vs dead cap. 

 

 

have to respectfully disagree on that point - Loui has finally shown he can be useful up and down the bottom 3 lines. As injuries pile up, you can slot him into a matchup role and be very confident he'll perform well. I'd like to have that for this run up to the playoffs and if we get in. After that, his buyout is pretty good, 5.5ish year I but drops to 3.5 and then 700k. Backes is just dead weight. 

[PhillipBlunt]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

And Sutter did just that as exampled. Pearson stood up for his teammates earlier in the year. I think if it comes down to it, that we have a team prepared to do so. At the end of the day, the important part is we win the game/series no matter how we get there.

You don't say....

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

yes - more 'pack' mentality.

One person I look at in this sense is Horvat.  I realize it might not be his nature - and the last thing we need is him in the penalty box - but I'd like to see a bit more 'in your face' from him. He's understandably mentored under a few of the most level-headed people in the game - but I'd probably prefer a bit of a shift in leadership towards more measured heated, 'angry', pushback in the right situations/circumstances.

Absolutely. He needs to set the tone more so in that regard. I think during the last SJ game, he was chumming it up with a Shark after a scrum. I'd prefer that he keeps that stuff to after the game, in the hallways type of interaction.

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

have to respectfully disagree on that point - Loui has finally shown he can be useful up and down the bottom 3 lines. As injuries pile up, you can slot him into a matchup role and be very confident he'll perform well. I'd like to have that for this run up to the playoffs and if we get in. After that, his buyout is pretty good, 5.5ish year I but drops to 3.5 and then 700k. Backes is just dead weight. 

Backes concussion history is much harder to move, if need be than Eriksson's newfound life.

[rekker]

I don't think we need to make a single move. We have Ferland, Leivo coming back at some point. Bailey is a big body that will be interesting to see splot in. Rafferty and Breiser are call up options. Tryamkin maybe. Maybe even Rathbone and other options at forward. Wow, incredible depth really.

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

have to respectfully disagree on that point - Loui has finally shown he can be useful up and down the bottom 3 lines. As injuries pile up, you can slot him into a matchup role and be very confident he'll perform well. I'd like to have that for this run up to the playoffs and if we get in. After that, his buyout is pretty good, 5.5ish year I but drops to 3.5 and then 700k. Backes is just dead weight. 

I'm not arguing effectiveness - I would jump at the opportunity to shed the extra year of LE's deal.  I value that 6 million of cap hit in 2021/22 more than his on ice contributions in the present.

I don't think the team takes that much of a hit replacing LE in the lineup.  Granted they are in a playoff race - one you don't want to mess with - and he has played well enough - but as things stand - ie with both Sutter and Beagle in the lineup  (although the Motte injury makes me 'uneasy') - I think they have the necessary shutdown resources to make due without LE.

If there were an opportunity to move him - even for a Backes that may not be of use in the lineup - I would take the opportunity. 

Conversely if it's for a Lucic type, where we don't gain that year of cap relief (and who owns a NMC) - it'd be a no.

[tas]

16 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Not sure who you're asking, but from my perspective......No.

 

Eriksson has shown some chemistry with Horvat and Pearson. He's the better player, who'd probably fetch more in a trade, even now.

 

12 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It's certainly an interesting idea because his contract ends a year earlier than LE. Problem is LE is playing a significant role right now and Backes might just be done. I certainly wouldn't add anything and I think at this point, I'd expect them to add. Too much shakeup to the chemistry of the team though for a trade deadline type move. Might explore this in the offseason though.

 

10 minutes ago, oldnews said:

that's a good question.

 

on the matter of who is, all-things-considered more effective at this point, it would be an interesting calculation.  I think the shutdown aspect of Horvat's line might take a hit with that deal, but they do have other players that could step up in a secondary scoring role and dedicate two Sutter and Beagle lines to shutdown....assuming they remain healthy.  (sidenote - Motte is a serious loss to the team's shutdown effectiveness imo).

 

But I would make that deal in a heartbeat - because Backes expires a year earlier (and I would value that cap hit in two years moreso than LE's possible on-ice impact) - so I would not be surprised if 'we' had to add to make that happen - that is unless Boston sees a viable role for LE in their lineup and would prefer live vs dead cap. 

 

 

for me it breaks down as:

 

-loui has finally started to show a bit the last month, so you're trading him for a likely less productive player (although who knows what backes looks like with a change of scenery, especially if made to feel important and given a role)

-both players are strong defensively, though loui gets the edge because he can still skate alright

-backes brings toughness and jam and can throw down with basically anyone in the league if necessary (though he may not win)

-backes has the more palatable contract 

 

I feel like the only way the canucks don't have to add in the deal, simply because the extra year of bad contract outweighs the slight increase in usefulness, is if boston's familiarity with eriksson convinces them they can get more out of him.

[Silent Man]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I guess the hockeygod has spoken.   Forwards and D will need to be ready for rough stuff down the stretch.   I hope the coaching staff for the Canucks reads this board.   

I don't know about Canucks coaching staff, but guys from 1040 for sure.

 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

 

 

for me it breaks down as:

 

-loui has finally started to show a bit the last month, so you're trading him for a likely less productive player (although who knows what backes looks like with a change of scenery, especially if made to feel important and given a role)

-both players are strong defensively, though loui gets the edge because he can still skate alright

-backes brings toughness and jam and can throw down with basically anyone in the league if necessary (though he may not win)

-backes has the more palatable contract 

 

I feel like the only way the canucks don't have to add in the deal, simply because the extra year of bad contract outweighs the slight increase in usefulness, is if boston's familiarity with eriksson convinces them they can get more out of him.

I don't think Boston is really in a positon to trade cap in any event - I think they'd probably lean towards spending an asset to rid themselves of Backes' contract (his M-NTC might be an additional complication - but in this context, if they entertained a cap for cap deal, that could play in this team's favour - being competitive?)

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, Silent Man said:

I don't know about Canucks coaching staff, but guys from 1040 for sure.

 

Do they ape a lot of points from here?

 

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, tas said:

 

 

for me it breaks down as:

 

-loui has finally started to show a bit the last month, so you're trading him for a likely less productive player (although who knows what backes looks like with a change of scenery, especially if made to feel important and given a role)

-both players are strong defensively, though loui gets the edge because he can still skate alright

-backes brings toughness and jam and can throw down with basically anyone in the league if necessary (though he may not win)

-backes has the more palatable contract 

 

I feel like the only way the canucks don't have to add in the deal, simply because the extra year of bad contract outweighs the slight increase in usefulness, is if boston's familiarity with eriksson convinces them they can get more out of him.

Backes' concussion history pretty much puts his toughness and jam at Ferland's level. Simply not knowing where it can be at this point. Considering that is a big aspect of his game, it makes him nearly ineffective if he can't play a significant role otherwise. Right now they are hooped with Backes and they either have him buried in the minors for the rest of his contract if they can't find a taker or they take on LE's contract and a player that seemingly can play a role on the team.

 

If they feel like Backes' contract is more palatable, then that's their problem to keep. We certainly would need to add had this deal been considered last offseason. Right now, there's really no chance that we make the move, unless they make it worthwhile for us as our player is contributing.

[Silent Man]

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Do they ape a lot of points from here?

 

I got sick and staying home for the last couple of days and I was amazed by the fact that radio guys discussed topics that were discussed here the night before.

For example, that Brock might be traded to Mini.

I've also noticed that lots of posters here have much deeper hockey knowledge and express their thoughts better then radio guys. It is actually amazing.

I am not listening radio that  much, maybe once in a full moon, so I might be off the mark here, it is what I noticed from a very small sample.

[JM_]

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'm not arguing effectiveness - I would jump at the opportunity to shed the extra year of LE's deal.  I value that 6 million of cap hit in 2021/22 more than his on ice contributions in the present.

I don't think the team takes that much of a hit replacing LE in the lineup.  Granted they are in a playoff race - one you don't want to mess with - and he has played well enough - but as things stand - ie with both Sutter and Beagle in the lineup  (although the Motte injury makes me 'uneasy') - I think they have the necessary shutdown resources to make due without LE.

If there were an opportunity to move him - even for a Backes that may not be of use in the lineup - I would take the opportunity. 

Conversely if it's for a Lucic type, where we don't gain that year of cap relief (and who owns a NMC) - it'd be a no.

oh for sure on the Lucic part, lets avoid that tire fire.

 

I'm curious to see if Bailey gets a look this road trip, maybe we've got something there too that fits the bill of tough to play against. I don't recall anything about his playing time against us tho so not sure what we've got there.

 

 

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Backes' concussion history pretty much puts his toughness and jam at Ferland's level. Simply not knowing where it can be at this point. Considering that is a big aspect of his game, it makes him nearly ineffective if he can't play a significant role otherwise. Right now they are hooped with Backes and they either have him buried in the minors for the rest of his contract if they can't find a taker or they take on LE's contract and a player that seemingly can play a role on the team.

 

If they feel like Backes' contract is more palatable, then that's their problem to keep. We certainly would need to add had this deal been considered last offseason. Right now, there's really no chance that we make the move, unless they make it worthwhile for us as our player is contributing.

I don't know if that is realistic - the value of shedding that extra year imo is compensated from our end in LE's contributions - but are they enough to value escaping that $6 million in the final year.  I'm not sure LE's performance is that significant - although you have to factor it over this and next year...

 

Personally, I think I would prefer the two years of dead cap vs 3 of active LE (sorry Loui).

 

Part of the reason for that - not only how well the depth of the team at forward has sustained in spite of injuries to Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Motte again, Leivo, (Graovac) - but also because they have some emerging guys like Lind, Bailey, MacEwen - and might gain a player back from injury (fingers-crossed - obviously the organization would have a far better idea/projections than I can merely speculate about).  I like the depth the team has - I'd probably roll the dice on it - and I'd really value that extra cap flexibility the moment that Backes expires (or, if he proves unable to perform, the possibility of LTIR that has not yet panned out for Boston).

 

[tas]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I don't know if that is realistic - the value of shedding that extra year imo is compensated from our end in LE's contributions - but are they enough to value escaping that $6 million in the final year.  I'm not sure LE's performance is that significant - although you have to factor it over this and next year...

 

Personally, I think I would prefer the two years of dead cap vs 3 of active LE (sorry Loui).

 

Part of the reason for that - not only how well the depth of the team at forward has sustained in spite of injuries to Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Motte again, Leivo, (Graovac) - but also because they have some emerging guys like Lind, Bailey, MacEwen - and might gain a player back from injury (fingers-crossed - obviously the organization would have a far better idea/projections than I can merely speculate about).  I like the depth the team has - I'd probably roll the dice on it - and I'd really value that extra cap flexibility the moment that Backes expires (or, if he proves unable to perform, the possibility of LTIR that has not yet panned out for Boston).

 

furthermore, I feel like the demeanor and snarl backes brings to the dressing room would be a more significant and impactful influence than what loui brings off the ice.

 

I feel like backes on the 4th line in playoffs could be a difference maker. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

I think we've got the personnel to play a gritty game. Most of our forwards are big and can play with physicality, the only ones who don't are really Petey and Boeser.

 

I really expect a lot from Pearson, Virtanen and Roussel in particular and of course the 4th line to come out throwing their bodies around. I think Bo and Miller can, but will be focussed on defending when they're without the puck and possession when they've got it, but most of the guys on our team can play a heavy game.

 

Of course on defence, I'd want Benn in there, and I'm hoping Myers uses his body a bit more. They may not throw big hits but Edler, Myers, Tanev and Benn can play a grinding defence against the boards and can hold their own against big forwards.

 

I think Benning did a fantastic job this offseason of crafting a playoff-first team, we're just lucky we're having regular season success too.

[Rob_Zepp]

20 minutes ago, Silent Man said:

I don't know about Canucks coaching staff, but guys from 1040 for sure.

 

That's the radio station that is clueless.  Right?