Sign in to follow this  
Ossi Vaananen

[Article] 31 Thoughts - Canucks edit

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Crimson said:

It is to help with future negotiations.  If you come out and say "I want a 1st + B prospect for Player Y" and then, when faced with a deadline, end up trading Player Y for a 2nd or 3rd round pick it screws you later on because everyone knows that if they hold out on you they will get your asset for cheap.  That leverage probably has more value than a 3rd round pick ever will.

 

Same reasoning for not giving Hamhuis away a few years back.

Eh, is Dubas even going to have a job in a year?  I mean it's ok but not something that should be praised.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite honestly, I don’t think Stecher will be back next season.   He’ll either get moved at the draft for a 3rd or below, or will be unqualified and replaced by Rafferty.    If it’s of any consolation to him however, I don’t think Tanev will be back here if Tryamkin decides to come back, along with Barrie signing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Quite honestly, I don’t think Stecher will be back next season.   He’ll either get moved at the draft for a 3rd or below, or will be unqualified and replaced by Rafferty.    If it’s of any consolation to him however, I don’t think Tanev will be back here if Tryamkin decides to come back, along with Barrie signing here.

Tanev and Stecher > Barrie and Tryamkin

 

Id take Tree’s size in a heartbeat and think he’d help this team but we’d be worse off defensively in that swap in my opinion.

 

Id prefer to see what Raff has then take another big contract on D, If we need more offensive on the back end. Barrie doesn’t seem like a guy you when a cup with especially cause he’s going to cost 6+ million.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Quite honestly, I don’t think Stecher will be back next season.   He’ll either get moved at the draft for a 3rd or below, or will be unqualified and replaced by Rafferty.    If it’s of any consolation to him however, I don’t think Tanev will be back here if Tryamkin decides to come back, along with Barrie signing here.

There is zero chance we sign Barrie.  He’s going to follow the Jake Gardiner path and sign with a team for a discount in hopes o& resurrecting his career after being so horrible in TO. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Quite honestly, I don’t think Stecher will be back next season.   He’ll either get moved at the draft for a 3rd or below, or will be unqualified and replaced by Rafferty.    If it’s of any consolation to him however, I don’t think Tanev will be back here if Tryamkin decides to come back, along with Barrie signing here.

Still a lot of hockey left this season...Stetcher might make it difficult not to give another contract who knows.  I really don't think we will see Tryamkin get a contract unless he comes in at camp and impresses.  Not before.   He could take Benns spot (it is his natural side).   Hard to tell what will happen - hope Barrie isn't at all in our plans we don't need him. We have QH. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think having Hughes would make Barrie redundant on this team. There’s only room for one smallish Dman and no one is better than Hughes offensively and defensively for his size. Having said that I wouldn’t rule out Stecher signing a reasonable deal. But if we are to improve our defence and we want a guy with some offence he’s gotta be a more rounded all around defencemen which Raff could potentially be that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraudman layers of crap, why would Benning want Barrie at all lol

 

The first sentence is a complete and thorough contradiction, "The Maple Leafs made it clear they weren’t trading Tyson Barrie unless they received two things:  blah bah blah....

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 6string said:

Fraudman layers of crap, why would Benning want Barrie at all lol

 

The first sentence is a complete and thorough contradiction, "The Maple Leafs made it clear they weren’t trading Tyson Barrie unless they received two things:  blah bah blah....

That sentence you presented isn't an example of a contradiction, just so you know...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

That sentence you presented isn't an example of a contradiction, just so you know...

They weren't trading him....

 

If you're considering two things, then your trading him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 6string said:

They weren't trading him....

 

If you're considering two things, then your trading him...

There's a difference between saying "I won't date fat girls." and "I won't date fat girls unless..."

 

The unless obviously means that it's conditional. So it's not that Barrie isn't tradable - it just has to be at the right price.

 

On the other hand, Pettersson is untouchable. Maybe if the Canucks get thrown 3 first round picks from three different years, plus a roster player. Maybe, just maybe there is a conversation that gets started? Regardless, I think it's just not realistic at all, so you could basically say Benning won't trade Pettersson (period).

 

And also depending on who's trading it. Three first round picks wouldn't be very attractive at all if it's St. Louis or something. That's a crappy trade for the Canucks.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There's a difference between saying "I won't date fat girls." and "I won't date fat girls unless..."

 

The unless obviously means that it's conditional. So it's not that Barrie isn't tradable - it just has to be at the right price.

 

On the other hand, Pettersson is untouchable. Maybe if the Canucks get thrown 3 first round picks from three different years, plus a roster player. Maybe, just maybe there is a conversation that gets started? Regardless, I think it's just not realistic at all, so you could basically say Benning won't trade Pettersson (period).

 

And also depending on who's trading it. Three first round picks wouldn't be very attractive at all if it's St. Louis or something. That's a crappy trade for the Canucks.

Keep it down to a couple of sentences, I don't have time for all of that lol

Edited by 6string
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, c00kies said:

I remember JB getting flack about not trading Hamhuis… which was still a good move in my opinion, considering the offers were pretty bad.

 

I feel like the case with Barrie is that the Leafs wanted too much, rather than not getting offered anything good.

I can't even remember the offers, what were they?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Eh, is Dubas even going to have a job in a year?  I mean it's ok but not something that should be praised.  

i often think he gets the ban hammer from Shanny if they miss the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devron44 said:

Tanev and Stecher > Barrie and Tryamkin

 

Id take Tree’s size in a heartbeat and think he’d help this team but we’d be worse off defensively in that swap in my opinion.

 

Id prefer to see what Raff has then take another big contract on D, If we need more offensive on the back end. Barrie doesn’t seem like a guy you when a cup with especially cause he’s going to cost 6+ million.

@Alflives @IBatch
 

One argument I don’t understand,is this whole, “we have Hughes and so we don’t need Barrie” argument.    My question is why?

 

1) Hughes and Barrie wouldn’t play with each other 5 on 5.  Both guys could play on separate pairings with more defensive minded defensemen.   Barrie with Edler, and Hughes with Tanev (or Tryamkin or Myers should the Canucks decide to walk from Tanev).

 

2) On the powerplay, you can create two potent power plays with Hughes quarterbacking the first, and Barrie quarterbacking the 2nd.  If the inevitable injury bug hits and someone from PP1 gets injured, them you can play Hughes and Barrie together.

 

Atleast in my opinion, the Canucks shouldn’t be worrying about whether they have two defensemen of a similar nature (small offensive minded men).  Instead, their primary focus should just be on having Top 4 caliber Dmen on their team.    Barrie is almost as old as Tanev, but Barrie’s game will likely age a lot better due to his style.   Tanev has been injury free so far this season, but given his style of play and history of injuries, I’m not sure if Tanev is going to age particularly well.    I wouldn’t be comfortable signing Tanev long term, whereas I absolutely would with Barrie (I’m assuming that the Canucks coaching staff is interested in Barrie because stylistically, the Canucks are far more similar to Colorado than they are Toronto and so they feel that Barrie would be a good fit here).

 

Canucks defense if it was up to me:

 

2020-2021

 

Edler-Barrie

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Rafferty

 

2021-2022

 

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Barrie

[Juolevi/Rathbone/Brisebois]-Rafferty

 

(if the Canucks somehow lost Myers in the expansion draft.....which is kind of what I’m hoping......go HARD HARD HARD after a superstar two way physical defenseman that can complement Hughes on the top pairing......or, hopefully, the Canucks will have drafted someone like that by that time).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

@Alflives @IBatch
 

One argument I don’t understand,is this whole, “we have Hughes and so we don’t need Barrie” argument.    My question is why?

 

1) Hughes and Barrie wouldn’t play with each other 5 on 5.  Both guys could play on separate pairings with more defensive minded defensemen.   Barrie with Edler, and Hughes with Tanev (or Tryamkin or Myers should the Canucks decide to walk from Tanev).

 

2) On the powerplay, you can create two potent power plays with Hughes quarterbacking the first, and Barrie quarterbacking the 2nd.  If the inevitable injury bug hits and someone from PP1 gets injured, them you can play Hughes and Barrie together.

 

Atleast in my opinion, the Canucks shouldn’t be worrying about whether they have two defensemen of a similar nature (small offensive minded men).  Instead, their primary focus should just be on having Top 4 caliber Dmen on their team.    Barrie is almost as old as Tanev, but Barrie’s game will likely age a lot better due to his style.   Tanev has been injury free so far this season, but given his style of play and history of injuries, I’m not sure if Tanev is going to age particularly well.    I wouldn’t be comfortable signing Tanev long term, whereas I absolutely would with Barrie (I’m assuming that the Canucks coaching staff is interested in Barrie because stylistically, the Canucks are far more similar to Colorado than they are Toronto and so they feel that Barrie would be a good fit here).

 

Canucks defense if it was up to me:

 

2020-2021

 

Edler-Barrie

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Rafferty

 

2021-2022

 

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Barrie

[Juolevi/Rathbone/Brisebois]-Rafferty

 

(if the Canucks somehow lost Myers in the expansion draft.....which is kind of what I’m hoping......go HARD HARD HARD after a superstar two way physical defenseman that can complement Hughes on the top pairing......or, hopefully, the Canucks will have drafted someone like that by that time).

It’s simple for me. I want less pucks in that back of our net. I don’t think Barrie is as bad as some say in his own end but he’s not the greatest.

 

Subtracting Tanev for Barrie would be a huge blow to our defensive side of the puck. The day we lose Tanev is the day some fans realize how important he is.

Have you seen our record without him in the lineup? It’s stupid bad.

 

We don’t really need more offence. We are currently 7th in the entire league. Our Power Play is 4th. Hence I fail the need to spend money in Barrie, frankly we would end up spending too much money and not improve at all in our own end.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If Tanev decides to not re-sign with Vancouver, Benning will be sure to grab a right handed defenseman either through trade or free agency that will compliment Hughes as well or better than Tanev has. It wouldn't hurt to give Quinn a fairly aggressive d-partner who'll punish douches like Domi for taking liberties.

 

When Quinn was slammed to the ice by Domi, watching Tanev skate away wasn't good from an optics point of view.

If Hughes can't handle a mild cross check to the back, he won't last long in the league.  He's going to get that multiple times every single game going forward and the team isn't going to jump opposing players every time it happens.

 

He's a smart kid, he'll be fine.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

@Alflives @IBatch
 

One argument I don’t understand,is this whole, “we have Hughes and so we don’t need Barrie” argument.    My question is why?

 

1) Hughes and Barrie wouldn’t play with each other 5 on 5.  Both guys could play on separate pairings with more defensive minded defensemen.   Barrie with Edler, and Hughes with Tanev (or Tryamkin or Myers should the Canucks decide to walk from Tanev).

 

2) On the powerplay, you can create two potent power plays with Hughes quarterbacking the first, and Barrie quarterbacking the 2nd.  If the inevitable injury bug hits and someone from PP1 gets injured, them you can play Hughes and Barrie together.

 

Atleast in my opinion, the Canucks shouldn’t be worrying about whether they have two defensemen of a similar nature (small offensive minded men).  Instead, their primary focus should just be on having Top 4 caliber Dmen on their team.    Barrie is almost as old as Tanev, but Barrie’s game will likely age a lot better due to his style.   Tanev has been injury free so far this season, but given his style of play and history of injuries, I’m not sure if Tanev is going to age particularly well.    I wouldn’t be comfortable signing Tanev long term, whereas I absolutely would with Barrie (I’m assuming that the Canucks coaching staff is interested in Barrie because stylistically, the Canucks are far more similar to Colorado than they are Toronto and so they feel that Barrie would be a good fit here).

 

Canucks defense if it was up to me:

 

2020-2021

 

Edler-Barrie

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Rafferty

 

2021-2022

 

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Barrie

[Juolevi/Rathbone/Brisebois]-Rafferty

 

(if the Canucks somehow lost Myers in the expansion draft.....which is kind of what I’m hoping......go HARD HARD HARD after a superstar two way physical defenseman that can complement Hughes on the top pairing......or, hopefully, the Canucks will have drafted someone like that by that time).

To me I think Barrie is a crap mcsofty, who is too easy to play against, and who plays like a scar d cat.  Not want him has nothing to do with us having Hughes. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MattJVD said:

While the last few games he has played closer to 2nd pair minutes; his season average TOI is 15:12. That's the lowest of his career by a full 3 and a half minutes. He's also on pace for his 2nd lowest point total, shots, and 2nd worst advanced stats (relative corsi/fenwick) in his career (however he is getting his highest share of defensive zone starts in his career). So outside of the last 4 or so games, this season has only been better than his sophomore year. His rookie season and last year were better than his performance this year overall. 

To be fair, Canucks have a history of making d-men punch above their weight due to the number of injuries they've dealt with.  This year-just spitballing, haven't run the numbers- he's probably playing at the appropriate amount of ice time.  Reduced minutes likely account for less shots/points.  He might not be having his best year but probably not bad for third pair?

  • Sedinery 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I could see Troy signing something like a 10 mil total, 4 year deal to be able to stay home and be part of the run. 

 

I love Tanev, but this years an anomaly and he won't age like wine. Can a right side of Myers, Stecher and Rafferty really be a competitive right side..... I think we get a chance to find out. 

Tanev is wearing shin guards that were specially designed for him.  They seem to be working.

 

Other than that, perhaps it's luck that he hasn't taken a puck in the yap or hand so far this year

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.