Sign in to follow this  
-AJ-

Top 50 Canucks of All-Time - #39

Rate this topic

Top 50 Canucks of All-Time - #39  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Say what you want about Matt Cooke's career after he left Vancouver... but solely based on his Canucks career, he deserves to be top 40 at the very least. 

 

Nominating: Matt Cooke

 

Voted Tanev based on longevity but Rota did have a pretty solid 5 years year.

  • Hydration 1
  • Sedinery 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting Butcher

 

Nominating Cloutier

  • Hydration 1
  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

love rota but had to go larinov, a world class player that always gave you 100% of his abilities.

 

reinhart. great defenseman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

Edited by IBatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, kilgore said:

 


Duplicate post (again sorry stupid phone)

Edited by IBatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, kilgore said:

Tanev.  He just has the smarts. More than other D left.  Well maybe not so smart getting in the way of 90+ mph slapshots :P.  As a pure defensive defenseman, there really were(are) none better for the Canucks.  I'm not calculating injury prone as a demerit, just looking at what he does on the ice when he's here.

 

...Rota. Yeah, its about time he gets his due.


Hmm.   Murzyn was plus 34 one year ... and only a minus play near the end playing in the dark ages Keenan teams which were awful (minus 1 when the rest were minus 15-20ish).  He was even a plus player on some bad Hartford teams.    Don’t think you did your homework on this one.   I’d put him ahead of Tanev, he was way more physical and also blocked shots before it was vogue and extra padding was made to help with this and I doubt like Ludwig he was shoving boards down his socks.   He did anything and everything for this team while he was here, played more games and was here longer.    Tanev didn’t make THNs top 50 ... Murzyn did.  
 

Butchers game was different - and yes he was a bad minus player on some bad teams - but again not as bad as say Lidster was.   And again will point out that he was the player that got us Ronning, Courtnall and Momesso...would Tanev get us anything close to that right now?  Or a year ago?  Nope.  
 

Edit: He also has a Pratt award, in 92-93 when the competition was pretty stiff...as well as the teams alternate C with Momesso in 93-94, 94-95...and later too...

Edited by IBatch
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I'm not really in the business of making cases against players, but that said, your post seems to invite or request an answer.

 

I'll start by saying I did a top 100 and had Tanev around 55th or so.  And I admire the work of a lot of Canucks players and gave thought to a lot of names that aren't coming up, and that most Canucks fans today haven't heard of and thus not had a chance to consider, and so getting all the way up to 50-60 is an admirable achievement.

 

That said, why somebody wouldn't have already voted in Tanev at 39th, or 36th when you made the original post...

 

Well, I would say because he has two things going for him...longevity, which really works in his favor, though he is in the same ballpark as Jim Sandlak, Matt Cooke, etc.  And one Babe Pratt award as defenseman of the year, though some names on the trophy are not on the voting list, or are not even coming up at all as nominations: Barry Wilkins, Jim Benning, Ben Hutton, Troy Stecher, Bob Dailey, Jeff Brown, Adrian Aucoin, Doug Halward.  You can give Tanev a bit of credit for the 2011 run if you want, but really, 5 games...

 

So, Tanev is a steady defensive defenseman.  But Butcher was the same, plus an enforcer, plus a leader, plus >600 games, plus got us two guys already voted into the top 33 in one trade.

 

Tanev doesn't really put up points, no All-Star Games, no Norris or post-season All-Star votes ever, though he does have a couple Lady Byng votes to his name.  And if you don't count the 2011 run, where he played five games, the Canucks have literally not won a single playoff series in his entire career...and it shows in his playoff numbers.  Sixteen career playoff games.

 

He has plenty of competition from good and important players in our history if he is to make the top 40 or top 50.

- Darcy Rota  (the case has been made well by AJ)

- Garth Butcher  (the case has been made well by a few posters)

- Gary Smith  (his goaltending is the reason we have a 1974-75 division championship hanging in the rafters)

- Ron Sedlbauer  (our first 40 goal scorer ever)

- Jocelyn Guevremont  (50 points as a rookie defenseman)

- Dale Tallon  (50 points as a rookie defenseman, breaking Bobby Orr's assist record)

- Doug Halward  (50 point season on the blueline, Babe Pratt Trophy)

- Dennis Ververgaert  (37 goal season, set fastest goals at the All Star Game record as a Canuck, 57 point rookie)

- Ivan Hlinka  (important in the 1982 run, international legend, set our rookie scoring record that Pavel Bure tied)

- Dan Hamhuis  (critical in the 2011 run, shorter tenure here than Tanev but a higher peak with some All Star and Norris votes)

- Kevin McCarthy  (50 point defenseman and team captain of the Canucks)

- Rick Lanz  (very rare Canucks defenseman with two 50-point seasons)

- Chris Oddleifson  (team captain of the Canucks in the 70s and similar career Canuck numbers to Bo Horvat)

- Cesare Maniago  (two-time Canucks team MVP in goal)

- Rick Blight, Paul Reinhart, Bobby Lalonde, Barry Pederson, Dana Murzyn, Elias Petterson, etc.

 

So...I'm not really out to give reasons to not vote for Tanev.  He deserves recognition.  But there are also a lot of great Canucks that are being overlooked, largely because what they did was a while ago.  These are guys I have +/- 10 spots from Tanev, or in the case of Gary Smith, well above.

 

 

Good points.....Garth needs to be in there, he was a Canuck for 10 years and is still an active alumni.

 

My concern is with the interest in Cooke. Sure he was a Canuck for parts of 8 years or so but he wasn't a high scorer by any means and was not an enforcer.

Cooke was the guy that would stir things up and then dive over the bench to let his team mates defend him, he wasn't a stand up guy at all and he surely wasn't great. The only thing he did well as a Canuck was to fight Greg Moore.

 

 

  • Vintage 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GarthButcher5 said:

Good points.....Garth needs to be in there, he was a Canuck for 10 years and is still an active alumni.

 

My concern is with the interest in Cooke. Sure he was a Canuck for parts of 8 years or so but he wasn't a high scorer by any means and was not an enforcer.

Cooke was the guy that would stir things up and then dive over the bench to let his team mates defend him, he wasn't a stand up guy at all and he surely wasn't great. The only thing he did well as a Canuck was to fight Greg Moore.

 

The one thing Cooke did that I have to give him credit for was that he was Linden-esque in game 7 against Calgary in 2004.

 

But still, the heroics didn't provide fruit in terms of even getting to round two, and overall, yes he has tenure and games played working in his favor, while on the other hand he is essentially the diametric opposite of the "Ring of Honour" criteria that I think of when contemplating players like Snepsts, Butcher, Kurtenbach, Odjick, Williams, etc.  I have Cooke in the 70s, and that's entirely on the strength of total games played and that game 7 against Calgary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Coconuts said:

My boy got in, I'll help yours out

 

Rota

 

Nominating Cooke 

 

Congratulations homey.  Hansen was a good soldier for us.

 

 

Edited by Kevin Biestra
  • Like 1
  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

 

The recentcy bias has been here near the start when Edler was getting nominated early, Salo, Tanev Hansen and now Cooke...surprised Raymond’s name hasn’t come up but have seen Maholtra...if we go down that lane then Reinhart, Tallon, Mitchell and quite a few other players need to be considered too.   On Tanev and Edler - longevity counts... but so does quality- it was Mitchell, Erhroff, Hamhuis and Bieksa carrying the mail and winning Pratt awards ... once those guys were done all we had left was Edler and Tanev... and even then some years Hutton and Stecher won best defenseman over them so maybe consider who Murzyn and Butcher were playing with at the time ... both wore the A, Murzyn for a long time too...and had Lidster, Babych, Diduck, Lumme, Brown, Reinhart, Hedican etc. playing too ... Murzyn won a Pratt during one of the teams best seasons and those three pairings were comparable to the 2010-2013 teams which Tanev played a minor role in compared to his peers.    It’s ok to votes for them but we can’t discount what guys long ago did too.   Edler became our best defenseman by default - but like Myers isn’t suited well in the top role (there are books written on this site about that) - Q Hughes as a rookie is showing that again - and it was pretty obvious early in his career when we had a killer defense too.   Murzyn is Tanevs best comparable and he played on our top line in the peak Linden years (Hamhuis had that role with us in 2011) - and he played longer, and did more for the team...5 games in 2011 don’t come close to 94 ... 

 

As far as Cooke and Hansen go / both were good foot soldiers in different ways for the team but were support players.  Momesso wore the A for us from 93-95...was a leader, a fan favourite , protected Ronning and was a big part of our run to the cup.   Hansen has games on him but I’d argue he wasn’t the better player and his intangibles weren’t as impactful.    147th in PGP (Hansen), we have defenseman still on this list who scored nearly as much in 150ish less games - one was also our Captain for a few years.   Monkey Business indeed.   And just so you don’t think I’m been unfair - I do have Hansen and Tanev in the top 50, but not before most of the guys on this and two that aren’t on it yet.  

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/27/2020 at 3:25 AM, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I'm not really in the business of making cases against players, but that said, your post seems to invite or request an answer.

 

I'll start by saying I did a top 100 and had Tanev around 55th or so.  And I admire the work of a lot of Canucks players and gave thought to a lot of names that aren't coming up, and that most Canucks fans today haven't heard of and thus not had a chance to consider, and so getting all the way up to 50-60 is an admirable achievement.

 

That said, why somebody wouldn't have already voted in Tanev at 39th, or 36th when you made the original post...

 

Well, I would say because he has two things going for him...longevity, which really works in his favor, though he is in the same ballpark as Jim Sandlak, Matt Cooke, etc.  And one Babe Pratt award as defenseman of the year, though some names on the trophy are not on the voting list, or are not even coming up at all as nominations: Barry Wilkins, Jim Benning, Ben Hutton, Troy Stecher, Bob Dailey, Jeff Brown, Adrian Aucoin, Doug Halward.  You can give Tanev a bit of credit for the 2011 run if you want, but really, 5 games...

 

So, Tanev is a steady defensive defenseman.  But Butcher was the same, plus an enforcer, plus a leader, plus >600 games, plus got us two guys already voted into the top 33 in one trade.

 

Tanev doesn't really put up points, no All-Star Games, no Norris or post-season All-Star votes ever, though he does have a couple Lady Byng votes to his name.  And if you don't count the 2011 run, where he played five games, the Canucks have literally not won a single playoff series in his entire career...and it shows in his playoff numbers.  Sixteen career playoff games.

 

He has plenty of competition from good and important players in our history if he is to make the top 40 or top 50.

- Darcy Rota  (the case has been made well by AJ)

- Garth Butcher  (the case has been made well by a few posters)

- Gary Smith  (his goaltending is the reason we have a 1974-75 division championship hanging in the rafters)

- Ron Sedlbauer  (our first 40 goal scorer ever)

- Jocelyn Guevremont  (50 points as a rookie defenseman)

- Dale Tallon  (50 points as a rookie defenseman, breaking Bobby Orr's assist record)

- Doug Halward  (50 point season on the blueline, Babe Pratt Trophy)

- Dennis Ververgaert  (37 goal season, set fastest goals at the All Star Game record as a Canuck, 57 point rookie)

- Ivan Hlinka  (important in the 1982 run, international legend, set our rookie scoring record that Pavel Bure tied)

- Dan Hamhuis  (critical in the 2011 run, shorter tenure here than Tanev but a higher peak with some All Star and Norris votes)

- Kevin McCarthy  (50 point defenseman and team captain of the Canucks)

- Rick Lanz  (very rare Canucks defenseman with two 50-point seasons)

- Chris Oddleifson  (team captain of the Canucks in the 70s and similar career Canuck numbers to Bo Horvat)

- Cesare Maniago  (two-time Canucks team MVP in goal)

- Rick Blight, Paul Reinhart, Bobby Lalonde, Barry Pederson, Dana Murzyn, Elias Petterson, etc.

 

So...I'm not really out to give reasons to not vote for Tanev.  He deserves recognition.  But there are also a lot of great Canucks that are being overlooked, largely because what they did was a while ago.  These are guys I have +/- 10 spots from Tanev, or in the case of Gary Smith, well above.

 

 

Your words carry much weight and I appreciate your energy and calm clarity.

 

I’m of the age that I remember most of the players you have hi lighted having seen them live back in the old barn on Renfrew. I agree that players of a certain vintage will likely not be recognized on this list and that is unfortunate.
 

Having contemplated and then reflected on my Tanev take, I can only say that I have a clear bias  towards players who are lifers, or those who have played the majority of their formative years in Vancouver and played for a considerable period of time. It’s why Garth Butcher and Rick Lanz belong in this top 50 and Paul Reinhart does not despite the fact that I am convinced he put together the best 2 back to back seasons ever for a Canuck defenceman. Many of the other players you have listed are temporary Canucks in my mind though I acknowledge their accomplishments and treasure their memories (just like I treasure the 100 games Mike “Shakey” Walton played for us in the late 70’s). 
 

I guess I’m just convinced CTanev bleeds Canucks blue and Green and has done so during a difficult, depressing decade. 
 

Not that things aren’t looking up!

Edited by zimmy
  • Like 2
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ten  years maybe AG will be the next Cooke or Hansen.  Or Pearson the next Ververgaet...or Miller the next Courtnall or Adams come playoff time.  QH, EP and BB are destined to put a stamp on this team - they already have.  Who knows about Hoglander or Podz...or maybe even OJ... and the 90 players become like the 80’s are now and the 70’s players ... let’s just say we will lose some CDCers by then that can recall our first season for sure.   It’s important to properly respect and acknowledge players of the past and do them justice. It’s why THN who’s been using hockey experts/historians for three decades now making these and other lists won’t allow one person who was ranked higher at retirement then another regardless of era - ever lose that spot.   They used 50 experts when ranking all-time and by position, and when they started had guys that could properly compare Orr to Shore.   
 

It’s also why Sawchuk is ahead of Roy, Brodeur, Hasek and Plante.  These guys have spent the time to go back and figure out SP based on shots and goals etc...check out Plantes, Espostito’s, Dryden’s and Parents some time... crazy good considering it was mostly stand up and leather pads would gain as much as 20-30 lbs over the course of the game...and no masks .. wow.  Bower...

 

What I’m getting to is this;  for those that are not old enough - maybe take a minute and ask your elders who was a greater Canuck (fans that watched too and can properly compare) - who was the better player - who was greater etc.  Stats are just numbers.   They are a good start for sure.   Also when making your vote consider that in the future fans that are just getting into it now won’t have much perspective and have their favourites too.   Maybe Pearson is doing it for a newbie right now.  Or AG.  Or JV. And in five-ten years when this a re-do is done your favourites that you know were greater players and Canucks won’t get acknowledged when they should - and because the next crop of stars is coming in Hansen and Tanev and Cooke and Cloutier and whomever might get bumped or not at all considered.   I had Aucoin at 50 but he’s bumped out because I acknowledged Tanev has done more for the team.   That said I’m not sure I’d take Tanev before Aucoin if I was making a team....it’s close.  Wonder how many on this site who watched both Tanev and Murzyn would go with Tanev.  Or Hansen before Momesso.   Not many is my guess.   It’s not much coincidence that the hockey historians feel the same - because a lot of them are old enough to make proper comparisons and the ones that aren’t do their homework for players they didn’t watch. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


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

What I’m getting to is this;  for those that are not old enough - maybe take a minute and ask your elders who was a greater Canuck (fans that watched too and can properly compare) - who was the better player - who was greater etc.  Stats are just numbers.   They are a good start for sure.   Also when making your vote consider that in the future fans that are just getting into it now won’t have much perspective and have their favourites too.   Maybe Pearson is doing it for a newbie right now.  Or AG.  Or JV. And in five-ten years when this a re-do is done your favourites that you know were greater players and Canucks won’t get acknowledged when they should - and because the next crop of stars is coming in Hansen and Tanev and Cooke and Cloutier and whomever might get bumped or not at all considered.   I had Aucoin at 50 but he’s bumped out because I acknowledged Tanev has done more for the team.   That said I’m not sure I’d take Tanev before Aucoin if I was making a team....it’s close.  Wonder how many on this site who watched both Tanev and Murzyn would go with Tanev.  Or Hansen before Momesso.   Not many is my guess.   It’s not much coincidence that the hockey historians feel the same - because a lot of them are old enough to make proper comparisons and the ones that aren’t do their homework for players they didn’t watch. 

 

Yeah, there are some players where I can tell how not experiencing their impact real-time got lost in translation to some of the next generation.

 

Tiger Williams and Gino Odjick perhaps most of all.  And if people weren't around while Harold Snepsts was capturing the city, with his hair thinning yet flowing like 1980s Sting as he skated around the ice, then it's just like...who is this old guy that didn't score many points?  Or your boy Momesso.

 

The guys who get their jerseys retired or put in the ROH, that helps a little bit with name recognition, but without that impetus to Remember The Name, you have to fight for Gary Smith and Curt Fraser, Tiger and Gino and Murzyn and Oddleifson, etc.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.