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

JeremyCuddles

Members
  • Posts

    16,087
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JeremyCuddles

  1. Thankfully in the case of Tkachuk they can try recoup assets. CBJ lost Bobrovsky and Panarin for nothing in the same offseason. That's kinda worse imo.
  2. It's okay, we'll get Severson or Marino outta New Jersey in a Miller trade
  3. I'd rather just overpay Miller. I like Tkachuk. But we're trading one "potentially" overpaid player who can play wing and center and a good 20 goal guy for one overpaid player that can only play wing. They'd have to send a 1st rounder back as well, at a minimum. Garland isn't a cap dump. Dude is legit. Miller and Tkachuk have borderline equal value. That's only if you really value Tkachuk's game. Miller can play wing and center and is a play driver. I'd send em Myers and Pearson for Tkachuk. Other than that, let them enjoy watching him leave in free agency for nothing.
  4. They both started 39 games last season. Vanecek's numbers were quite a bit better, which is pretty bad cause his numbers were decent at best. It's actually incredible how good Washington was last season with goaltending being so middling, if not downright detrimental in terms of Samsonov's play. They outscored their problems.
  5. Lets not pretend Toews is on par with Klingberg defensively. Toews is a two way defender, not an offensive defender like Klingberg is. Physicality isn't the thing we want necessarily, it's defensive ability with the ability to pass the puck. Toews has both. That's the reason that pair works. Toews is a fantastic two way guy that allows Makar to operate offensively while also being able to chip in defensively. Toews the last 2 seasons has below 50% ozone starts. Klingberg is a 60% ozone guy. Hughes and Makar are comparable, Toews and Klingberg are not.
  6. Yeah I don't really see the overall benefit. Obviously he could potentially be a fit with Hughes in the ozone. But defensively you're asking to get scored on a lot. And sticking him with OEL is working against Klingberg's skillset. Arguably we are already misusing OEL as a defensive player. Last year's 42% ozone starts was the lowest of his career. We desperately need a Josh Manson or a Chris Tanev (or even better, a do it all RD like Doughty, Pietrangelo, Parayko) so that we can use that top pair more liberally, although it seems like Boudreau was starting to lower Hughes' ozone starts. Would also help to have a defensive minded 3rd pair. Right now OEL is taking a lot of the dzone starts for our blueline. That's not his game. He should be a 50/50 guy. If not more of a ozone guy as he ages.
  7. Nah, Gadjovich doesn't belong. But Big Mac and Lazar are legit.
  8. Not just that, but he has been taking a lot of defensive weight off Hughes' shoulders. And makes our 2nd pair a legit threat. They can't just ignore OEL. Speaking of, happy birthday to OEL.
  9. Imagine if we had a 4th line of Gadjovich Lazar and big Mac. I am sure they'd be a misadventure defensively, minus Lazar. But they'd certainly cause some havoc. Gadjovich is still a bit of a long shot NHLer. But at 23 years old I personally believe he can hit quality 4th liner with a mean streak status. Losing MacEwan still makes me sad. Guy is my perfect 4th liner. Not bad defensively, tough, willing fighter, and is a surprisingly good net presence. And he's a winger that can take faceoffs when needed. Sad times.
  10. I think it's safe to say we only came here cause of the Ricola meme. As soon as I read his name I said it outloud. Mikkolaaaaaaaa
  11. Shame, we really could used the added left D depth. And the man is one heck of a DJ.
  12. Garland isn't very good defensively. You give Boeser a mulligan for last season then bring up his +/- of all things? Lol. Yeah he had a rough year, I won't deny it. But even with his bad year statistically he was better than if not equal to Garland who had a great year by his standards. Their underlying defensive numbers last season were borderline identical. I will give the defensive edge to Garland, but lets not pretend he's head and shoulders above Boeser in the defensive zone. Neither are PK options and neither are liabilities. Offensively a bad year for Boeser is a good year for Garland.
  13. Half of what Poolboy is making and brings as much. Sad times.
  14. So they're blaming last season on Driedger and not the fact they drafted an AHL team? I don't see Driedger going from his last 2 seasons to being a bum, .938 and .927 save percentage with Florida. And even last year on a trash team he almost had a .900 save percentage. Goaltending was not their issue last year. Unless they really need that 1.5m in cap space by moving Driedger and icing Martin Jones. Who has had 4 straight seasons worse than Driedger's was last season.
  15. I dunno. Garland is 5'8-5'10 depending on the day. Dowling is 5'10 but I think he'll be a depth guy with Lazar and Dickinson/Rodrigues. And Rodrigues is listed at 5'11, 185. Not small by any means imo. Kuzmenko is 5'11 almost 200 pounds. Hoglander is small, but the guy is a tank on his skates. Everyone else is 6 foot or taller. I don't think size is our issue. Grit is indeed a bit of an issue but we can manage without it for at least next season.
  16. Rodrigues in, Dickinson out. Pearson or Poolboy out as well just to shed cap.
  17. His turnover ratio isn't too scary. It's par for his career. Mostly. And it kinda makes sense for the team he's on as well as the role he plays. If he were hypothetically on our team we generally play a more puck possession style and the puck is mostly on Hughes or OEL's stick. So that alone would likely cut his turnovers by about 33%. Random stat I pulled out me butt.
  18. But those aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a tough sound defender that can move the puck. You literally just named one. Manson. And the players I talk about us targeting are players like Manson and Tanev. Tanev doesn't bring toughness but he can play defense and move the puck. I never said I just want mindless hitters or shot blockers. But I am also not interested in more one way defenders that are only good in the offensive zone. That is Toronto's style and it's good if you wanna get bounced in the first round every year. You're projecting a lot of takes on me that I do not have.
  19. No, but he also doesn't get 60% ozone starts and PP1 time. If people think Myers is bad defensively, what does that make Klingberg? I guess you could slap him with Hughes since he also gets 60% ozone starts. But we'd be icing two guys that aren't good at defense at best and are liabilities at worst. And if we stick him with OEL, well OEL had 45% ozone starts last year as he was put in more of a shutdown role to allow Hughes to get more sheltered starts. Something OEL haters don't mention when they torch his stats but that's another topic. We'd have a shutdown pair of OEL and Klingberg. Two guys not known for being shutdown. Again, Klingberg brings nothing that Myers already doesn't. If he was used in Dallas the way Myers was used here he'd have much fewer than "56 points per season." And if we add Klingberg to the team and kept Myers. We'd have Hughes making 7.85m, OEL making 7.25m, Myers making 6m, and Klingberg making anywhere from 6-7m per. Very expensive blueline considering none of them are true number 1 d-men. And even if you sub out Myers for Klingberg it's an expensive blueline that doesn't have an anchor defender (someone like Josi, prime Pietrangelo, Doughty, Burns etc). I am not hardcore against Klingberg. Like I said he could find chemistry with Hughes and they become a nuclear offensive option. But I'd rather have a two way partner for Hughes. Ehrhoff had Edler for instance. 2 dynamic scorers with mediocre defense at best on the top pair, you better hope the forwards are great defenders otherwise your goalie is in for a long night.
  20. Doesn't bring anything that Myers doesn't. I can't see what value we'd have trading Myers and signing Klingberg. Maybe he has insane chemistry with Hughes or OEL but I dunno. Just seems like a sideway move at best. And that's assuming he signs for 6m per. He could probably make much more somewhere else. If he'd take somewhere around 5-6m it'd be a nice addition. Maybe. We are 3m over the cap, meaning we'd not only need to move Myers, we'd also need to move at least one of Pearson/Garland/Miller. That's a lot of cap out, not sure teams are lining up for Myers. Miller deal if it was gonna get done probably would've been done already. Garland I like, it'd be sad to see him go just to bring in an offensive minded D-man and not a defensive minded one.
  21. I am reading my post over and over trying to find the spot where I said I ever wanted Zadorov, can't seem to find it.
×
×
  • Create New...