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

Noble 6

Members
  • Posts

    3,519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Noble 6

  1. I would say it definitely is a skill, at least to some degree. Some things like Boeser's major injury are complete wild cards and some players are more effected by their skill level in staying healthy than others, but some players just know how to protect themselves better. Every time Tanev blocks a shot it looks like it could be a broken bone whereas Russel hasn't been injured nearly as often blocking more shots. The Canucks were forced to play a taxing style because they're bottom 6 was devoid of any skill and/or smarts. How come Washington's bottom 6 hasn't been injured nearly as badly this year? What about Tampa's last year? They have a fundamentally different makeup in their bottom 6 mentality wise. I'm not saying we should have been as good as those teams are/were but our playstyle as a result of our personnel choices certainly didn't help.
  2. Did you not read my other posts? If were better then Arizona would have to be worse, and would therefore have a top 5 pick since Vegas' pick didn't depend on their season that year. If Arizona had a top 5 pick, they likely wouldn't have traded it to the Rangers (the only team Benning thought might take him) and therefore the Canucks still get Pettersson.
  3. Or it likely could be a lot better.
  4. I already addresses the first part. Virtanen and McCann had just been rushed in to the NHL, so management likely would not have kept him in the NHL in his rookie year. Even if we are a better team in 2017, that gives Arizona a top 5 pick since we'd have to pass them and they don't trade it away. We still walk away with Pettersson. It's pointless to speculate what would happen.
  5. How is nobody talking about the story that came out about Hoglander's sister? She unfortunately passed away at the age of 13 when Hoglander was 11. She was a hockey player as well. His last words to her were "I will play hockey for both of us." https://www.jellypages.com/sports/After-the-tragedy-now-want-to-Hoglander-make-the-district-proud-h13279.html
  6. Going in to potential alternative outcomes is useless. At the end of 2016, we had witnessed the organization rush the development of McCann and Virtanen by keeping them in the NHL this year. It's quite likely that management (and the fanbase) would be cautious about keeping an even younger player in the NHL the next year. The following year, Tkachuk making the team would prevent us from signing Vanek before the season started. The point production is virtually a wash. Even if it wasn't, the only other team that would have taken Pettersson was the Rangers. If we do significantly better that season, Arizona drops down and has a higher pick and they therefore don't trade it. So there you go, we pick Tkachuk and still end up with Pettersson and Hughes.
  7. We should expect Utunen to look above average given that he is returning to this tournament.
  8. Imagine using that same line of thinking deciding between VIlardi and Pettersson in 2017. It's way easier to find someone who is strong on the boards than it is to find someone who can make a play with the puck. Look at what we gave up for Leivo versus what we gave up for Miller.
  9. Being able to stay healthy is a skill. The top teams in the league usually remain pretty healthy throughout the year. Investing and holding on to injury prone players isn't really a recipe for success.
  10. Didn't our bottom 6 have the worst goal differential in the league last year?
  11. This is almost the exact same thing.
  12. Zadorov is a good comparable, especially when you consider that he's a bottom pairing guy.
  13. Those defense cores are definitely downgrades. Rafferty can likely step into Stetcher's spot well, but Tryamkin can't step into Tanev's effectively. Because Tanev is such a big part of our current defense core, that leads to a considerably weaker defense. I think that is generally agreed upon. However, there could be significant consequences for a weaker defense core next year. We could potentially be giving up our 1st round pick next year. It's a situation that management put on themselves that we should now be mindful of. With that in mind, would you be comfortable with that defense for next year, especially considering how our defense this year is stronger and we're only on the playoff bubble?
  14. I understand that we should be integrating our young defenseman into the the team, but none of our young defensemen realistically project to be more than 3rd pairing guys. Rafferty can take out Stetcher and provide a different element, but the overall change likely wouldn't be too noticeable. There's a lot of hope that Tryamkin can effectively eat Tanev's minutes, but it's just blind hope at this point. Any scenario where we let Tanev walk would weaken our team considerably. I would normally be fine with that, but next season we might be giving up an unprotected 1st rounder. It's a tough scenario that really didn't need to happen. Can you show me a hypothetical defense core for next year that you believe is as good as our current one? Edler - Myers Hughes - Tanev Benn - Stetcher Fantenberg
  15. I can agree with those reasons for not wanting to re-sign Tanev, but who replaces him next season? Remember, we could potentially be giving up an unprotected 1st rounder next year, so it's not a great time to take a step back. Do you think that any of Tryamkin, Brisebois, Rafferty, etc. can actually step into that role effectively? I don't. Benning hasn't been able to find a suitable replacement for Tanev in 5-ish years. If he did we would be much more comfortable letting him walk.
  16. If adding Myers reduced the strain on Tanev, then losing Tanev will dump that strain back onto Myers. We've already seen some cracks in Myers' game and increasing his workload is going to make it worse. Not one of those young defenseman you listed are good enough to replace Tanev. They're all 3rd pairing/replacement level players. We're talking about next year because that's when the 1st round pick could be in play, not down the line when Woo is in his prime. If you took out Tanev and replaced him with one of those defensemen you listed, our defense is considerably worse.
  17. There's a lot of talk about not bringing back Tanev and/or Stetcher this summer, but who do you replace them with, especially Tanev? Rafferty could likely step into the bottom pairing and be fine and that seems to be what Benning is hoping for, but we have absolutely nothing that could replace Tanev. If we don't find a replacement, we're a worse team and next year is not the time to be a worse team considering we could possibly be giving up our unprotected 1st to Tampa. These are two important pieces on the back end. They can't just be replaced with anything. Our defense has finally gotten to NHL caliber after years of Pouliot, Gudbranson, Sbisa, Del Zotto, etc. After 5-ish years on the job, Benning still hasn't come close to finding a Tanev replacement (or an Edler one if Juolevi's injuries eat him up).
  18. Stutzle has shown that he's one of the premier offensive talents available in this year's draft. He probably deserves to go top 5 given his quality of competition.
  19. Look at how much those top 5 teams are spending on their bottom 6 compared to us. We're capped out and not in the same league as those teams right now.
  20. Did you read what my earlier reply? It will likely take some considerable moves to simply maintain the important pieces from our current team. I would say that being forced to move and/or buyout players to simply keep our team together when two of our franchise players are on their ELCs for this year and next year is pretty bad cap management. There's no way that a bubble team that hasn't accomplished anything recently should be in this situation.
  21. You didn't address anything for this summer. How do you see us retaining our important players (RFAs and UFAs) this summer? Do we let some of them walk and weaken our team for next year, we could potentially be giving up an unprotected pick to Tampa? Are we forced to pay to remove some contracts like Baertschi or Pearson? Both of those options sound like the result of poor cap management.
  22. The problem with not signing Markstrom is that it makes our team considerably worse next year, when we could potentially be handing over our unprotected 1st rounder to Tampa. That's literally the worst time to take a step back. Given our average record right now and unsustainable play style (Green riding our top guys until they break), missing the playoffs and keeping the pick this year seems more and more likely. We have simply gone overboard spending in the bottom 6. There is absolutely no excuse for being capped out while two of our franchise players are on ELCs. Teams are usually forced to give up some players due to cap crunches AFTER they've done something, but we haven't even made the Playoffs. It's a serious issue systematic issue that people don't want to address because it doesn't make management look good.
  23. In what way is our cap for next season self correcting? We have 17 million in cap for next year. Pettersson and Hughes' bonuses will have to carry over to next year and take up 1.7 million of that as @mll pointed out, so we're down to just over 15 million in cap space for 4 RFAs (Gaudette, Virtanen, Motte and Stetcher) and 5 UFAs (Markstrom, Tanev, Leivo, Schaller and Fantenberg). Do you think we can re-sign the important players from that group with 15 million in cap space? The team is currently a bubble team for the Playoffs, not re-signing some of those guys or being forced to move out other players will weaken our already average team. Tanev and Markstrom will likely combine to take up around 10 million of that remaining 15 million, leaving us with around 5 million in cap space to re-sign 7 players. Sounds like a cap crunch to me.
×
×
  • Create New...