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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,331 Revered

About gameburn

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sounds great. I'm going to go look up your research. Thanks for your work.
  2. Lind needs Horvat's power-skating coach, the guy who got him up to NHL speed, otherwise he is terrific.
  3. Do you really think fans will put up with them re-signing Edler? He has been as bad this year as he was 3 years ago, in some games, much worse. And not getting any younger either which means the flaws in his game are sure to get increasingly worse. Footspeed, fatalism about his ability to get to pucks, bad pinching (with no footspeed to get back into the play) and PENALTIES. He has always been prone to inconsistency, but this year's play suggests that he is really past it now.
  4. And he has had a pretty good year for avoiding injuries, which is significant in his case. I think he's worth as much as 2.5. As long as we buy out Beagle, there is room and money for him. Which reminds me: are we restricted to just one buy out a year? Eriksson is death, but the Beagle and Roussel deals are pretty bad too.
  5. I agree with your analysis, but the conclusion is worrying. It's almost as if we accept a net decline in talent/potential offensive ability so that we can "fit a player" around our big stars. I.e., a net decline in team talent. Does a team really need a bunch of Tyler Motte types? I had a feeling at the time that McCann was seen as expendable in the same way: not going to be top scoring center and not good enough defensively. But 40 points a year out of a third line center (Gaudette's best 5 years, maybe?) is a lot better than a return player who gets half those points but plays a high ene
  6. I think Benning has a specific plan for every position on the team -- which sounds great -- but when a player doesn't fit in the hole he has set up for him, he gets rid of him, it almost doesn't matter to him what he gets back, the big thing is to dump the player who doesn't fit the hole. This guy he is getting back doesn't appear to be as good a player as Gaudette, so we have a net loss in team talent, but Benning is okay with this BECAUSE the new guy will fill an entirely different (less critical) role. Mathematically, this looks bad; hockey is different, but still.... Re
  7. Teams do better, on average, when they trade picks or players for players/prospects who are already in the NHL. (Naslund and Bertuzzi come to mind here.) This is NOT about experience, but about being NHL players, actually in the league. Vey and Baertschi were not in the NHL when we traded picks for them, although they had lots of experience at other levels. Although a bit harsh on my part to call these guys "rejects" they were rejected from the starting lineups of both the organizations they came from. Probably not even at the level of Goldobin in total NHL games played when we traded picks
  8. My comparison was only about noting the problem of contracts/pre-existing baggage. You're right, we can't be Vegas, but we can take note of how their team is put together and learn from it. I think our goaltending is better than theirs, and we have 1 maybe 2 players who are better than anyone they have (Pettersson and maybe Hughes) -- and yet when push came to shove in the playoffs we couldn't beat them. Not having Eriksson's contract -- or Luongo's clawback (not Benning's fault, I know) -- gives them 9 million more to build depth with. Beagle and Sutter are overpaid, Roussel was not a goo
  9. March was good and was good without Pettersson. The problem is numbers of NHL-ready players and the teams we're playing. Beagle and Roussel have not been difference makers this year. Both have more penalties than points. Sutter has been better than the other two put together, that's why so many on the forum are keen on trading him. The problem this team has is the albatross contracts -- including the Luongo recapture. If Beagle, Eriksson, and Roussel (and maybe Sutter) had not been signed, we might not have done as well in the last playoff run, but we'd be better set up righ
  10. A good piece of contrarian logic. I do like the way you bring up the way rebuilds seem to take longer and feel a lot less certain. Let's look at things from a slightly different angle: has our "new" GM of X number of years ago learned enough to keep him for another year, or should he be fired at the end of the year or even sooner? This is where your comment on "growing pains" comes in. Pros: (1) Has learned not to trade away 2nd and 3rd round picks for other teams' reject prospects (Linden Vey was the worst, but there were many.) (2) Has learned not to sig
  11. A sign that Benning is kind of fading/losing it is that he appears not to have made any early efforts to do a couple of the low-hanging fruit contracts: Stecher and Toffoli in particular. He says things like, "we're taking it day by day," and "we'll get into the contracts when the season is over, one thing at a time." Delegate this work if you have to, but you have to get this done and the best way imo is to start early and stick with it. It sometimes helps other players to see a guy they want to continue playing with get treated well, including signing him during the season and well before
  12. I would argue that without the pandemic, the team might be doing even worse. The team/ownership is insulated from the fans at the moment: they neither receive our money nor do they have to see our reaction in the stands. This team's fate was settled in the last months of last year and in the off-season: asset management has killed this team. Travis Green is not the problem; management's failure to manage assets is the problem.
  13. I think there was a plan: (1) get interim fixes -- hope you can find gems in other players rejects (Linden Vey, Baertschi, e.g.) -- use draft picks for this, making it even worse; (2) value tenure and respect over the long-term benefit of rebuilding the team (let the Sedins retire in place, do the same for Edler); (3) spend money on short-term fixes (Eriksson, Beagle, Sutter, Roussel) and (4) hope your draft picks work out, but don't get as many picks as you should, because you have to think of winning in the present. Rebuild on the fly was and is the plan. It's just not a very good plan, es
  • Create New...