gameburn

I agree with you completely. And yet I remember feeling the full-on tank of last year (or was it the year before?) and being so frustrated with WD's over-use of vets and lack of confidence in the new players. It was easy to lump the Sedins in with this inability to move on, when in fact the Sedins were more than willing to move down the depth chart while helping bring along the next generation of players. The last two years were harder for fans (and some of the players) than a lot of us want to admit. That's why this year is such a joy and such a turning point: even without Pettersson and Juolevi (or Tryamkin lol) we can see a much brighter future. And not a bad team in the making either. With Demko to displace Markstrom, and the addition of the new players, this team looks to be more than capable of competing successfully with the rest of the Pacific Division. The team is ALREADY light years ahead of where it was last year. I see them potentially being a Tampa type team: killer pp, excellent team speed, and with one or two of the best snipers in hockey. Re: Sedins, specifically. Yes, Boeser, as well as Virtanen have said they were shocked at how physically fit Henrik and Daniel are. The twins are closer to 40 than anyone else on the team and yet they routinely score highest on the fitness tests. Which is why they are still here, and why we will see them around Vancouver for 15 more years, whatever capacity it may be.

I remember Lumme well. Hugely underrated. I think we'd all be more than satisfied if Juolevi works out to be as good as Lumme. Lumme had this quirk of skating a tiny bit back on his skates. Always seemed to know what was going on all over the ice. Only Reinhart and maybe Ohlund were as good. Power play and shut down both, fantastic player and a good person too.

And spouses have jobs/careers that began here. If we had any sense at all, we'd get Trudeau/feds to grant them all dual citizenship. Make it easier for them to live in both countries. I was very skeptical of Henrik and Daniel playing another year, but I'm not sure it matters at this point, as Horvat and Boeser are clearly the new core of the team -- so there won't be any hard feelings about playing time, e.g. So, even a limited role or player-coaches would work. The Sedins have suggested more than once that they might be staying on in Canada -- to what degree... who knows.

Yes, MT is a real mixed bag. Saw highlights of 2 more goals he got last night ... hard not to notice. But he inspires bad feeling among opponents, which can be a problem. Three suspensions already. Your point about OJ playing on dominant teams is interesting. A role as a helpful defender on a superb Finnish national junior team could have made him look better than he was. Just getting the puck to Puljujarvi and Laine as often as possible would be good for a couple of points a game. And his junior team in London has been good for years. Throw in plenty of pp time and you have significant point totals. Much harder to spot a future Pietrangelo (Chykrun?)

A big difference between Seabrook and Keith: TOI, offensive skills, number of Norris trophies, etc. Let's hope for Keith! With Keith it's brains and skating that set him apart. Juolevi looks smart, for sure -- he made a couple of interceptions of long passes in WJC game vs. the U.S. and immediately turned them around for scoring chances with nice feeds. His linemates looked a little lost out there at times, and weren't great at breaking down the U.S. cycle game, but with a bit of luck they could easily have won that game. Not Juolevi's fault, imo.

I agree completely. I think the only frustration most of us have with Juolevi is that he didn't step in as soon as possible, Like Tkachuk did. Technically, to be really fair, Juolevi may never make the NHL. He isn't Tkachuk's equal until he plays enough to have completed a rookie season (40 games? not sure how many it is). Like you, I believe that Juolevi will be one of the best D we have had since Ohlund and Salo, who knows, maybe much better. But he actually hasn't made the NHL yet. If he goes through 2018-2019 without making the Canucks... there will be a lot of grumbling. And Sergachev was available, too -- more of us liked him than Juolevi. Many of us were surprised when Juolevi was picked by Benning.

He will never be as slow or inconsistent as Edler. And will be better on the scoresheet than any D we have had in decades. My only complaint with him is the same complaint I had withLidstrom: you can watch whole games where you don't seem to notice him. Not sure this is his problem or mine. lol.

Incredibly funny. Sad, too. Why is Murray so negative about Boeser? Better to praise him, as Murray let in all 3 goals. (Boeser could have had 3 more in that game, too, talk about unlucky.) "Off a guy's foot" -- was a pass from a fellow Canuck lol; "off a D-man's leg" -- that shot would have gone in cleanly if the D hadn't touched it -- and the other goal was a clean breakaway finished with a perfect shot. Some goalies can't admit when they were beaten.

More picks the better. And I agree about the D. I was just saying in a post that Canada's D at the world juniors is instructive. Incredibly quick transition players, able to make passes in the first second or two. In spite of their much lower draft rankings than their Finnish opponents they looked the much superior D. I suspect these players are all drafted already, but similar players? Fast, good give and go players? Not puck-carrying D so much (like Tanev) but puck-delivering D, and very very quick. With the top prospect a D, we'll already be looking at the the other D available (criteria too) so this might be the year to get at least 2 D in the first two rounds, and more if we can get a couple of extra 2nd round picks. Edler is absolute dead weight. Totally unsuited for today's game (watch D for Canada WJC team, as I say.) Even if we got a 3rd rounder for him, we'd be better off. Sometimes Junior hockey gives us ideas about how the game is going or should go. Seeing McDavid skate past D was instructive. Seeing this year's Canadian D suggests a new way to defend.

Well put together. Watching the world juniors this week, I was struck by how much better the lower-ranked (drafted) D was for Canada than the much higher ranked D for Finland. Not sure whether it's coaching or the quality of the Canadian forwards, but the Canadian D were just flying out there. Quickest transition game I've ever seen. D for Canada don't skate majestically up the ice looking for a player to pass to, instead, they make a pass in the first second or two while moving ahead. Very fast. And then join the rush as a go-to option. The reason I mention this is the Canuck D: I'm not sure they are able to play that rapid-fire transition game. The speed of the Canadian D also allow them to intercept and cut off plays before they get very far. The Finnish D looked slow in comparison (the bad news is Juolevi: hardly noticed the guy.) Pouliot and maybe Stecher can do this, maybe? Gudbranson is good with the first pass, but I don't see him entering the offensive zone with much purpose -- even as a passing option for a forward.

And the thin line of players to hold things in place. A lot of us have been critical of Benning's UFA signings (Eriksson, Gagner, eg.,), maybe even the Sutter signing. And we all worry about whether the Sedins should come back for another year. But, I think these players hold things together, make it possible to get the best player possible in the draft, not necessarily the flashiest scoring prospect (Yakupov, RNH, Hall, e.g.) They appear to allow a team to draft intelligently and not desperately. What I'm saying is that a team that can maintain a credible depth and culture MAY be better able to draft, and better able to trade players for further picks. I think that Edmonton really went to poop when Pronger, Peca and other vets were gone after their finals run a decade back, Too thin = bad starting point to drafting. Although Edm. did well with a re-trade of Pronger (prospects, picks, including Eberle) they did lose his leadership. A core player lost. On paper, Edmonton recovered value for Pronger, but lost that key core leader on D. They also got zilch for Peca -- he just walked away as an FA I think. Eberle in a better environment might have been a different player. Trading Pronger for Smid and Lupul was not great -- a much softer team, obviously. I'm not saying that Edmonton could have or should have made Pronger stay in Edmonton -- they had to do something about his trade request -- but Lupul and Smid weren't enough. Picks are nice, but they can be like seed planted in poor soil if the team lacks that core piece or two.

Is Guddy going to be traded or lost for zilch? Or re-signed, if only to trade later? We lost McCann and 2nd round pick for Gudbranson, didn't we?

Well done. Looks about right. I think Brisebois and one of Gaunce or Gaudette or maybe Goldobin get moved/drop away... and a new pick or two fills in, but over all what you have looks good. Nice to put it all up front, even imagine what the lines might look like. Pouliot turns out to be a real find, potentially even better than Baertschi re: finds.

1. Juolevi is your other key player in the pipeline? I'm not sure if he turns out to be a game changer or not. But, if you add Lind, and either of Gadjovich and Gaudette to the mix along with Pettersson, then things are definitely looking up. Regardless, your point is well taken. 2. The Sedins are proof that you don't have to be huge or a hitter to play at a high level with relatively few injuries. More signs that you are probably right about both Pettersson and Juolevi. 3. I'm not sure that it's necessary to have a Crosby or a Kane or even a Doughty to win (super elite players). You look at how good Horvat is -- and how he keeps improving -- keeps dominating elite players, and you can believe that a team could be very very good (maybe win it all) if it has 2 Horvats at 6 mill a year vs. one McDavid at 12 mill. This is realistic for the Canucks, too: Horvat as 1b Centre, Pettersson as 1a. Or vice versa.

Horvat is I think a Mesomorph, the Hulk type. High percentage of muscle, square shaped. Very hard to push off the puck/knock off his skates. Pettersson is slimmer, from the sound of it. Depends how much he uses his speed, cleverness, etc. Patrick Kane, Gaudreau, many other players who are smaller/slimmer are doing well right now. Mitch Marner is no Arnold Schwarzenegger either. Skill matters. Also, the league might in the future look at bigger rinks -- has to be a possible component of solving the concussion problem. (That and, obviously, meaningful suspensions/rule changes.)

When Eriksson is straightened out or bought out and the Sedins are gone, it should be easier to figure out where Virtanen should be. It makes no sense to put two guys who are slow puck control guys with a young demon like Virtanen. He needs quick players and maybe people who can hold their own physically (Boeser, Virtanen, Horvat would be one tough line to push off the puck.) No player should feel bound to play the physical game his mates can't or won't play. It makes him less than he should be. Alf is right: let him go!! Unleash him. With the Sedins he was either trying to play cute/set them up or chase down pucks and stand in front of the net. A good job for Maroon, or even Burrows, but Virt has more upside actually. He would be fantastic with Draisaitl and McDavid, truth be known, but that will only happen if he's traded. (Ahhh..... don't trade him!!!)

Simmonds? Lind should be more and less than that I think. He's already a better playmaker... and less likely to be blunt kind of power forward. He and Virtanen make a nice pair, whether on the same line or split up.

A lot depends on whether we draft one of the top 4 or 5 forwards or go with a D. Even more important is the likely signing of a UFA winger (Okposo? Lucic?) -- ideally, less than 30yrs of age, 3yr contract. If BOTH of these occur and both are wingers -- lol -- we have a serious logjam. I almost think we'd be wise to avoid signing a UFA, and do another tank run. Finish 4 to 10 points higher than this year and develop some youth, certainly no panic if we are drafting in the 7 to 14 range next summer. I'm hoping for Puljujarvi this year -- his highlights are fantastic -- can shoot, pass, works his buns off. Dorsett is looking out of place on next year's team and probably unnecessary with so much on the verge of happening. Hansen is good with the twins -- and his work ethic is fantastic -- but along with Dorsett should probably be moved for picks/youth. If we land one of the top 3 picks, everything changes real quick. Realistically though, both Hansen and Dorsett start next Fall. Sedin-Sedin-Hansen* [Okposo/Erikson or Puljujarvi]-Sutter-Virtanen Baertschi-Horvat-Rodin Dorsett- Gaunce- Etem Zalewski or Granlund 13th? * Bolded players are locks for next year. I just don't see room for Burrows if an elite forward is drafted, or if a quality UFA is signed. Actually, looking at the list above, I don't see room for Burrows even if we draft a D in the first round and do not pick up a UFA forward. Do we really want to give up Zalewski or Granlund or even BOTH in order to keep Burrows? Also, what if Kenins or Grenier get their game back? We are awash in bottom 6 forwards. (Trader Jim could, however, move 4 or 5 of the players on the above list, which would change things.) Conclusion?: Good-bye to Vey, and probably Kenins and Grenier as well as one of Zelewski or Granlund. If no UFA is signed, we might keep Kenins or Grenier or both, surely Zalewski would be kept. On the other hand, Rodin and Zalewski are still unproven, and the Draft pick could be Chychrun/Juolevi/Sergachev, so things are very uncertain. I will say this though: If we draft either of the Finns it will be like Edmonton getting McDavid last summer: some things will change immediately: players will be moved and some of the smaller coaching roles will adjusted.

I agree. How to treat him with dignity? They didn't scratch him this year: get an "A" for that. But next year? If you buy him out, it sounds bad, but if you send him to Utica to "mentor" this is bad, sort of, too. But I don't see him playing a regular shift next year. I thought he would retire. But the truth is: too much money is involved. If B has any personal responsibilities (to family etc.,) he CAN'T do the right thing and retire. Not fair to his family. Maybe buying him out is the best way: saves him the silliness of Utica or hanging around like Ryan Smyth. I want him to have a retirement night. And retire his number.

And Yzerman and Linden now in management -- the mentoring continues. Okay I see your point. While it is possible to win with talent alone, maybe the better organizations take advantage of the players who have had long careers and are still around. And yes, the Sedins are physically more like McCann than Horvat, so their longevity and fitness is even more remarkable -- how can a young guy like Gaunce or McCann not learn from their training regimen and discipline. (Hell, the Sedins and Hamhuis are raising kids and have wives with careers -- they are balancing a lot of stuff.) And one thing I forgot that you reminded me of: the young guys are not really sure they have made it, they probably need whatever wisdom and good habits they can get from the likes of Sedin and Hamhuis just to be able to keep their confidence up. I suspect that Virtanen could have benefitted from a vet who is a power forward. We haven't really had once since Bertuzzi.

The Oilers won a pile of cups in the 1980s, so did the Islanders. Both of those teams were largely manned and certainly led by players between the ages of 19 and 24. They learned on the job and were talented. Chicago has a Cap era dynasty, their first cup was won by young players, early to mid-20s. No older leadership to speak of that I'm aware of. In fact, I would argue the better the team the less the fact of or need of so-called mentorship. All along the way players learn from each other and from coaches: the players are never more than 2 years older than yourself, and many of the coaches are already not as good as their proteges. People learn on the job. Where culture matters, it's largely a combination of competition, coaching and preparation (summer training, study.) Most players learn by watching other players, and playing. The players they watch don't have to be on their team -- tv, video, watching games where you can, it's all helpful. But some older guy on the team who looks after you or teaches something specific to you happens much less often than ppl think, and rarely does it matter very much. At least not in my experience. As for providing models, this probably helps a bit, but the self-discipline a player needs had better be in place already, because no one else on the team is going to provide this for you. Look at Kassian: great guy, but lacking the discipline an athlete needs; at least that's what we've assumed was the case with Kassian.

Cap space isn't an issue, I agree. It's roster space and the opportunity it provides for the new generation. If the new players are, however, no better than Burrows, it gets a bit more complicated. Man, we need 2 new forwards that can crack the top 6 -- one in the draft, maybe; one in FA? Mentoring is hugely over-rated, coaches can provide a lot of this, a roster player isn't needed for this role. And we may not have the space if 1 FA and Puljujarvi are here. Could Burrows be useful in Utica? 13th forward?

I like the idea. No one will claim him because of the cap hit, and we will probably see McCann and some of the other prospects needing Utica. Make a place for him down the road for sure, and consider retiring his number. What a story.

I hope you're right, Burr is a ghost of his old self, and can only imagine how far he slips next year. I'm starting to worry a bit more about the Sedins now too: a big regression over the course of this year. No cheating Father Time I guess.

Interesting discussion on the radio post-game show tonight, post last Chicago game. One of the radio guys -- can't remember which one -- made the point that buying out Burr this summer only makes sense if you have a better player available to take his minutes. I just thought he wasn't worth the money, but his point is valid: you're going to pay the money anyway whether he is bought out or stays, so the decision comes down to whether you have one or more players who can not only replace him, but surpass him. He then went on to argue that Etem, Granlund, Grenier, Gaunce and possibly Vey are not noticeably better. So we may keep him because although over-paid, he is better than any replacement so far (this year anyway) and we're going to be paying him anyway. He has a point. Burr scored 9 goals at this point and does pk at a decent level -- he also looks to be trying.