Hindustan Smyl

Unfortunately, I think Zucker will cost the Canucks more than they’d be willing to part with (either in the form of decent young future assets, or a situation where we’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul). Having a good scoring winger for Bo would be nice, but the Canucks need to be patient. We aren’t winning the cup this year anyways. Let someone like Virtanen or Gaudette grow into the role, while we have guys like Hoglander and Podkolzin waiting in the wings. Canucks primary focus this year should be to try and stay healthy and just make the playoffs. Bring back Tryamkin when his season in Russia finishes.

4-3 Canucks. Hawks always play us tough. The Hawks will get out to a 2-0 lead, but our boys will then pot 4 unanswered goals. Towards the end of the game, Patrick Kane will score a goal after shooting a puck that redirects off Eriksson’s face into the net. gwg = Gaudette.

My vote goes for the Lotto line. The lotto line (6-40-9) is money.

Sorry I’m sure If I understand your statement. To the best of my knowledge, “unsung hero,” only takes the current year into account. It doesn’t look at previous years. For this year, Sutter is definitely a good candidate for unsung hero.

I would strongly consider Leivo there If it wasn’t for the fact that he failed to convert such a high number of scoring opportunities earlier this season.

It’s funny. Often times, I’m asked as to what my favorite Canuck teams of the past were. While many assume that it’s automatically the 1994 or 2011 team, neither of those teams are (although both are up there). My favorite teams are some of those teams from the early 90’s. Those teams that would crush Winnipeg in the first round, but lose to LA or Edmonton in the 2nd round. I loved those teams because those teams had heart and gave it their all each and every night. They played on emotion, and stuck up for one another. As much as I loved the 94’ team, people often forget that their work ethic from previous years wasn’t quite there......and that they had monkey’d around for most of that season. They only really got serious during that playoff run. The WCE era was all about offense and was exciting, but that team could also be outworked and outskated (which could lead to bad penalties). For a number of reasons, those WCE lead teams didn’t bring their A games in the playoffs. I’ve already explained my thoughts about the 2008-2013 Gillis era Canucks (ie the most talented group that we’ve ever had, but a mentally fragile bunch that could be lead down the path of self doubt). FINALLY we have a team that I might just end up loving as much as those early 90’s Canucks teams.........with hopefully a better ending. Call me excited, but I’m expecting something big from these guys within the next 4 years. What do they say? Every 12 years? Whelp - 8 years have passed.

Keep him for this year. Canucks need as much depth as possible. Keep Stecher even if Tryamkin comes back. After this season, the Canucks can then weigh their options.

*wanted* past tense. Not so sure how many people want to move Sutter today.

Sutter is definitely the unsung hero in my books. You could even have Demko listed here since I don’t think too many people had him pegged as being this good this soon. His presence has taken a lot of pressure off Markstrom. Schaller, Beagle and Motte deserve some love here as well. This trio, when put together, is arguably the best 4th line in hockey today. Another nominee is Jordie Benn. He brings a work ethic, leadership, and stability that was missing from the bottom pairing in previous years. We’ve got a really good hockey team on our hands here ladies in gentleman. Are they as good as the 2010-2011 team? Or even the 2011-2012 team? Probably not. However - those teams, as insanely talented as they were, could be pushed around to a point where they’d start having self doubts. Absolutely NO ONE is going to push this &^@#ing team around. Welcome back to the early-mid 90’s my fellow Nuck fans. It’s been a long time coming.

The asking price for AA would be too high. Not worth it from our end. I'm usually down for anything and everything as far as trade proposal ideas go, but as it stands right now, I say we keep everything as is. Period. Our only "addition" this year should be Nikita Tryamkin when his season ends. Stay healthy. Keep everyone we have this year. Bring in Tryamkin. Make the playoffs and look to turn some heads when you're there. This season might not be the equivalent of 2010-2011, but it's starting to look like this team could replicate its teams from 2008-2010.

Sadly enough, many 18-24 year olds at the toilet bowl known as HF Canucks think similar to this. “Hey! It’s a rebuild! Let’s trade everyone 25 and over for draft picks so that we can get a bunch of 4.5 “green stars” and become really really good in 2-3 years!!!!”

Felt like a playoff atmosphere tonight. Even though the Canucks lost, it’s nice to know that we can outplay one of the top teams like that.

If a team is serious about competing for a playoff spot, and doing well in the playoffs, said team should have two good goalies. Period. Keep both Marky and Demko this year. NEXT year however, is a different story....due to the lottery draft. I would absolutely consider moving one of our goalies next year. For me personally however, I would be more inclined to move one of our goalies for a young right sided dman as opposed to a forward. We should be pretty deep up front for many years to come. This team will be in need of young quality top 4 dmen in the future however.

My guy was Heiskanen and so I kind of pouted/lost interest after Dallas snatched him. I didn’t know much about the other players, but recall being surprised/taken aback when we selected Pettersson. I was fully expecting us to take Cody Glass at that point (although I didn’t really know Glass or Pettersson very well).

The plan of this Ownership and management will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood plans in sporting history. Fiery debates amongst fans and media have raged since 2015 as to what this ownership and management has been doing: Myth #1: The Canucks only started rebuilding two years ago. The Acquillini group started to put more of an emphasis on the long term when they traded Luongo back in 2014. The goal was to still try and compete hard each and every night in order to push for the playoffs, but the emphasis was going to be on making sure that the kids within the system were properly insulated and were placed in roles that, while challenging, wouldn’t place undue pressure on them. When a young player was ready to take over a vet’s role, a spot would be created for the kid (ie Baertechi moved up, Higgins got sent down). Myth #2: Bringing in/signing guys like Sutter, Eriksson, Gudbranson, Prust, Gagner, Roussel, Beagle, Vrbata, and Ryan Miller is/was evidence that this team never had any intentions of rebuilding. There were holes in the line-up that no young kid within the system was ready to fill. If these kids were placed into those roles at that time, not only would said kids be in way over their heads, but you would risk hurting their confidence long term and adversely affecting their development (ie what the Edmonton Oilers did). Myth #3: The Canucks trading draft picks for guys like Vey, Pedan, Baertschi, Motte, Clendenning, and Granlund (via Shinkaruk) is evidence that this team is/was never rebuilding and that they were in “compete now” mode. Anyone who has ever played sports and has been inside of a lockerroom, knows that team chemistry and team cohesiveness is paramount to a team’s long term success. If you have a bunch of 18-20 year old kids on one side of the room, and a bunch of guys north of 30 on the other side of the room, the chances of their being great team chemistry will be severely reduced. Hence - filling the age gap. These moves were also necessary due to the fact that the previous management group (the Gillis regime) failed to fill the pipeline with good prospects. Due to that, the Canucks had a huge void in that 20-24 age range. Myth #4: This management group doesn’t deserve much praise. Despite trying their hardest to “win now,” they failed spectacularly and simply accumulated top end talent via the lottery draft. A blind monkey could have done their jobs. Guys like Pettersson and Boeser weren’t “obvious” slam dunk picks. A lot of research and scouting went into these players, and these players were carefully selected despite the fact that other more well known players were on the table (ie Brandon Carlo, Cody Glass). Guys like Demko and Hoglander look like they were major steals as well (although time will tell), while guys like Woo, Tryamkin, and Dipietro also look like they might become good long term pieces for us. Juolevi and Virtanen will likely never live up to their draft position, but both players also have a good shot at being good long term roster pieces. Myth #5: Management’s often terrible long term signings were evidence of naivety. Management recognized that the kids in the system weren’t ready to take on roles that needed to be filled. Management also recognized that in order to maximize the potential of young talents within the organization, and in order to create a culture and get the kids to compete hard each and every night, a premium price needed to be paid for leadership and intangibles. Period. Unfortunately, in a competitive UFA market, a team has to often times overpay for certain players...........especially if said team is near the bottom of the standings, and isn’t located in an area that “everyone wants to go to,” such as New York City, California, Northeastern United States (easy travel schedule), or an original 6 team. Yes - mistakes were made (ie Management not recognizing that the game was changing and that youth and speed was becoming more important and so Eriksson and Gudbranson may not be the best targets), but holes needed to be filled by veterans so that the kids could develop in roles that were best suited for their games. Myth #6 - the Canucks attempting to trade for Lucic back in 2016 (a 1st) was evidence that this management group didn’t have a clue where this team was as an organization. At that time, the Canucks had made the playoffs in the year prior and as of the 2016 deadline, were still very much in the race for the playoffs. Although management knew where the Canucks realistically were as an organization, you also have to have the players’ backs at all times. If a team is competing for a playoff spot, you have to give them the vote of confidence. Rewards need to be based on merit. What type of message does it send to the team if you imply through your actions that, “yeah you’re competing for. A playoff spot but we think it’s a fluke and so we’re not going to give you complementary pieces?” Myth #7 - “I think we can turn this around pretty quickly,” A smart fan will know that this comment was never meant to be taken literally, and that, it was simply a way of management giving the vote of confidence to the boys in public while reassuring the boys (players) that this management believed in them and had their backs. What type of massage do you send the players, the fans, and the media if you say, “we’ve got a long rebuild ahead of us?” Think season ticket holders will want to renew with comments like that? Concluding thoughts: While this management group and ownership has made some mistakes (ie Gudbranson trade, Eriksson signing, Gagner signing, Juolevi/Virtanen draft picks), I get a sense that critics of this ownership and management really don’t understand where this team was as an organization back in 2014, and how depleted this team was from top to bottom thanks to the complete drafting incompetency of the Gillis regime. Our 2008-2013 core players were aging and we had absolutely no one in the pipeline. When Benning, Weisbrod, and this management took over this team, they were faced with a HUGE task. A good and successful rebuild will usually take between 5-7 years, and this management group seems to be directly in line with that time frame.

Nope. I would keep everything exactly as is, as far as this year goes. The only thing I would do, is bring back Tryamkin when his season ends. Depending on how things go and where Podkolzin is at on his development (and of it was logistically feasible), I’d also consider bringing in Podkolzin.

I figured in the A, he’d get more playing time while also having more of a chance to adjust his fitness level to NHL standards. Either option would be good though. Just get em over here!

That’s a great point about team cohesiveness. If Tree is brought back, I think what the Canucks should do is put him in a conditioning stint down in Utica so that he gets his fitness back to an NHL level (if he’s not there already). Once an injury occurs, you can then call Tryamkin up. Kill two birds with one stone.

Over the last 10+ years or so, it’s also been proven that teams that have players, or a core of players that take up too high a percentage of the cap, will not have the necessary depth to win a championship. Cost controlled elite talent + depth = championship. If you look at teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, Boston, and St. Louis, this is how they won their cups. Even a team like Washington followed this formula (though they were on the higher end of this).

The heavenly gates of HF Canucks awaits you.

Tryamkin: The problem with guys like Juolevi, Fantenberg, Teves, Chatfield, Brisebois, etc, is that IF they were to play for us this year, they could only really be used as 3rd pairing dmen........marginal 3rd pairing NHL calibre dmen at best. Now obviously - with guys like Juolevi, etc., this will very likely change in the coming years (ie Juolevi eventually becoming a solid top 4 guy). For right now however, our current “defensive depth” consist of players that would only be able to fill in as marginal 3rd pairing defensemen. This is where a guy like Tryamkin would come in. Even if Tryamkin doesn’t come here and plays like the 2nd coming of Zdeno Chara, IF Tryamkin can come here and be a guy that could fill in on the top 4 Incase of injuries, and not look out of place on a top 4 role for an extended amount of time, then there would be a huge value and benefit in Tryamkin returning here. The Canucks are unbelievably deep up front and in net. Tryamkin returning to this team would make us really deep on defense as well. If Tryamkin returned to Vancouver, and the Canucks pretty much kept the exact same line-up that they have right now, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we went deep into the playoffs, regardless of whether we had some key injuries. Tryamkin doesn’t need to come here and be a superstar. If he came here and was a guy that could play top 4 Incase of injuries and not look out of place doing so, then that would be a HUGE win for Vancouver in itself.

First: Let’s make the playoffs. Next: Let’s win a cup. Then: Let’s win another cup. Finally: We can have a discussion like this. I love your optimism, but let’s not jump the gun.

JD Burke from “The Athletic” has been really quiet lately.

Markstrom to Edmonton or Calgary: Edmonton and Calgary both....: 1) have good teams will likely be competing for a playoff spot. 2) have the potential to win more than one playoff round. 3) are a little weak in net. If not this year, I wonder if it would be in the interests of both teams to swing a deal that would involve the following: To Edmonton or Calgary: 1) Markstrom or Demko 2) another asset To Vancouver 1) One of their goalies that would then come here and back-up the guy we keep (Markstrom or Demko) 2) A defenseman that wouldn’t look at all out of place if he needed to play on the top 4 for an extended period of time.

Times are a changin’. The Canucks haven’t beaten the snot out of the Sharks this badly since what? 2011? And we did it without Hughes.