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

Patel Bure

Members
  • Posts

    3,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Patel Bure

  1. For one year, YES, but Subban's contract coming off the books after one year would be a huge advantage. With that freed up money, the Canucks could go HARD after Parayko, Murphy, Pulock, Manson, or whichever *insert top pairing shut down RD option* available. Having said that, I can't see NJ agreeing to take on three years of Myers' salary since they'll be banking on Subban to fall off the books in anticipation of their upcoming RFA's over the years.
  2. Here are some more questions that I have: 1) How much PP time do you see Jack Rathbone getting at the NHL level this season? Would he even get any PP time? 2) Would Rathbone be a PK option? 3) On 5 on 5 situations, and assuming no injuries to OEL or Hughes, how much offensive deployment time would you expect Jack Rathbone to get at the NHL level this season? Would you expect him to get more offensive deployment or defensive deployment? (bearing in mind the presence of both Hughes and OEL). Since Rathbone, stylistically, is an offensive defenseman, does all of the above factors equate to being a conducive environment for Rathbone’s development? I’m not so sure. For me, given all of the above, this role seems like it would be better suited for Olli Juolevi.
  3. But again, we are talking about the 3rd pairing and subsequent 3rd pairing minutes. Agreed that Rathbone is likely better than Juolevi at this stage, but why would you want Rathbone playing in a limited 3rd line capacity? (Which is basically what would happen since Hughes and OEL will occupy the first two LD positions). Wouldn’t it be better for Rathbone’s development to log big minutes on the farm in all situations? (Top line PP, possible PK time to help round out his game, etc.). And since injuries are inevitable, you could call Rathbone up from Abbotsford and have him replace one of OEL or Hughes just incase one of those guys got injured. From my perspective, that would be a MUCH better use of Jack Rathbone.
  4. Dickinson has some untapped offensive potential (at least that is what management believes), and is also a proven shut down option at center. I agree with you that the teams wants three lines that can score but Dickinson was brought in to be a part of that solution. At least that is my understanding of the situation. The Canucks brought him in to replace Sutter as the 3rd line center. You said it yourself - the Canucks hope to have three scoring lines and so why would they play Gadjovich on the top 9? As of this writing, JG is a 4th line option at best. He would have had to have taken a significant leap in his game in order to play shotgun to JT Miller on a 3rd line.
  5. -Great point about Schmidt, and a possible overlooked factor by many hockey scouts, pundits, and fans. -I don’t mind seeing the Canucks use Miller as a center on random occasions to give opposing teams a different look, but we have to keep in mind that Miller prefers the wing. Deploying Miller as a center in a shut down role could lead to unhappiness and frustration for him. Dickinson was brought in so that he could grow into that 3rd line shut down option so that both the Horvat line and lotto line could get more offensive deployment. If you use Miller as a center on the odd occasion, he should play with two good and proven scoring wingers for the most part. Having said that, if the Canucks wanted to ice their best possible shut down option on random occasions, then I’d probably go Pearson-Dickinson-Miller, with Miller helping out on face-offs. So for example, Canucks vs. Colorado Hoglander-Pettersson-Boeser Podkolzin-Horvat-Garland Pearson-Dickinson-Miller (possible shut down against the Mackinnon line)
  6. Just wondering, With 16.6 million in cap space that will be available (Ferland LTIR + few jabronie’s being dropped to Abbotsford), perhaps both players would agree to a 8.3 x 8 year deal? Long term future secured + a good blend between getting paid big money while taking a slight long term hometown discount in order to help the Canucks build a winner).
  7. We would see a Nate Schmidt like situation if you placed Dickinson on the 4th line on RW for no apparent reason. If Gadjovich makes the team, he makes it as a 4th liner, and if the Canucks choose to use Miller as a center on odd occasions, he’ll be playing with two good and proven wingers (like he did last year with Boeser and Hoglander).
  8. Fair enough. My personal belief is that a Pearson-Dickinson-Podkolzin line might struggle a bit to generate offense and so the presence of Hoglander might give this line a little extra scoring punch, which could also help untap a little bit of Dickinson’s offensive potential (apparently, Dickinson has a bit offensive potential). Pearson and Horvat also have a few years of experience playing with one another. Im also not a fan of placing Hoglander and Garland together. Although both guys play bigger than their size, icing a line that small could be detrimental.
  9. Miller-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Garland Hoglander-Dickinson-Podkolzin Motte-Sutter-Highmore MacEwen OEL-Hamonic Hughes-Poolman Juolevi-Myers Schenn, Hunt Demko Halak
  10. I agree with most of the above but I have a few questions: 1) Why would you have Dipietro up here as part of the 23 man roster? Wouldn’t it be better for him to start in Abbotsford? 2) I agree that Rathbone is likely superior to Juolevi at this point, but what do you think would be better for Rathbone’s development? Getting limited 3rd line minutes in the NHL or logging big minutes in Abbotsford? (in answering this question, please keep in mind that Rathbone does not require waivers when being called up). 3) Based on last season, do you think Benning brought in OEL to be a 2nd pairing defenseman for us, or do you think he brought in OEL so that Hughes could take on easier defensive match ups while growing his defensive game at a more appropriate situation to his level (similar to the 19-20 season where Hughes played on the 2nd pairing while getting 1st line PP time). 4) Was the Hughes/Hamonic pairing a successful one last season?
  11. I guess it just depends on what your definition of ‘prime’ is but I still think Mogilny had more overall talent than Bure even if Bure had the better overall career. As far as the greatest Canuck of all-time goes, I can’t see how anyone chooses anybody other than Henrik Sedin. -Highest point total in Canucks history -Only Canuck to win a Hart Trophy -One of two Canucks to ever win an Art Ross Trophy -Captain of the most successful Canucks era in franchise history (although Luongo started) -One of two Canucks to record over 1,000 points. -One of few Canucks to never play for another team. The answer is easily Henrik and it’s not even really close. If I was building a team from scratch (expansion draft) and had to choose a player to build around however (and had to choose an in-prime Canuck and could choose anyone), I would choose Trevor Linden.
  12. Solid post. Will respond a bit more in depth when I have time but just one minor correction: The Canucks will actually have closer to 16.6 million in cap space today sign Petey and Hughes.
  13. Greatest Pure on ice talent: Alex Mogilny Greatest Canuck of all-time: Henrik Sedin Greatest Canuck leader: Trevor Linden Greatest Canuck goal scorer: Pavel Bure Greatest Canuck defenseman: Alex Edler Greatest Power Forward: Todd Bertuzzi Greatest Enforcer: Gino Odjick (not our toughest but understood this role better than anyone and took the most pride in it). Greatest Canucks goalie: Kirk McLean (Luongo was better than McLean in almost every way imaginable but McLean shown brightest when it mattered most while Luongo experienced “playoff yips” every single year after 06/07). When all is said and done however, I think Thatcher Demko will go down as our greatest goalie of all-time.
  14. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2002-03-24-0203230498-story,amp.html Check out this article written by Michael Russo (a local sports writer in Florida who covered the Panthers at that time if I understand correctly). While he was quick to praise Bure’s prolific goal scoring abilities, he also illuminated some of the underlying problems that Bure had....and how his reputation was low amongst NHL scouts, etc. As far as Bure vs. Mogilny goes, I’ll be the first to admit that Bure displayed far more consistency throughout his career than Mogilny did on a season to season basis. Absolutely no question. Bure ended up with a higher PPG average than Mogilny, and is already a HOF’er. Talentwise however, peak Mogilny absolutely tops Bure. Mogilny had 127 points in one season one time in Buffalo, and also netted 107 points during his first season in a Canucks uniform (during the clutch and grab era). By contrast, Bure never once got 100 points after 1994 when the clutch and grab era started (1995-2004). https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/aucoin-canucks-stories-bure-mogilny-messier Adrian Aucoin, who has played with both Bure and Mogilny, also weighs in on who he thought was better and why (he thinks Mogilny was better). We might be arguing two different things here iBatch. Despite his lower overall point totals due to injury, Bure probably did have a superior career to Mogilny. From a pure overall talent perspective however, I think Mogilny was superior to Bure.
  15. Best GM we ever had, lolll. Not even close. Quinn was definitely the greatest coach we had. You might be right with the Gretzky thing (actually, scratch that......you are correct here), but how do you explain... 1) The treatment of Bure since Day one (attempting to pay him in Canadian dollars, letting him sit in LA for a few weeks when Bure first arrived without as much of a phone call, etc.) 2) Letting Larionov walk 3) Letting Ronning walk 4) Not recognizing that the team had become stale after the 1996 1st round loss and were in dire need of a shake up, and that the team had a “country club” atmosphere surrounding it. 5) Signing a 36 year old Messier under the assumption that Messier was “the missing piece” for our core (when it actuality, the core needed to be gutted). 6) Hiring two complete morons for coaches in Rick Ley and Tom Renney back to back. 7) Trading Russ Courtnal and Esa Tikanen for Sergei Nemchinov (who clearly stated that he did not want to leave New York) + a 3rd line plug in Brian Noonan. Granted, Quinn did a few tremendous things as a GM (ie drafting Bure, the 1994 trade deadline deals), but some of his mistakes as a GM were off the wall mind boggling.
  16. The MJ/Lebron debate is also one of the stupidest debates in recent sporting history since Jordan was head over heels better than Lebron. Jordan could have played like Lebron had he wanted to but was never asked to play that way. That was Pippen’s job. Lebron could never do what Jordan did however.
  17. Reaves might be able to make a fool and a wife out of Antoine Roussel, but Tom Wilson is a whole different animal. As you said, Wilson is a legit top 6 player. Reaves won’t be able to keep up with those guys.
  18. Fair enough but what about the treatment of Bure since Day One? Or letting Ronning walk? Larionov? Hiring guys like Rick Ley and Tom Renney as coaches?
  19. Pat Quinn was an obtuse moron that let Cliff Ronning walk. To make matters worse, Quinn basically phoned Gretzky at midnight to give him an ultimatum (don’t wait until the morning to sign the contract.....sign now). Quinn could have had two tremendous scoring lines with Bure and Mogilny playing on separate lines with one of Linden or Ronning/Gretzky but he mucked it up. Being the brainless twit that he was, Quinn also completely mishandled Bure from Day One in pretty much every way imaginable, which ultimately lead to Bure wanting out of here. While Quinn was a legendary coach, and did make a few brilliant moves as a GM, he was a complete dip$&!# as a GM for the most part.
  20. I acknowledged Bure’s back-to-back seasons in Florida where he netted close to 60 goals in both seasons. However, this was nothing like the 1991-1994 version of Pavel Bure who had Atleast a semi-decent two way game (or Atleast somewhat passable). The Florida version of Bure was a pure cherry picker that brought absolutely nothing else to the table. It’s one of the reasons why Florida eventually traded him despite his enormous goal scoring output.
  21. Wondering if there’s any shot of Bowey being a massive late bloomer?
  22. My take: 1) Greatest Canuck of all-time: Henrik 2) Most overall talented Canuck of all-time: Mogilny (refer to previous post of mine). 3) Biggest legend to play on the Canucks: Messier (sorry guys). 4) Most exciting Canuck of all-time: Bure
  23. It’s also one of the reasons why I preferred 95/96 Mogilny over any version of Pavel Bure. Mogilny also knew how to score and tassel dazzle, but was equally adept at utilizing his teammates. On top of that, Mogilny was more than capable of winning board battles and had a very underrated two way game as well. Bure would usually only pass when he was left without other options. Very similar to Ryan Kesler in this regard. Bure would also only throw out hits or cheap shots when he was retaliating against someone. Furthermore, from 1995 onwards, Bure didn’t do ANYTHING defensively, and his “cherry picking” style became progressively worse as the years went on. It’s one of the reasons why Florida moved on from him despite the fact that Bure had almost back to back 60 goals seasons down there. Bure scored goals.......and brought absolutely nothing else to the table in his final years. 1991-1994 Bure was a tremendous hockey player however. Still a puck hog, but was a little more committed to two way hockey. In terms of pure overall skill and talent however, no one compared to 95/96 Mogilny as far as the most talented Canuck was concerned.
×
×
  • Create New...