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. Miller-Pettersson-Garland Hoglander-Dvorak-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Podkolzin Dickinson-Sutter-MacEwen Chychrun-Myers OEL-Hamonic Rathbone-Poolman Demko Halak Does the team above join Vegas, Colorado, Tampa, Boston, NYI, and Carolina as perennial 2nd round++ teams? Very interesting thought indeed....
  2. While I think moving on from both Markstrom and Tanev was the correct thing to do (I.e. I don’t think either guy will age well), letting Toffoli walk did upset me a lot. However, I also understoood and recognized the fact that ?Benning wanted to make sure that our long term asset (Demko) was properly insulated with a 1B goalie in Demko. Furthermore, the addition of Garland has made up for the loss of Toffoli imo, along with the fact that Garland is a younger asset. People might disagree with me on this but I still don’t think bringing in Holtby was a mistake. Given that we were transitioning from ?Markstrom to the relatively unknown Demko, we needed to make sure that Demko was being properly insulated with a true 1B caliber goalie. Demko had an impressive playoff performance but that’s still not a large enough sample size to go. Luckily for the Canucks, Holtby was there to help Demko out post Covid outbreak since Demko was hit very hard by Covid. Had we not had Holtby and had we had a weaker back up there instead, Green might have been compelled to play Demko more here which could have had a long term negative effect on his confidence. I for one am glad that we had Holtby here for one year. However, Demko has also proven that he is ready for more duties and responsibilities and so the time to move on from Holtby was definitely the correct move.
  3. Miller-Pettersson-Garland Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Hoglander-Dickinson-Podkolzin Motte-Sutter-MacEwen OEL-Hamonic Hughes-Poolman Juolevi-Myers Demko Halak Is what I would do personally.
  4. Agreed but no longer relevant to the Canucks. :-)
  5. If you’re going to play Dickinson-Miller-Podkolzin together as a match-ups line, why not just play Dickinson and Miller in their more natural positions? (C and LW). Miller can help Dickinson on crucial face-offs but play his natural LW position. Miller-Dickinson-Podkolzin My concern with Hoglander-Pettersson-Boeser is that it might be too soft and/or defensively questionable.
  6. I'll try and respond to this a little later when I have time and can go into more details, but I'll leave you with this: 1) Detroit has missed the playoffs for the past five years in a row. 2) Outside of Seider, Rasmussen, and Hronek, what kind of long term core prospects and draft picks have they successfully drafted, developed, and transitioned into the NHL over this time period that you can honestly say are potential long term foundational pieces? (Zadina is still a question mark). Does this compare to Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Demko, and Hoglander? 3) If you believe in the concept of building an actual long term team culture, can this really be achieved if all of the vets that you've signed are here for 1-2 years tops? How many of these vets that were brought in were a part of previous winning cultures, were former leaders themselves (assistants or captains), or were once former great players? There's a LOT more to rebuilding than draft pick accumulation. How many drafted prospects or college recruits are actually converting to the NHL level? Again, look at the Canucks: -Pettersson -Hughes -Boeser -Hoglander -Demko Former players: Stecher, Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin Young picks that we directly developed: Horvat, Markstrom Prospects that look like they'll realistically play in the NHL for at least one full season minimum: Podkolzin, Rathbone, Juolevi Does Detroit, as of this writing, look even remotely close to having assembled this?..........after five years?
  7. I would consider Hughes and Myers for Graves, Severson, and a 1st but I'm not sure if New Jersey considers this.
  8. Why would the Canucks spend the entire summer making moves to field a more competitive team next season, and then trade Hughes for Seider which would go against this? This move doesn't make sense.
  9. This is a LOT easier said than done for teams that are trending downwards. Perceived downtrending teams in certain markets will always have to overpay on term and money and/or take calculated risks with trades (with completely blowing up their farm) in order to achieve this 'insulation' for their upcoming youth. Perhaps it's easy for downtrending teams to sign good UFA's/PTO's to good term and money on EA Sports but this is a difficult, if not impossible, task in real life: More times than not, GM's of downtrending teams have to choose between one of the following two undesirable choices: 1) Push and rush the kids into roles that they are likely not ready for and place them in a 'sink or swim' environment (i.e. you keep a good short term cap structure but heavily risk destroying the development of the kids in your system). 2) Overpay UFA's on term and money (which expire just around the time when you think you will have approximately established a new young competitive core) which help insulate the youth, can take on tougher match-ups, and have past proven intangibles and/or success that can serve as mentorship for the incoming kids. Trades (Sutter and Gudbranson) also fall under this category. Benning opted for #2. You can't just sign a bunch of PTO's/reclamation projects at league minimum to provide this insulation because PTO's/reclamation projects themselves are looking for "the correct environment" in which they can look good and revive their careers. It really has to be a great fit for both sides in order for it to work (i.e. Thomas Vanek for instance).
  10. Although 2010 holds a special place in my heart (I was at the actual gold medal game.......and Crosby’s gold medal winning goal is only second to Carter’s homer in 1993), I might have to go with the 2014 team. They didn’t lose a single game if I recall correctly and completely dominated the field. No one scored more than one goal per game against us. Yzerman, in selecting that team, once again proved that he was nothing short of a hockey genius.
  11. Sounds to me like you and your buddies at HF “Canucks” are busting at the chops in hopes of it. MS is already pretending that the 2020 playoff run didn’t happen and is doing his best to tell people that we didn’t deserve it.
  12. There is not a single rebuilding team in the league that successfully rebuilt by icing a line-up full of pubeless 18-21 year old kids. Unfortunately, this is what you and your “klan” over at HF Canucks don’t understand. 1) Successful rebuilding teams looking to take the next step need a good combination of vets and youth, in which vets insulate the youth until the youth are ready to accept tougher roles and more responsibility. 2) Total number of picks do not matter. What’s more important is how many of those picks actually convert into long term NHL assets. Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Demko, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Rathbone, Juolevi, + “the departed” (Gaudette, Virtanen, and Tryamkin) were all assets for us.
  13. My guess is that Rathbone will still head to Abottsford and log big minutes there. Even then, he’ll still likely get lots of NHL ice time with inevitable injuries.
  14. I didn’t even realize that Great Schitt was a former PED user. I was initially excited about him being here but am glad that both parties moved on. Hope he enjoys watching BlueBombers football as his primary entertainment option outside of hockey. I think Poolman will be a better fit for us than Schmidt but I can’t see Poolman being better than Tanev. Will happily eat crow if I’m wrong.
  15. Successful teams will always have a blend of homegrown draft picks + veteran leadership that were acquired via trades or UFA signings. Unfortunately, this is something that the morons over at HF Canucks have not quite figured out yet. Furthermore, it’s not about pick accumulation. It’s about how many of your draft picks and/or colleague recruits actually convert into NHL players. This is another thing that the MORONS at HF Canucks have not quite figured out. Draft picks that have stuck: -Pettersson (franchise center) -Hughes (superstar D) -Boeser (1st line Winger) -Demko (possible budding superstar goalie) -Hoglander (good top 6 player). Draft picks that played atleast one full season: -Gaudette -Virtanen -Tryamkin On their way: -Podkolzin -Rathbone -Juolevi We were also responsible for developing Horvat, Markstrom, Stecher, and Hutton.
  16. That would be very interesting and something that I’d also possibly consider. Miller would be able to help take Podkolzin’s offensive game to another level while Dickinson would still be able to provide a lot of the grit and defensive conscience that Miller provided Petey on the lotto line (although Dickinson wouldn’t be able to help out much on face offs). If we’re going off of past proven performance, then I also wouldn’t mind see Miller, Boeser, and Hoglander play with one another. The Canucks went 8-3-1 post Petey injury when this was the top line. Maybe the Canucks could throw out.... Hoglander-Miller-Boeser Dickinson-Pettersson-Podkolzin Pearson-Horvat-Garland the odd time to keep opponents guessing.
  17. Good read. To be honest, I’d rather see Green break up the lotto line by switching up Boeser and Garland. Even though Garland is diminutive in stature, I feel like his ability to win puck battles and overall tenacity will complement Petey a little bit more on that top line. Garland also has the skill and smarts to play with both Miller and Petey on the top line (so does Boeser in this regard). Miller, as usual, can help out with face offs and the defensive end of things. Meanwhile, I think Boeser fits in better with Horvat since Horvat can help with board battles and retrieving picks while Boeser can set up shop. I also like Pearson on this line because he gives the line a little more size and can also help both Horvat and Boeser out defensively. I also do NOT like the idea of Pearson-Dickinson-Podkolzin on the 3rd line because I think the line will have a little difficulty producing offense....and getting Podkolzin to that next level in terms of his offensive potential might be difficult if he’s playing with Dickinson and Pearson. That’s why I like Hoglander on this line. I think Hoglander’s presence will give Podkolzin someone more offensive minded to play with. This will also possibly help Dickinson maximize his offensive potential a little. Miller-Pettersson-Garland Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Hoglander-Dickinson-Podkolzin Having said that, I wouldn’t mind the lotto line remaining intact while Garland playing with BoHo and TP. Take advantage of pre-existing chemistry and familiarity.
  18. I suspect that Hughes will get more ice time than Myers as I see Hughes being on the 2nd pairing with Myers being on the 3rd. OEL-Hamonic Hughes-Poolman Juolevi-Myers Is how I see things unfolding
  19. Benning went on record saying that OEL would be the #1 guy so that Hughes could avoid the tougher match ups on the 2nd pairing. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/jim-benning-ekman-larsson-is-going-to-be-our-number-one-defenceman-3982396
  20. Good lines but I think OJ will be on that 3rd pairing LD instead of Rathbone since the Canucks will try and get both OJ and Rathbone significant NHL games under their belts. Since OJ will need to clear waivers to bounce between the AHL and NHL, I think he’ll stick with the big club this season. Rathbone meanwhile, will log big minutes in Abbotsford and will also get called up quite frequently when we have some inevitable injuries. Under this model, both Juolevi and Rathbone will get some major looks by management. The only way I see Rathbone starting on the big club is if he absolutely kills it in training camp and looks like the clear cut third best defenseman on the team.
  21. I say we get around 94-97 points.....or whatever entails 8th in the Conference. 1st round loss but a definitive step up from last season.
×
×
  • Create New...