wallstreetamigo
Members-
Posts
16,779 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by wallstreetamigo
-
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Yes. I havent watched that game since though so have no idea how sketchy that was. Maybe it was. Still has nothing to do with the Canucks or the SCF though which was my point. -
When did I excuse away his shortcomings? Dahlin has work to do as well. Its not all because he is on Buffalo. And Hughes struggles defensively are not all because he is on Vancouver. And Makar being a superior player (imo) is not only because he plays on a better team in Col. I have never said being on a better or worse team doesnt impact your stats or your effectiveness. I have simply said it isnt as big a factor as people here claim to build up Hughes and slag on Makar or Dahlin. With Hughes, he may play on a crappy team but he still gets prime offensive opportunity with the best players. All 3 are great young players. If given the choice Hughes would be 3rd pick of them to me. Others can disagree.
-
Not sure anyone is actually hitting the panic button on Hughes. I know I am not. He will improve as time goes on and circumstances change. No one should really be worried about him or giving up on him. People suggested they would trade Hughes for Makar. Some agreed, others said they are neck and neck as players. No matter what the"context" is, its just not true that they are at this point. Could they be if Hughes can improve? Of course. But if Colorado offered Makar for Hughes straight up I take the deal all day every day right now.
-
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Good points made. I do think our defense individually and collectively is much better than they have shown. I attribute a lot of their struggles to coaching and systems. I am excited about the Shaw addition because he excels at fitting players to pairings and roles that maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses and fitting the structure and style around the players he has rather than trying to put square pegs in round holes. The inexperience on the left side is a concern. We may very well see one of Rathbone or Juolevi traded tbh. I dont necessarily think that should happen but would not be surprised if it did. Schmidt could move to the left side if a true top pairing RHD that can complement Hughes can be acquired (a big ask, I know). -
My point is they arent neck and neck. Not even close. And if they played for opposite teams they still wouldnt be. Makar has really improved in both zones. Hughes has not yet. He regressed defensively this past season actually. Both are good young players and will get better. But Makar - at this point - is quite clearly the superior dman and its not as close as people want to think.
-
This is all I am saying. And I agree on all points. People seem to be saying I think Hughes is garbage. I dont. The black or white approach isnt where I come from. Makar and Heiskanen at this point can be progressing and far more well rounded and better overall players than Hughes without it meaning Hughes is garbage or can never improve. Those things arent mutually exclusive. Dahlin is getting dragged down being in Buffalo for sure. But people on here are dragging down his potential for no other reason than because they think it builds up Hughes. Same with Makar, etc. It doesnt change anything about Hughes deficienceies to try to minimize other dmen. They all have their weaknesses too.
-
Makar is phenomenal and gifted too. More so than Hughes especially on the defensive side of the puck. Dismissing Makar because of the team he plays for and minimizing his ability as a player is just a standard cdc move to somehow put Hughes in the same league as him. Last season clearly showed how much Makar pulled ahead as a more well rounded D. That doesnt mean I think Hughes is garbage, I dont. He is a very promising young player. He just isnt at the same level of progression as Makar. Makar isalso still improving and progressing as a player. You make it sound like he is a 30 year old vet who has peaked.
-
I dont disagree with either point you make. And neither point actually negates my point. He is simply not there yet. Shaw will help for sure. His size and lack of physical toughness will need to be overcome. I think that will be more about finding the right partner that complement each other and building a defensive system that takes advantage of his offensive strengths on the defensive side if the puck. Skatibg it out if trouble, quick transition game, and using his skating to avoid getting destroyed or outmuscled. I equate Quinn Hughes becoming a true cup quality dman to having a sort if Duncan Keith style to his game. Minus the dirty elbows of course. But a style that does not try to turn him into sonething he is not. Add in aHjalmarsson or Seabrook type on his pair and you have a top D pairing imo.
-
Not sure how much you watch those other guys play but both Makar and Heiskanen are better defensively than Hughes at this point and are improving still. And they still provide offense too not at the expense of their defensive play. We are lucky to have Hughes, no doubt about. i have never said otherwise. He can and will get better defensively. But his lack of size, physical challenges, and (currently) sub par defensive game are all concerns about his ability to be more thanan offensive/pp specialist type. He has alot of work to do. And so do the coaches in building a defensive structure that takes advantage of his strengths rather than magnifying his weaknesses. Sorry to disagree but I would take Dahlin over Hughes long term. Its closer than it probably should be considering their draft positions though.
-
Playing on a worse team doesnt necessarily change the fundamentals of a player though. It might impact their results since hockey is, of course, a team game. But elite players are still elite. People constantly dismiss elite level players on other teams. While simultaneously over rating Canucks players.
-
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
I suspect my delivery of reality based assessments of the Canucks and management approach is why many consider me a "hater". I love the Canucks and have since I was a kid in the 70's. They have a good core at this point but by no means a perfect one. In my mind a true cup contending core includes a clutch bottom 6 center that can play at both ends. A true #1 all around dman who can play the PP, PK, and matchup defense 5 on 5. If that player can provide a physical game thats even better. The Canucks have neither at this point. They do have some flexibility though imo. If I put my optimistic hat on, I could see an effective 4 line forward group even if they cant get a 3rd line upgrade. - EP, Miller, Horvat centering top 3 lines. Sutter as 4th line center placeholder would not be bad on a cheap 1 year deal. But Graovac would be serviceable there for a year too. - top line quality offensive LW. If playing with EP and Boeser, needs to be a premier two way guy with some physical jam and an ability to create space and retrieve pucks. If playing with Miller it needs to be a guy with exceptional playmaking ability. - Pearson and Horvat as 2/3 of a 3rd line is playoff quality depth imo. They need a RW who can play solid at both ends though. That could be Podkolzin or he could be a top 6 option. Hoglander I see as a good top 6 LW option but depending on other moves as suggested could be fantastic on the 3rd line RW. Having a 3rd line like that is how you win in the playoffs. - the team actually has the makings of a solid 4th line. Highmore, Graovac, MacEwen, Motte, Sutter, etc. The problem is playing these guys up the lineup. Defense is where the needs become critical. I love Hughes but he is not a true #1 dman you win in the playoffs with. The team needs a true all around #1 guy who can PP, PK, matchup 5 on 5, and play a more physical style. Hopefully that guy has a booming shot. Pair that guy with Hughes and you have a top pairing that can carry serious water in the playoffs. Schmidt is a guy who, if he stays, needs to be utilized to full effect. He is good at both ends. He didnt show nearly what he can do. Part of that was his pairing and usage. I think in the absence of other moves, a Juolevi/Rathbone-Schmidt pairing could be a highly effective 2nd pairing at both ends. If you have Myers anchoring your 3rd pairing, that is quality playoff depth imo. It all stems around a true #1 RHD imo. The Canucks are not necessarily that far off. But they need to change wasting cap on the wrong areas. It becomes easier if they can add a true elite 3rd line center and true #1 RHD to the core of course. -
On the Hamilton front, I agree with a few of my usual nemesis that he is really not the need we have to fill, especially not at the likely contract it would take plus assets to acquire him. If the Canucks go all in on Hamilton they would likely need to trade Hughes for a package that includes a top pairing LHD who can play the left side effectively with him. Because we dont have one now.
-
Far better isnt really a stretch. No way are they neck and neck at this point. Makar does not create his offense only at the expense of his defensive play. Hughes right now is at best a borderline net positive to the team in that regard though. He has a long way to go defensively. Makar has improved significantly on the defensive side without it eroding his offensive ability in any significant way. Hughes needs to do the same. With Shaw around we will soon see how much Hughes offense will be impacted by being forced to become a better defensive player. Hopefully he will be able to do so and still be a great offensive player. I understand the need for people to overrate Hughes because he is a Canuck. If he was on any other team though, many here who claim he is among the best Dmen in the NHL would freely point out his defensive deficiencies as a reason why he actually isnt. Being objective about him is easier for some than others,same with any Canucks player. At this point though, I think any GM in the league would trade Hughes for Makar straight up and consider it a massive steal.
-
Lots of truth in this. Regular season hockey and playoff hockey are two different things. Relying primarily on your PP to win in the playoffs puts far too much control in the hands of the officials. Solid defense and goaltending with solid secondary scoring wins cups. Top players get matched up and stifled offensively. You have to have solid play as a team to win a cup.
-
Makar is dynamic offensively and solid and improving defensively. He is, at this point, far better than Hughes and would be far better for the Canucks to build around. Having said that, there is no chance the Canucks are offer sheeting him or trading for him. Even if Benning did offer sheet him, no chance he gets him without a hugecontract overpayment and the loss of significant draft picks. If Colorado feels Makar wont sign with them, they will trade him for a huge haul. But he will sign with them. Or they will match any iffer and move others out as necessary.
-
Never said the GM wasnt involved. They are always involved to some degree. Where Brackett's tenure really stands out to me is those round 3 to 7 picks though. Its too early to know just how those players will end up, and the Canucks have alreafy given up on some so it will depend on how they progress elsewhere, but those drafts produced a lot beyond the first 2 rounds, especially in comparison to many draft years before his tenure. Benning/Weisbrod team is good but wildly overrated in terms of drafting though. Looking at their history in Van and previously there are a lot of pretty bad picks even in the early rounds. I dont think they are terrible by any stretch, they are pretty good actually, I just dont see the evidence they are drafting gods like many here claim. Having a guy like Brackett was clearly a pretty good combination for Canucks drafting. We will see if that prowess continues now that Benning and Weisbrod are running the show. Last draft they dudng have any top picks left so its hard to gauge what they did. If they dont trade picks in this draft we will get a clearer picture of the new drafting approach. I will say I half expect their 1st and 2nd picks to be traded.
-
I am really hoping the approach this off season is a couple of expansion draft trades to maybe get a few undervalued good young players and, whether that works or doesnt, 1 year UFA fill ins at reasonable cap hits to set the table for next summer. Woukd even be fine with Edler and Sutter back on cheap 1 year deals with no ntc. Really dont care to see theCanucks swing for the fences with this UFA crop tbh. Will be fine if they dont try to go all in this year.
-
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Why is it so hard for you to see that while the Canucks do have some good young players and have progressed in that regard, that they are still not a good enough team top to bottom to be considered cup competitive. Under your rose colored glasses literally every team has the same chance to win a cup if they just make the playoffs. Unfortunately, history doesnt really agree with you. Any team that has a pretty ineffective bottom 6 (both offensively and defensively) to the point where it has to rely on a top 6 line to play the significant defensive role and whose #1 dman is sub par defensively trying to generate only offense is not lucking their way to a cup. No team has ever accomplished that actually. Being realistic is not being a hater. There is a lot of work to do to make this team playoff competitive. Lets hope Benning understands that. -
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Officiating plays a role. In 2011 the officiating (and head office) were pretty sketchy. But its tough to completely blame the refs. The Canucks had their chances on the PP. They scored 8 goals in 7 games. They played a perimeter game and simply could not solve Thomas. Vegas gets away with a lot. But they also move their feet and play aggressive which makes it easier for refs to let them get away with it. -
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Here's where you miss the point. The Canucks short term reactionary moves have not only sacrificed the future they have also not actually made the team more competitive in the short term. Hence it being a terrible plan. Paying a 3rd, 2 5ths, and a 7th for 3 rentals is different than paying a 2nd and a good prospect for 1 rental. Especially when your team is not anywhere close to being built for a long playoff run like the Canucks. The habs are also getting secondary scoring from their bottom 6 (which is much better than the Canucks bottom 6), solid defensive play from their entire D (which has been a train wreck for the Canucks under this coaching group), and getting consistent top flight goaltending. They have certainly had some luck as well. But they are a much better built team than the Canucks. Like you said though, their short term moves will cause significant cap concerns soon. If they dont win the cup this year it did sacrifice some of their future. -
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
You are clearly missing the point. I said literally very little of what you are claiming I did. I never said the Canucks dont have some good players. I said they dont - at this point - have enough to be considered a competitive cup team. Been true Benning's entire tenure actually. Not sure how thats some heinous negative view of the team. Its simply true. They won one playoff round last year. It takes 4 to win a cup. You say they took Vegas to 7 games which shows how much of a cup conpetitor they are. Did you watch any games in that series? The Canucks were dominated start to finish. Goaltending was the only reason that wasnt over in 5 at best. If you think any goalie could play the way Demko did for those 3 games for 4 playoff rounds you are delusional. How many teams with a bottom 6 that cannot provide any offense at all or play shutdown defense has won a Stanley Cup? None. You need contributions from your whole lineup. How many teams without a true 2 way top pairing quality dman has won a cup? None. Teams win cups, not individual players. And there is certainly luck involved (as I actually previously said). No cup winner has relied only on luck with an inferior roster to win a cup. If you dont think the Canucks have an inferior roster most of the last 7 years, you clearly arent objective. And if you think someone pointing out the reality is some kind of "hate" its not. Its simply reality. If you arent realistic about your weaknesses and your shortcomings as a team you are never going to be able to fix them. Actually, thats the reason the Canucks dont. Because they dont ever admit it even when they simply are not good enough. Anyone who thinks the current Canucks roster could luck its way through 4 rounds and win a cup is delusional and has clearly never watched playoff hockey. No scoring from the bottom 6 us no team toughness = EP, Boeser, and Hughes all probably injured by cheap shots because the team holds no one accountable. -
[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates
wallstreetamigo replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Ya thats obvious. But its not that every team who makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning the cup either. You still have to be a deep, talented team. Luck with injuries, consistent top tier goaltending, defensive effectiveness, and consistent secondary scoring from your depth players all play important roles. The cost of trying to make the playoffs every year, which usually means reactionary moves in the short term and cap handcuffing at the expense of long term sustainability and cap flexibility, is the problem with the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" theory. Its simply not fact. Every team that has won the SC had more than just luck and hope. Playoff experience is important. But so is building your team the right way. The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs, despite his constant reactionary moves to try to get there. And the few times they have they were not actually cup competitive.