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

Fakename70

Members
  • Posts

    1,246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fakename70

  1. Archibald getting criticized on TSN for not being able to keep up with Connor McDavid tonight, therefore justifying his being sent down to Utica. Shaking my head already. If this guy gets sent down, wake me when Gaunce finally does something impressive enough to justify his roster spot over Archibald.
  2. Possibly too advanced for the OHL, definitely not ready for the NHL, and not eligible for the AHL. NICE.
  3. You know what? The more you keep harping on Schultz, the more I like him compared to your hero: Schultz: Regular Season: GP:344 (Over 5 seasons) G:41 A:119 P:160 Playoffs: GP:36 G:4 A:13 P:17 Stepped-up big time in 2016-17 as a #1 D after Kris Letang was in injured. 2016-17 cap hit: $1.4M Tanev: Regular Season: GP:348 (Over 7 seasons) G:16 A:59 P:75 Playoffs: GP:16 G:0 A:3 Decent defenceman, but, too invisible on offence and injury-prone to be a legitimate #1D. 2016-17 cap hit: $4.4M Not entirely sure what the Canucks are getting for that $4.4M price tag (3 yrs left), but, even with the RFA raise Schultz has coming this summer, I'm thinking the Pens are getting more bang for their buck than the Canucks are. So, yeah, Schultz>>>Tanev. All day.
  4. Welp, I guess that settles it then. FINALLY! NOW can you understand my frustration in feeling obligated to go back-and-forth with someone who believes Chris Tanev "would easily slide into a top pairing on more than 1/2 the teams in the league"? If only for the purpose of pointing out how ridiculous that opinion is? Talk about "no sense at all"! If you had actually bothered to pay attention to what I've said, you'd have noticed I specifically noted that one's preference for Chris Tanev depends on what one is looking for in an NHL Defenceman. Particularly, as it pertains to the top pairing. Chris Tanev, if you haven't already sorted it out for yourself by now, isn't what I look for.
  5. And why were they top 2? Who was injured and out of the lineup, as usual?
  6. Because you have nothing better to do, most likely. You enjoy exercises based on, to paraphrase you - "how you see the facts" - well, here's one: if you REALLY believe your hero "would easily slide into a top pairing on more than 1/2 the teams in the league" - you actually said that, with a straight face apparently - let's take a look at the players around the league who could easily be considered the top RHD for their respective teams. Then, let's assemble a top L-R defensive pairing for each team listed. Still with me? Good. Now, if, as you said, Chris Tanev would "easily slide" to the top of the depth chart with a majority of teams, I'd like for you to please name exactly which of "1/2 the teams in the league" from this list where he'd replace their current #1 RHD as half of their top L-R defensive pairing. Hell, for some teams, I've even listed a probable #2 RHD for you to consider. But, if he's really as good as you think he is, then that should prove no obstacle for you. You'll notice that a few teams have been omitted. That's down to them just not really having much of anything going from the right side. Hey, maybe THAT'S where he could "easily slide into a top pairing"! But, among the names on this list? Forget it: Boston: Brandon Carlo Buffalo: Rasmus Ristolainen Montreal: Shea Weber Ottawa: Erik Karlsson Tampa Bay: Anton Stralman Carolina: Justin Faulk Columbus: Seth Jones/ David Savard New Jersey: Damon Severson New York Islanders: Johnny Boychuk Philadelphia: Radko Gudas Pittsburgh: Kris Letang/Justin Schultz Washington: John Carlson/Matt Niskanen And, that's just the Eastern Conference. Still think your hero holds up as a top pairing guy "on more than 1/2 the teams in the league"? Chicago: Brent Seabrook Colorado: Tyson Barrie/Erik Johnson Dallas: John Klingberg Minnesota: Matt Dumba/Jared Spurgeon Nashville: Ryan Ellis/P.K. Subban St. Louis: Colton Parayko/Alex Pietrangelo Winnipeg: Dustin Byfuglien/Jacob Trouba Anaheim: Sami Vatanen Calgary: Dougie Hamilton/Travis Hamonic Edmonton: Adam Larsson Los Angeles: Drew Doughty San Jose: Brent Burns Those are just the righties. Look, this might not be the full list of the 60 that are "better than" (however you want to define that) Chris Tanev - unless you want the lefties, too - but every single name you just read I would absolutely list, rate, and take above and ahead of him when assembling a top L-R defensive pairing. Let me know if you want those lefties if you really do need a full 60. EDIT: just read your most recent comment: why the hell would I need to use any screen name other than this one?
  7. But, is a biased passionate argument cloaked in analytics really rational if the subject matter ultimately just doesn't pass the eyeball test? I just don't think Tanev does. He's like the Canucks version of Derrick McKey. Look that name up if you have to or just "need to do some work".
  8. I'll make it even more simple for you: typing in all CAPS doesn't make you any more right when attempting to state your case. If you truly believe Chris Tanev is among the best of the best the NHL has to offer at the defensive position, so be it. Once again, that is an opinion. One that I wholeheartedly disagree with. But, obviously, you and I both have completely different criteria and expectations regarding what we're looking for in a defenceman. Particularly, when it comes to the #1 pairing and/or top-4 on the depth chart. I'm content to leave it at that. Especially if you continue to insist that Tanev could've been a top pairing guy for the Penguins (or any other team with a legitimate chance at winning the Stanley Cup) this season.
  9. Again, you're stating opinions, not proving facts. Not sure why you think that's qualification enough to shut down my argument. Maybe grab a dictionary? An opinion is not the same as a fact.
  10. "One of the dumbest things I have ever read on Canucks Forums".
  11. Obviously I do disagree. And, have you stated a proven fact about Tanev? Or, merely an opinion, just as I have?
  12. I think my assessment is more than fair for a guy who won't give you anything on offence. You really want a guy like that on your top pairing if, hypothetically, the Canucks were one of the top clubs in the Conference? He's by no means "a top pairing guy on almost any team in the league". But, with the right LHD maybe I could see him as a second pairing guy. It's too bad he's not physical enough to impress as a stay-at-home defenceman. If he were, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize his lack of offence as a #1.
  13. If you actually read what I said, then you already know the answer to your question. Notice that I specifically said if he were playing for a playoff team. But, for a team that stinks and is primarily focused on the "mentoring" of its younger players, sure, he's a #1, if only by default. Which he is.
  14. I think his lack of offence prevents him from being a legitimate top-20 NHL defenceman. Particularly while playing for an offensively-challenged team. His shot suppression stats are nice, but, his game is too 1-sided for me to get excited about that. I still think he's a #1 defenseman in Vancouver only by default, but his true value would be better suited as a third pairing guy with a playoff club.
  15. Amassing picks is nice, but, at some point, hopefully this summer, live bodies on the right side of age 25 are going to need to be acquired for this rebuild. Which always brings me back to Galchenyuk.
  16. Who, Tanev? I think a lot of people - CDC'rs in particular - really started to overvalue the guy after the 2016 Worlds. It's only gotten worse since then. Notice that I said he could be the centerpiece of a major trade acquisition, not the sole piece. I still think that holds true today and is more of an accurate reflection of his true value. He's not worthy of a Subban-Weber type straight swap. And, speaking of Subban, I still believe Benning needs to have his head examined if he really did allegedly/reportedly/supposedly balk at acquiring him once Bergevin mentioned Tanev's name in return.
  17. For a team that won't be competing next season, having Brock Boeser on the roster isn't a necessity unless you want to fill out those empty lower bowl seats at The Rog. That doesn't sound to me like the most perfect plan for the kid with regards to his development. Since the Canucks won't be participating in the playoffs next season - with or without Boeser - let's see if he can have an impact on Utica's season next year just as he did at North Dakota this year. Seriously, what's wrong with letting the Canucks teenaged prospects develop gradually in the minors rather than throwing them to the wolves as soon as they arrive after signing their first professional contract? One would think that being fooled by Virtanen, McCann, and Hutton (yes, Ben Hutton. Sorry, CDC, but, just as Jordan Subban is knocked and kept in the minors for not being defensively responsible, Hutton needs to be right alongside him for the exact same reason) would be reason enough to proceed with caution regarding Boeser. Would much rather see him have a great camp and be sent to Utica - where he'd have a far greater leadership role and average TOI - than have a great camp, make the team, then struggle to keep his spot at the NHL level. Like another Canucks teenaged prospect I'm thinking of right now and mentioned above. Again, if the team likely isn't going to be competitive next year, what could they possibly have to gain from rushing their top teenagers into the NHL?
  18. Personally, I've just about given up on JV developing into the Canucks version of Wayne Simmonds. But, SOMEONE eventually needs to. But, I was also encouraged by Green at his introductory presser when he was asked about JV and offered that he could be just as effective with lowered expectations. If he doesn't develop into that elusive top-6 RW power forward that CDC (myself included) has been pining for, would it be so awful if he developed instead into a bottom-6 RW agitator/enforcer who, as Green said, can give the team a solid 10-12 goals? Doesn't that sound like a younger and cheaper Derek Dorsett? If he can bring to this team what Matthew Tkachuk brings to his, I wouldn't complain.
  19. Perhaps. I just hope "his rookie year" isn't next year. No need for the Canucks to follow type and rush the kid to the NHL. Would it really be the worst thing in the world if he continued his development in the AHL next season?
  20. But, watching the draft last year, Juolevi was touted on the U.S. broadcast as "the most skilled defenceman in the draft". Nothing wrong with that if it holds true. The question is, who does he pair with when he finally makes his NHL debut replacing Edler on the left side? If we're talking a L-R duo, it'd be nice to see him partnered with an aggressive no-nonsense RH blueliner. Is that Gudbranson?
  21. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if he's going to be that Wayne Simmonds-type top-6 RW the team is going to need going forward. If not, the organisation has to consider involving him in a deal to acquire that if it isn't already in-house. Now is the time for him to show he can be that kind of player at the NHL level.
  22. I think the same could be said of Vrbata last year when CDC swore up and down he was washed up. But, back in comfortable and familiar surroundings, he's had a bounce back season while getting paid practically nothing by comparison to #21.
  23. Still waiting to see something from Gaunce to convince me he's more deserving of a shot than this guy. Either that, or, I hope Torts remembers him and makes the call.
×
×
  • Create New...