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

-AJ-

Moderators
  • Posts

    20,498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by -AJ-

  1. That's often the case, but there are exceptions like guys like Stone, Toews, Bergeron, Marchand, even Horvat to a lesser degree. I personally love it when offensive stars are valuable on the PK too. You're right though in that it does cause minutes to climb very high for some of these guys.
  2. You're writing off Demko far too quickly. He's not playing very well so far this year, but keep in mind how young he is. Demko just turned 25 years old. When Markstrom was 25, he played almost the entire year in the AHL and played only three NHL games during that season, sporting a poor .879 save percentage. Give Demko some time.
  3. Honestly, I feel like both EP and Hoglander could be great on the PK.
  4. Of course it's relevant, but both guys have largely the same team in front of them. I didn't have the patience to go through 5000 different stats to try to minimize the "team in front of them" factor, but at least save % helps eliminate the "team let a million shots on net" factor.
  5. Seems to me like we either win games because of Demko or lose them because of him. He's either incredible, or pretty bad. Obviously, these stats are going to be biased in favour of the results, but we can compare Demko vs Holtby. First, the more standard case, Braden Hotlby: In our wins, Hotlby is about an average goaltender, and in our losses, he plays poorly. Fairly standard I suspect. Now, for contrast, see the extremes of Demko: Note how insanely dominant Demko is in his three wins. Yet despite this, when he loses, he performs even worse than Holtby, despite having a higher overall average save percentage. Holtby seems to be much more consistent, but just not very good. Demko seems to have high highs, but also lower lows. A relatively small sample size also needs to be considered a weakness of this analysis, however. All in all, it's probably fairly standard for young goaltenders, especially ones just starting to get more games. It reminds me very much of Markstrom in his earlier years, which is, really, not a bad thing. Just have to hope that like Markstrom, he eventually learns to be more stable and consistently good.
  6. I'd love to become a teacher or instructor at some point because I've enjoyed teaching/tutoring so much in the times I've gotten a chance to do so. My goal now is to become an accounting instructor, but the education and experience requirements make it seem so unbelievably far away. It's more a long-term goal really that I'll keep in mind if things go that way. Being an accountant is fine and all, but teaching is more something I'm actually passionate about.
  7. Yeah, no doubt the Aquillinis won't like it, but I think it could be necessary enough that they might see reason and allow us to free up that $2M for next year.
  8. I could see us really needing the money for Hughes and Petey's deals. $2M could be significant.
  9. Funny thing is, you'd hope guys like Beags, Miller, and Bo could teach Gaudette these things. Heck, Green himself was a faceoff expert during his days, averaging around 54% in the dot.
  10. He's not a terrible player, but not worth close to $6M and he really should be exposed, as I expect he will be. His contract is already pretty bad and it will likely become even worse in the last two or three years as he becomes older. As for Eriksson, if I understand it correctly, his buyout-proof contract actually becomes somewhat worth it to buy out in his last year, so there's a good chance the team buys his contract out after this year I think, as long as I'm not mistaken on how that works. EDIT: Yeah, Eriksson actually gets paid $3M in salary next year and only $1M in signing bonuses, so we'd actually save $2M for next year and lose $1M of cap space for 2022-23. The net savings are only $1M, but it might be worth it just for the $2M in extra space for our cap crunch next year.
  11. At this point, it's already very very unlikely we already make the playoffs--though that said, because every game is interdivisional, we likely won't be mathematically eliminated for a while, because it's technically possible to make very fast comebacks since all games are interdivisional. As much as people are freaking out, I think it may be worth considering that even this entire season is a blip on our way up as a franchise. Our best players are still young and I think Demko's development is clearly the most important, as we need him to become another Markstrom or similar if we want a chance to succeed. He's still young and I'm eager to see how he grows over this year into next season when we make another push. I don't think we'll be selling any big time players for picks/prospects, but rather, looking to make hockey trades.
  12. It's during dark times like these that I most appreciate your little positive posts.
  13. I haven't watched the games recently, but have kept up with the boxscores. The boxscore seems to suggest that the team is decent at mitigating shots on goal, but way too many goals are going in. Sounds like a goaltending problem to me. For those who've watched more closely which one of forwards, defensemen, and goaltending is struggling the most right now?

    1. Coconuts
    2. ImConfused

      ImConfused

      It's all Green and Benning's fault. And the goalies. And the defense and forwards. And the refs, and Bettman. And covid. And Donald Trump. And Bill Gates. And the illuminati.

    3. Coconuts

      Coconuts

      The curse of Sergei Shirokov

  14. Pretty sure we'd have to add for that, given DeBrusk's overall stronger career so far.
  15. If we're doing it based on market size and interest, I have to imagine NA and EU would have all the teams. I can't imagine there's much interest in ice hockey in OCE.
  16. "Overrated!" I'm not saying Stech is a top pairing d-man, but it's shocking to see how many people defend him as a 4/5 defenseman and then once he leaves treat him as though he was a 6/7 like Fanta/Benn. We miss his depth and Juolevi/Chatfield haven't yet been able to replace what he brought.
  17. Honestly, I can't imagine in a million years they would do this. The guys on our team are so insanely competitive (the best ones anyway) that throwing games would be the very antithesis to their very character. If, for some reason, the players did dislike management or coaching, I could see that negatively affecting their play, but intentional sabotage of games? Never in a million years with guys like Petey, Hoglander, Miller, Horvat, etc.
  18. It's honestly hilarious how reactionary some people can be. We have a potentially future Norris-calibre defenseman on our hands and people are talking about trading him because his defense isn't great when he's 21 years old.
  19. I do hope to see Hawryluk at some point given our recent struggles against anyone not named Ottawa or Winnipeg.
  20. Except for biological women, evidently, who have any chance of competing taken away from them. Sports is now for men and trans women.
  21. I'm not sure blacks really have a biological advantage over whites when it comes to athletics, and even if they do, it's not nearly to the degree that trans women would over biological women. Yes, we do see blacks dominate sports like sprinting, but we do still see strong white competitors too. If trans women were allowed to compete in womens sports, every single woman except for generational talents would be able to compete, especially a sport like hockey. The issue of blacks not being in sports back then was an issue of racism due to skin colour and had little to do with actual athletic ability. It's well documented that trans women have a massive advantage over biological women in sports.
  22. It absolutely destroys any hope for biologically female competitors. The highest level womens sports would be dominated by transgender women, leaving nowhere for women to compete. Really, what would happen is women would just have to create their own new leagues, leaving trans women to their own league, which is exactly how it should be anyway. Let trans women compete in their own league. Biological women cannot legitimately compete with trans women in most cases and I would hate to see womens sports ruined for 99% of women who dream of being professional athletes. I should add that I guess if it can be verifiably proven that a trans woman has had enough hormones/surgery or whatever to put them on a level playing field, then maybe there's a world where they can compete, but even then, that's adding a very grey area to the conversation. How much is enough hormones? How many hormones and for how long? Are any surgeries necessary? What if a trans woman who qualifies by the rules ends up dominating womens hockey? Did she really take enough hormones or is she holding off on the hormones during the playoffs for a competitive advantage? Do we need to regularly test trans women for horomones at regular intervals to make sure they remain in regular amounts? It really just becomes a bit of a mess. Obviously, letting trans men compete in mens leagues is a non-issue, as there's no biological advantage, so I don't see any issue with that. Biological women are technically allowed in the NHL, for example, it's just that none of them are good enough to play in the NHL.
×
×
  • Create New...