-
Posts
4,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by canucklehead44
-
I said he skates well. Horvat does too but he isn't a burner either. I'd be blown away if he was as good as Vanek, who has averaged 32 goals / 82 games in his career. Only 15 players in the league last season scored 32 or more goals.
-
That probably is the big difference maker. I think the other part is stamina and defensive play. Kassian was producing in his ice time, but I think part of the reason he wasn't moved up to the first line and given 18 minutes per game is the fact his defensive play was shotty and he wasn't in the best physical shape (Smith-Pelly and Stewart probably also fall into this category as well). So they likely don't get the opportunity to play with a top playmaker because of holes elsewhere. At the same token, they are reasonably effective generating goals via crash & bang, driving to the net style of hockey. Bertuzzi for example was such a smart offensive player in his time. In fact, the last bit of his career was as a playmaker. He had size and speed, but his IQ was excellent. A playmaker will of course help, but it will be interesting to see if Virtanen builds amazing chemistry with a player at some point or he is more of a stand alone contributor.
-
Don't get me wrong, I really like Virtanen. I just would have liked to have seen him become a 60-70 point player in the AHL before getting called up. He has a lot of fantastic raw tools but he definitely needs development to become an effective offensive player as he just isn't there yet. Also with Jake it is easy to take shortcuts. He is physically NHL ready, and adds speed and physicality to the bottom six. This makes it easy to pigeon hole him into that role, vs letting him develop with other offensive minded players in offensive roles down in the AHL. I think the "physical 15" plays a very underrated role. A physical 15 player is penciled into a 3rd line position and is expected to contribute depth offence and toughness. This type of player can also be moved temporarily up to the top 6 for toughness, or to the fourth line for skill. These types of players typically aren't special team darlings but do play a unique and important role and is often inexpensive salary wise OR to acquire (because they get easily overpaid). The thing is fans are very hot/cold on these types of players. We either love em or hate him. And I think it is because they have double the expectation - to perform offensively and physically. Often, their 5 on 5 production is great, especially per dollar. The thing is they don't play a tonne of minutes and don't score a lot on the powerplay. Trent Klatt, Matt Cooke, Steve Bernier, David Booth, Raffi Torres, Zack Kassian are a few examples of Canucks who fall into this category. Kassian was in the 88th percentile for 5 on 5 goal production his last year with us. Throw that in with physical play at a salary south of 2 million and it sounds like a steal, yet we consider him a bust and Benning traded him for peanuts. l I personally don't have a problem if Jake becomes a physical 15. It will keep his contract manageable and provides a versatile option up and down the lineup. Physical 25s are your top power forwards. They cost a fortune. David Backes, Milan Lucic, Kyle Okposo, andrew Ladd. etc. Massive contracts. Jake salary would be around 6 million if he hits 25 goals. Physical 15s give you about 40% less goals at a fraction of the cost - Chris Stewart (1.15), Devante Smith-Pelley (1.3). If Jake hits 15 goals his salary would be around 2. This is just my half glass full point of view. Of course I want to see him become a 25-30 goal scorer - that would be ideal. But if he can just become a solid physical 15 I'd be fine with that too.
-
Don't get me wrong, I really like Virtanen. I just would have liked to have seen him become a 60-70 point player in the AHL before getting called up. He has a lot of fantastic raw tools but he definitely needs development to become an effective offensive player as he just isn't there yet. Also with Jake it is easy to take shortcuts. He is physically NHL read, and adds speed and physicality to the bottom six. This makes it easy to pigeon hole him into that role, vs letting him develop with other offensive minded players in offensive roles down in the AHL. I think the "physical 15" plays a very underrated role. A physical 15 player is penciled into a 3rd line position and is expected to contribute depth offence and toughness. This type of player can also be moved temporarily up to the top 6 for toughness, or to the fourth line for skill. These types of players typically aren't special team darlings but do play a unique and important role and is often inexpensive salary wise OR to acquire (because they get easily overpaid). The thing is fans are very hot/cold on these types of players. We either love em or hate him. And I think it is because they have double the expectation - to perform offensively and physically. Often, their 5 on 5 production is great, especially per dollar. The thing is they don't play a tonne of minutes and don't score a lot on the powerplay. Trent Klatt, Matt Cooke, Steve Bernier, David Booth, Raffi Torres, Zack Kassian are a few examples of Canucks who fall into this category. Kassian was in the 88th percentile for 5 on 5 goal production his last year with us. Throw that in with physical play at a salary south of 2 million and it sounds like a steal, yet we consider him a bust and Benning traded him for peanuts. l I personally don't have a problem if Jake becomes a physical 15. It will keep his contract manageable and provides a versatile option up and down the lineup. Physical 25s are your top power forwards. They cost a fortune. David Backes, Milan Lucic, Kyle Okposo, andrew Ladd. etc. Massive contracts. Jake salary would be around 6 million if he hits 25 goals. Physical 15s give you about 40% less goals at a fraction of the cost - Chris Stewart (1.15), Devante Smith-Pelley (1.3). If Jake hits 15 goals his salary would be around 2.
-
Virtanen was rushed into the NHL last year, same with McCann. I think it messed both of them up. Virtanen has just 8 points in 29 AHL games. He should not have been a full time NHL yet. He also scored just 21 goals his last year in the WHL - that isn't exactly dominating. Based on his post-draft performance and how we have developed him I would be over the moon if Virtanen became even a 20 goal scorer for us. I think he will be a likeable, useful piece of our team in the mould of a Cal Clutterbuck. A good hockey player for sure, but someone you expect to get at 26th in the draft, not 6th. We seem to have luck with college players (Hutton & Stecher) because we don't really need to develop them (four years of college hockey prepares them well). I hope we don't rush Juolevi.
-
Coming in the season late from injuries, on a team that score - I don't expect Rodin to light the world on fire. Maybe something like 10-15 points in 35-45 games. We will have to expose one of Granlund or Hansen - either one would likely be a more attractive target for Vegas if they don't end up snagging Sbisa.
-
His fancy stats numbers are surprisingly good. He isn't really doing anything amazing, but certainly isn't hurting the team in any way. As a young rookie making under 1 million he is fine just plugging a fourth line hole - we have far bigger problems elsewhere. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing him get more opportunities.
-
Good point, I do think there are a lot of similarities. Both have pretty good size and strength but not known to be physical. Both skate well but don't have breakaway acceleration. What makes Vanek and Boeser dangerous are their devastating wrist shots. Great point! I find comparisons are often too focused on nationality (Swedes compared with other Swedes etc.). I think Vanek is a great comparable.
-
The USHL is interesting. Not a lot of star players but it seems players drafted from there in the top two rounds have a good probability of being solid NHL players. At the time of the draft I gathered info on the USHL forwards drafted in the top two rounds over the past 12 years or were first year college players out or th USHL. Including a bunch of top six players like Kyle Okposo, David Backes, Max Pacioretty etc Boeser put up better USHL numbers than every single player except Thomas Vanek. Vanek scored 42 goals as a 23 year old in the NHL. Boeser and Vanek also sported almost identical point totals in year one of college hockey. I wasn't too surprised by his outstanding freshman campaign. I just hope that this surgery doesn't knock him off of his trajectory.
-
Less squats more bench press
-
I wouldn't, no. I still think that Tanev is the better player, but Gardiner's value would be comparable in the trade market given the reasons I provided. I think trading Tanev would be a horrible idea - he is worth far more to the Canucks than what he would get in a trade (unless we get some sort of crazy Hall-like deal). If I were to chose between trading Horvat or Tanev for the exact same return, I'd trade Tanev. Domi and Horvat are very comparable, I tried to draw it into perspective (as Domi is extremely value to the Yotes). +1, thanks for providing your point of view and I agree with everything you said. Reilly is way better than Gardiner. He will be their #1 dman for many years. I just think Tanev is massively underrated. I would argue he is a top 5 in the league for preventing goals. If he scored points an/or was very physical he would be a norris level. Playing on a good team would also raise his stock. His trade value would not reflect the value he brings to our team. Edler on the other hand... And as for Boeser, such a bummer about his wrist injury. I am very high on him. At the time of the draft many people were unsure what to think. I was probably more excited about the potential of Boeser than any player we've drafted since Cody Hodgson (I think he has 30-35 goal potential). Horvat is already better than many expected him to be (2nd/3rd line centre). He is around where I expected his ceiling - and he is still getting better. Juolevi is going to be great as well. I was never sold on Virtanen but understand why we made the pick.
-
Explain what would make up the huge difference in value. Not as a Canucks fan, but as a third party? Do you believe other teams would pay significantly more for Tanev than Gardiner? Gardiner makes a lot more mistakes, but he also puts up a lot more points. Tanev is a beast defensively, but given his lack of offense and non-physical play I think he is undervalued. I wouldn't trade Tanev for Gardiner, but I am a homer. I don't think a lot of people in Toronto would trade Gardiner for Tanev. There are a lot of ex-pro hockey players in my office (one guy played with Tanev at RIT). I'd be happy to get a more professional point of view if you like. If most take Tanev and say Gardiner is garbage I will gladly eat my words. This isn't an argument of who is better, it is about perceived trade value. Even as a huge Tanev fan, I think they would net similar returns.
-
Take off your homer glasses. Age, contract minutes etc are all similar. Gardiner has 14 points and 31 points with a +4 on a crap team. Having to sit through my share of Leaf games he is a solid two-way defender. The Leafs are around mid-pack for goals against. Outside of Reilly / Zaitsev / Gardiner their D is full of young guys and scrubs. In regards to shot suppression, he is really one of the few players in the league who competes with Tanev and he puts up points. So, what exactly is making you "weak right now"? The fact that he wears a Leaf jersey? Does that make Jake Virtanen better than Auston Matthews? I really dislike the Leafs (and have reason to more than probably anybody on these boards), but as a Canucks fan I think we probably have the worst, most insecure group of fans in the league. It is pathetic.
-
Agreed. A similar comparison would be the Leafs offering Jake Gardiner for Bo Horvat. Jake Gardiner is a good defenseman, but this trade would not be good for the Canucks and as fans we would not be happy about it.
-
14 points in his last 16 games. On a good pace for the season overall despite a horrible start (struggled early last season as well). Above average 2nd line player. I could see him developing into a 1st/2nd line tweener but not a star. These types of players provide great production per dollar.
-
It only took 21 games to score a goal in the AHL. Hopefully he starts building up some confidence. I really want to see him dominate in Utica - I think he needs about 80 more AHL games under his belt to properly develop.
-
I would love to see him crack the 40 point mark this year. He scored at a .5 PPG pace in the second half of last season so it is very doable now that he is on track.
-
Tryamkin is such an awesome player to have. For so many years we lacked struggled to find a player with Tryamkin's skillset - big, tough, and not a liability on a cheap contract. Malik was too soft. Alberts too slow. O'Brien too undisciplined. Bryan Allen was great - I was probably most bummed about losing him in the Luongo deal. Try has all the tools and he has adjusted well in such a short time. I think he will be a force with more NHL experience.
-
What a steal! Sucks that we gave up a 5th round pick for negotiating rights to Larsen, as we seem to do really well. 2015 - Neil (28 points 22 games) Gaudette 2014 -Forsling (NHL) 2012 - Hutton (NHL) 2011 - Corrado (NHL) Mason Raymond in 2005 is our last 2nd round pick to make the NHL on more than a quick call-up basis. You can add Rodin to the list when he gets healthy, but just to point out how well we've done in the 5th round. I was optimistic about a lot of our 3rd round picks, but Cassels / Grenier / Connauton all hit a wall in their development at the AHL level.
-
7 points in his last 7 games. Now on pace for a respectable 37 points on the year (2nd line numbers in today's NHL).
-
Baertschi has 4 points in his last 6 games. Too early to write him off. His points per 60 minutes this year is comparable to Brouwer, Ryan, Kuznetsov, Brassard, and Tatar. He is shooting 3.2% - that number will improve. His shots per game is up to 1.63 from 1.56 last year. He has been disappointing no doubt, but I am more worried about Eriksson at 31 years old scoring 7 points in 19 at 6 million per year for 5 more years than Baertschi at 24 scoring 6 points in 19 at 1.75 million for one more season. 5 on 5 they both have five points.
-
He was a decent pickup for sure. I prefer Megna due to his speed but Chaput has good size and seems to be a better fit for a grinder role.
-
I am in the same boat as you. I don't think he plays enough minutes, or has the type of game, that is particularly noticeable (good or bad). The stats at least show that he is plugging minutes at a cheap price, with upside to become a good player. While he isn't doing anything to help us win per se, he isn't contributing to the losses much either.
-
He put his time in the NHL and is holding his own in the NHL and developing nicely. For players with a minimum of 10 games, Gaunce has the second lowest GA/60 on the team. Dorsett and Skille have the highest GA/60. For CF% he is ranked 7/19 players with a minimum of 10 games. His CF is 3rd from the bottom (not generating much offense) but his CA is stellar (2nd, close to first). Gaunce is doing a great job plugging up minutes and throwing his body around a bit (7th in hits). As he continues to refine his game, increase minutes, and add some offense he will be a very solid 3rd line player. At worst he is a good 4th line player already for us.