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

oldnews

Members
  • Posts

    53,830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by oldnews

  1. Certainly similar (assuming Vancouver slides anywhere near that badly). 39w 39 losses in 2015/16 when McKinnon was 20 yrs old. 22w 56 losses in 2016/17 Not quite the changes the Canucks went through. Colorado had Holden move on....Varlamov went from .914 with 27w, 25 losses, to .898 with 6w, 17 losses (losing his job in the process). They followed that season with 43 wins and 30 losses.....McKinnon 'broke out' and Rantanen 'broke in'.... Imo, 'rethings' are (or should be) about the long game - and in Vancouver's particular circumstances, a few things are mitigating (like Markstrom/expansion - Demko)... I'm personally fine with taking the risk of 'stepping back' this year - would probably go a bit further - for a few reasons (some that can't be controlled and some that might be) - but in the end the real way to hope to ensure contendng in the future is to continue to produce the steady stream of prospects that they have been.
  2. It would be a good question to ask - if Van media were in the habit of asking good questions. My guess would be that with Hamonic out and Chatfield stepping in at RHD - they felt the need to utilize (the veteran) Benn - to play with Hughes (he's was good initially, but not quite sustaining lately). I don't think it's a performance issue (Juolevi's) as much as trying to balance their pairs and perhaps not being willing/able to roll with a young D on every pairing... They're already very young imo with a rookie and sophomore in the lineup....with youth on every line as well on most nights. And in spite of Chatfield's (misleading imo) surface statistics, he's been comparably good (relative to Juolevi) in arguably more difficult circumstances. That would be my guess/take - not knowing of course what Green and Co. do - or what the grounding of the decision is.
  3. which of the young core players do you believe are "entitled" and "lazy"?
  4. not at all. this is a British Columbia / Canucks forum - I think yours is the weird comment. taking shots at Toronto is a birthright here.
  5. shot attempts were 57-52. I have to wonder if 'effort' was the issue. Last year's bubble playoffs imo were conducive to a young team like Vancouver. It was a good opportuity to rest before the playoffs, not enter them after a gruelling/grind season - and then it was also in one place - without the travel (that also typically disadvantages the team due to simple geographics) -and the ability to spend lots of time working/coaching/practicing together. This year - is the opposite imo. No preparation / camp / preseason - next to no time to practice or rest in schedule...(15 games already = absurd). I think this season serves the veteran, proven franchises (ie Tampa, St Louis, Boston)...and the pond-hockey franchises - ie the Leafs - whose 'score-all-the-goalz' build allows them to exploit the relatively unstructured nature of most games thus far. That said - they tend to be November/December 'champions' regardless - who flag around playoff time....I like some of their depth, but I'm not convinced they have the right kind of depth to win playoff hockey (I think they'd be an outlier - which there have been cases of, but generally, championships go to two-way hockey teams). When it comes to the next step - unless Malhotra works some quick miracles, I'm not sure I like their chances that much more than in the past.
  6. I have more confidence in Linden than ownership to make the right decisions. So I'm not in favour of rolling the dice again.
  7. Funny thing. Our penalty kill is better than the Leafs'. ie. Malhotra sucks.
  8. anyone might regret any move. Tanev would have been my priority (not going to repeat what I said at the time, or now - but the reasoning is very sound imo). Any player comes with various forms of risk - when the greatest risk is 'injury' it's not valid imo, particularly when you play the game the way Tanev does. I don't buy a particlar 'decline' risk where Tanev is concerned. Signing a goaltender long term is generally far higher risk imo - but Markstrom is as solid as they come. And literally anyone can get injured in countless ways, any time they step on the ice - so I've yet to hear a credible argument against Tanev.
  9. I don't find it a "good' question tbh. The irony is that Toffoli was considered a 'desperation' trade by many. And now, ironically, he's an idiot because ('things changed' and) he didn't/couldn't re-sign him. Otherwise 'genius'. Or de 'we' have a serious collective borderline personality disorder? Obviously - it depends what the trade is - always does.
  10. and lead the league in games played with 15....only 3 other teams have played 13....there are a half dozen that haven't played 10 yet.... The gaa is sky high regardless - but there's no mystery there.
  11. I'm not sure your judgement can 'judge' wadr. Kesler deal was excellent, particularly under the circumstances. Miller trade was outstanding. Schmidt was a helluvan opportune deal for a longshot pick. Pearson = not a bad placeholder at all / good hockey trade. Motte was a resounding victory of a deal. Leivo was a steal. The Shinkaruk trade thread was epic - but Benning got the better player. People can whine about deals like Baertschi - but no one could foretell concussions. Make your counter list - pick your whipping points - Sutter, Vey, Gud - whatever. There are lots of decisions I don't agree with - that is true with every single administration. If you want the good - you have to take the bad with it - because there is risk in every move - and every single GM in the NHL has wins and losses. I am not concerned about 'making trades'. I'd be happy to see some players moved - I'd be shopping Roussel and Benn - would unconditionally waive Eriksson, would proabably be looking for a hockey trade for (a better fit than/for Gaudette). I'd also be testing the market for Pearson. People would love to throw the 'foundation' centers in that mix - I would not - not at this point, and certainly not without replacing them. My greater concern would actually be if they fired Benning. Who would hire the next GM? Linden hired a lot of good people in my opinion. A hockey person hiring hockey people. Prior to Linden - came the bizarre - and wildly failed - Tortorella experiment. People love to assume that change will necessarily result in something better/ improved. That aint necessarily the case - it could just as possibly end up in making worse decisions than the present group. Simply firing someone - is not a 'plan'.
  12. Saw that LE was in the lineup and chose not to watch this game. That's where I draw the line - (as I said in the postseason = done with LE - he's unwatchable). Passed a friend down the street - longtime Leafs fan headed home to watch the game - asked why I wasn't - I laughed - and called a 5-0 result. Wish I wasn't as close at that, but not 'surprised'. MacEwen and Virtanen and that's something I want to see regardless - throwing Bailey in in those circumstances - not sure that's a winning move. LE - for me = unconditional waivers. Feel for Edler in particular - and Chatfield. Rookie D in the lineup are a challenge to 'shelter' at the best of times - but having a rookie on your shutdown pairing - getting 29.5% ozone starts - those are some really challenging minutes/circumstances for that pairing. Looks like they struggled last night - from the boxscore - and highlight package. Starting watching the replay - saw that tickytack looking-for-a-penalty they dished Edler from the outset - shook my head and decided that's enough x2. Multiply that X2 for the Hughes pairing. Tanev was the foundation of both the shutdown pairing with Edler - and the less opportune minutes for Hughes (ie particularly dzone start situations) - his absence has really hampered both those pairings - and having a rookie and replacement/7D (Benn) in those roles - for me is the biggest challenge for the team to overcome (the reason I would have prioritized re-signing Tanev). People here that slept on Tanev's value / thought it was wise to 'let him go' - might be getting a solid glimpse of it right about now... Looked like about par for the season thus far - EP missing open nets and ringing posts/crossbars = evidence he's a true Canuck lol. Looking forward to him breaking out of that curse. Miller's offside goal - about sums up their first 15 games....Sometimes you just have to laugh. Anyhow - at least they'll have a couple days between before facing Calgary at home, obviously flagging - (unfortunately a covid return of Tanev and Marky - to an empty arena...) Kudos to Malhotra - as I said when they signed him - he's exactly what the Leafs needed (a dose of real hockey / Canucks hockey lol).
  13. I've really liked what I've seen of Chatfied thus far. Not the best circumstances to break into - where he's instantly on a shutdown pairing with Edler, playing very difficult minutes (among team-mates in general who are struggling - and committing a lot of borderline indefensible puck moving braincramps. 29.5% ozone starts is right alongside players like Beagle and Motte - and some really challenging matchups - so I'm not expecting great goal or 'possession' metrics - but I think he's been one of the bright spots. Where Juolevi is concerned, I thought he's looked very good as well - but him being out of the lineup may be more a matter of the side he plays, the lack of veteran RHD to pair with him under the circumstances - and perhaps they're looking to avoid exposing him in this particular window, where they're pretty thin on the blueline - and the top 6 aren't playing particularly well either. Still think Juolevi is a future fixture on the blueline, and Chatfield could carve out a spot as well if he continues to battle like he has been - has really solid instincts imo.
  14. Exactly, He's proven himself endlessly in Vancouver - as both a player - and a coach - and did wonders for this team. He's probably a grade A candidate to become a head coach in the NHL - and what better further evidence than to take a 'score-all-the-goals' failure and turn them into a two-way team capable of winning a playoff round. They already look markedly improved in that sense (although it's early) - particularly inexcusably vacant players like Matthews - actually applying some attention to detail... Not sure they'll be able to sustain it with their 'depth', but if they stay relatively healthy, who knows.
  15. I think this is what was so attractive about going there for Malhotra - they've been a team with a glaring weakness, that his specific strengths can really address. Matthews, for example, had no business being such a weak player without the puck with the size, speed and toolbox he has - and as a result they've been having to use Tavares as a rented mule in the postseason (and were to obstinate to add a legitimate hard minutes bottom six center). Malhotra is tonic to their circumstances imo. As for the Canucks - to repeat - 18 x 25 and younger players on their roster, 13 who have already been in the lineup, 9 who have played 10 or more games, and only one of them has played less than half the games thus far. That is an awfully young group for these circumstances - so I'm gonna remain patient regarding results.
×
×
  • Create New...