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

EternalCanuckFan

Members
  • Posts

    2,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EternalCanuckFan

  1. It does sound like Rutherford perceives the window to be further on the horizon rather than now (which is what Benning was trying to do). If this is the case then it's going to be intriguing. The emphasis on younger players, presumably on cheaper contracts, makes me wonder if Rutherford is looking at Demko and Hughes as the main pieces of a "veteran" core moving forward. Pettersson is presumably also included with Demko and Hughes, but Rutherford was a bit more guarded in his comments about Pettersson (understandably - Pettersson is only now beginning to show signs of his previous level of play). If this is the case, then it feels like Miller is probably in an age + $ cohort that won't fit in with the perceived start of the team's window. If we're looking 2-3 years out, then he'll already be in his early 30s and he's going to eat up a lot of cap room. It was always possible that Miller would be traded, but the likelihood of that depended a lot on whether the new management team believes the window is now or later. Garland's probably safe as he provides good value at his cap hit even if he's technically in an older age cohort. This also leaves room to wonder about Horvat's future although it won't make any sense for the Canucks to move him out unless they at least receive a very good young C in return for him or someone else. I assume Rutherford will take the position that he's stuck with OEL.
  2. Is this the "Take Back Singapore" moment for the otters?
  3. There has been a lot of talk about Rutherford being a "consensus builder". It will be interesting to see how many more changes may be made by Rutherford - is he just going to bring in people who agree with him or is he going to present and implement a vision that the whole organization can understand and work towards?
  4. I actually like the line-up of Dickinson on Horvat's wing. Even though Dickinson was penciled in as 3C, there was always a chance that he would not pan out as he had spent a lot of his NHL time at wing when he was with the Stars, and he had played well in that role. He was touted as an elite defensive player but I'm wondering if he might be better seen as a strong supporting winger for someone like Horvat. Dickinson has good wheels and a very good shot and seems to get a lot of chances off the rush. There might be a decent fit with Horvat and it might also free up Horvat if Dickinson can be the defensive conscience of that line. We'll see if the experiment works and if Dickinson can supplant Pearson on Horvat's wing, but I think there's a good chance it could work out. That line is quite a bit faster with Dickinson instead of Pearson. Pearson hasn't been bad this season but since he had pretty much been glued to Horvat's wing, he needs to generate more offense. I didn't mind the re-signing of Pearson in principle, but not at 3-years and not at $3.25M AAV. I wonder if Pearson may be a guy that has already been identified as being trade fodder, even if the NTC, remaining 2-years and AAV might make him a bit harder to move. It's not like Rutherford hasn't traded Pearson before... even if he does it though, I hope it's not for Gudbranson.
  5. I believe there's a Brad Shaw connection for MDZ last season in CBJ. MDZ actually played pretty well last year. Ottawa is a bit of tire fire altogether, so it's hard to judge him just on his numbers this year. Not saying the Canucks should pick up MDZ, but if OEL and Hamonic are out long term, then I could see it happening (also if Rathbone is still injured). They are short LHD, especially since no one seems to have trusted Brisebois enough to give him much of a chance in the NHL, and I doubt any of the other Abbotsford LHD (outside of Rathbone) are really seen as being of NHL quality. Still, that $2M contract this and next year isn't great.
  6. Rathbone might still be nursing an injury even if he's travelling with Abby right now.
  7. Buckle up is right. This was supposed to be the summer of "Aggressive Jim", so if Rutherford plans to be even more aggressive, then the moves made this summer might pale in comparison to what Rutherford is going to do. Next level "Aggressive Jim". I'm personally not a big fan of Rutherford making very aggressive changes in the vein of the OEL deal, even if right now that deal has looked decent given OEL's relatively steady play but especially because of Garland. I'm also not a fan of trading the #1 pick unless it's for young players who will be added to the core, but even then there are always cap constraints to that strategy. The team still needs to restock the prospect cupboard either by drafting or by raiding other teams' cupboards (keeping in mind timing to mitigate cap issues).
  8. Quite apart from experience, Jim Rutherford has been around for a long time and is likely very well connected throughout the hockey community, including with more of the "establishment". Assuming the Sedins are in line to take on management of the Canucks in the future, then gaining those connections and learning from Rutherford's experience is invaluable. Gillis managed to achieve an impressive degree of success for the Canucks during his tenure but he also always struck me as a guy who was fighting the establishment. That's not always bad, and in Gillis' case I think it helped him be quite innovative, but Gillis seemed to rub a lot of other managers the wrong way during his time. Linden had been involved for many years with the NHLPA and was a successful businessman, but beyond that, he did not seem to have anywhere near the same kind of connections that someone like Rutherford would have. Benning could possibly be said to more from the "old boys club" but certainly much less so than Rutherford. I'm not saying that hiring Rutherford is going to produce immediate success for the Canucks in the league, but perhaps it might add a new dynamic to the relationship that Canucks management has with the management groups of other teams.
  9. I could see Miller being traded for the exact same reasons you outline, but the Canucks have to get a high quality C back in that case which might impact how well they can address other deficiencies in the line-up.
  10. I could see Boeser being dealt, especially if he heats up for the remainder of the season. Kind of counter intuitive if Boeser heats up of course, but the Canucks are deeper on wing than they are at D or at C so, in terms of Canucks C depth, I think Pettersson, Miller and Horvat are more important to keep than Boeser. I'm considering the fact that Boudreau talked about how the Canucks have a good top 3C in Pettersson, Horvat and Miller, and that's exactly how he's lined them up in his first two games. Unless the Canucks can improve on one of those Cs through a trade or address D while also acquiring a serviceable C by trading one of Pettersson, Horvat or Miller, then I don't see any of them moving. Boeser is the logical choice to address needs at D and C.
  11. I'm very curious about what tweaks Rutherford and the management group (whomever the new GM ends up being) will make to this roster. My guess is the next month or two will be an intense evaluative period and we might see a fair bit of activity just before or at the trade deadline.
  12. Not sold on Rutherford in anything other than as POHO. I'm not as negative about Rutherford's impact on the Penguins current situation but I'm also not necessarily a huge fan. As far as where the Penguins are right now, they're not the powerhouse they used to be but that's more a result of an aging core. lack of health from Malkin, and subpar goaltending (at least they now have some stability with Jarry and DeSmith). When healthy, the Penguins are still a very dangerous team. They have a common situation with winners - e.g. the Kings or Blackhawks - they committed to help a certain core continue to remain competitive past the prime of those core players. The Lightning are in the middle of it right now and while they look to be weathering the storm fairly well with superior depth, it won't be long before the majority of their core will be in the declining years of their careers (Stamkos and Hedman are both north of 30 already). It looks like the Aquilinis are bringing in veteran guys with proven track records of winning to fine tune the existing roster rather than to re-building. It will be very interesting to see what that fine tuning involves.
  13. Would have preferred Riley Nash over Megna but wouldn't be opposed to Megna being claimed. By this point of Megna's career, it's pretty clear that he's not a really a full-time NHLer but the guy can skate, he's not entirely out of place in a limited role, and can play on the PK. Again, pretty much a no risk claim. My guess though is that the interim management group is going to let Boudreau and Walker work with the remaining coaches to get a better feel of the current NHL roster and the players down in Abbotsford before making personnel changes. The change in mindset seemed to show that the Canucks can play a faster, more aggressive game than how they were playing under Green, so we'll see how long they can keep this up. Some guys might show a lot better with these changes.
  14. The Canucks should claim Nash. He's not "the answer" but he's a RH C who can take faceoffs and has played on the PK. He's only signed for this year at $0.75M so there's little risk in claiming him, and the Canucks are super thin at C anyway.
  15. Well, the Pens no longer have Matt Murray tending goal, so we'll see! Hopefully Boeser just really sees the net better when the opponent wears a Penguins jersey.
  16. It might not hurt to give Danila the "NCAA treatment" with a lot of practice/training time and less game time, at least at this stage of his career and even if he stays in the AHL. He's still so young.
  17. I've always liked Brindamour, even back in his playing days. When the Canucks first drafted Bo, I was hoping Bo would have a similar type of trajectory for his career but their dispositions are very different. Irrespective of Brindamour's playing career and success, he still has so much passion behind the bench and it really feels like his players respect him immensely.
  18. Jack Hughes may live up to that contract but yikes. Paying for potential has risen to a whole 'nother level.
  19. I was probably a bit more positive on Poolman when he was signed but I agree that at this point, it looks like he shouldn't get more than 3rd pairing minutes. It feels like Poolman has regressed a bit since last season with the Jets. It's too bad. Hopefully Poolman can build on the good parts of his game so far this season and finish strong.
  20. Not that this will necessarily address all the problems with the team, but if there are actually factions within the dressing room, then someone should call a players only meeting to hash it out. It would presumably need to be initiated by Bo, but if the rumors are true that the room is split down the middle between Bo and Miller supporters, then someone needs to step up to mediate irrespective of what "side" they support. Of course, this could just be BS reporting, but clearly something is amiss with the team and it's hard to truly rule out explanations.
  21. Right, that's my bad. I guess I grouped the events together but yes, Boeser's dad is still alive.
  22. Very good point too. I forgot that was going on at the same time. IIRC, Boeser, Markstrom and MacEwen all suffered losses of their fathers that year.
  23. I was honestly surprised that MacEwen was waived instead of Petan after the Canucks acquired Lammiko, irrespective of keeping an extra C with the team. MacEwen's not the reason the Canucks are terrible, but he can skate and he is at least a physical deterrent that we just don't have in the system, especially after Gadjovich was claimed before him. I personally think MacEwen is showing better with the Flyers because he is being better utilized. Sure, the claim might have lit a bit of a fire in MacEwen that he might not have had with the Canucks, but the Flyers have always favored having physical teams and MacEwen seems to have fit better with that. Obviously not really a game changer still, but he's showing that he can indeed be a NHL regular.
  24. Based on the language of the original post, if there is in fact a divide, then I wonder if it's more about Pettersson and Hughes rather than guys like Podkolzin and Hoglander. Hughes has been playing alright overall (though he did take that terrible penalty the other night in retaliation). Pettersson, however, has been terrible. This is after they both held out and missed most of camp. I could easily see that rubbing other teammates the wrong way, especially more senior ones. When Boeser held out before 2019-2020, he still came back in time for most of that season's pre-season.
  25. I will always have an affection for the Canucks as the team of my hometown so if they decide to start a rebuild, then that's fine by me. There's no guarantee that a rebuild will lead to better success so I think that's very much up for debate, but having that debate is part of the fun of being a fan. It's of course more fun when a team is doing well overall or has a lot of promise. If the team does go into a rebuild, then it will suck to likely have to endure more years of poor on ice product, but IMHO, it's just part of being a fan of a team. Canucks tickets have been quite expensive for a long time so if there is a period of decline in interest with corresponding decline in ticket prices, then that might be a good opportunity for the team to cultivate a new generation of fans with more affordable access to live games. At this point of the season, I'm open to seeing the team "right the ship" on it owns but since many of the problems aren't unique to this season, I'm not exactly optimistic about that happening. As a result, I'm definitely pro-change to try and get new perspectives into the organization whether that is at the management or coaching level. Clearly something is off with the way the team has been constructed and the way it is being deployed. Morale among the players is also clearly very low too which is exacerbating problems. Thomas Drance has been pointing at the Canucks D core as the main problem, and while there are certainly important problems with the D core, I personally don't think they are near as bad as a group as they have been to this point of the season. Still, it seems like there is a disconnect between all levels of the organization right now: ownership, management, coaching and the players, which is affecting the maximization of the collective ability of the assembled team. Even with the Canucks' deficiencies, the team doesn't even look like it's competing in many of their games and any little mistake ends up snowballing into a disaster. It really feels like the existing management and coaching personnel are simply out of ideas about how to maximize that collective ability, even with notable deficiencies.
×
×
  • Create New...