EternalCanuckFan

I don't quite see why the schedule is being described as very soft with the Kraken, Devils, and Rangers showing up, so: Blackhawks - Win Kraken - OT/L Blue Jackets - Win Devils - Loss Rangers - Loss Islanders - Loss Red Wings - OT/L Rangers - Loss Flyers - Win 8-points. There could well be a bump but I don't know, I feel like the remaining clouds hanging over the team like Bo's status, talk of more buyouts and trades over the next few months, etc. will just sap the energy from the team. When BB took over in December 2021, I think there was fewer concern from players about trades and FA status. Even though there haven't been many major changes yet, the rhetoric around the team and even just the practical realities of contracts ending in the next 1-2 years makes for a different environment. Personally, I'm perfectly fine if the team still loses but they manage to play better team D, keep games close and demonstrate mental toughness (especially after getting scored on). Even if they don't win, I think that will be a step in the right direction especially if management actually can make some helpful moves. Does that mean contention in 2-3 years? I doubt it, but it hopefully makes more a more consistent and palatable effort every game.

I think Garland might have a bump up. He has a positive history with Tocchet. Unsure about pretty much anyone else. Studnicka playing with Bo might help bump up this numbers. Boeser playing with Bo might actually be OK.

KK and Puljujarvi would be quite a haul for the Canucks given their stated goal of acquiring young players. While I understand the concern about KK given the 7 years remaining on his $4.82M deal, provided he has the right attitude, I think there's still a lot there. The guy was barely 18 when he made the NHL. He may never be a top scoring C, but the team might not need that. If he can eventually become an elite defensive C that can compliment offense oriented singers, then he can still be an effective middle 6 C. If Carolina is eager to include him in a deal then the Canucks should be concerned but I'm otherwise ok if KK is part of a return for Bo. Of course, it would be disappointing if KK is the only player coming back in a trade for Bo. That would be a bad deal based on the downside risk of KK.

Given the talk about young NHLers, my guess is Carlo would be a target. He's 27 in November but has a decent AAV until his contract expires in 2027.

The difference with SEA is that Francis strikes me as a manager who may be more self-controlled than most others. He has been pretty conservative, and this invited a lot of criticism during the expansion draft, but the team's performance this year has obviously silenced a lot of critics. Of course, I won't complain if Francis has moment of weakness and pays a hefty sum for Horvat.

I agree. Their forward group is nicely set for at least another two years. Having said that, unless they pay Beniers a ridiculous amount of money first 2nd contract (which is possible if he performs as well next season as he is this year), they have quite a bit of cap room to absorb Horvat next season and beyond. Still, Wright seems like the kind of prospect you would want to come in on a ELC when the team is peaking rather than to exchange for a high priced veteran. If it happens, it happens, lol. I'm not going to hold my breath for Wright but if SEA is really that interested in Horvat, then I would be very curious about what they would be willing to give up, especially to a division rival.

I understand the comparison between McLeod and KK in terms of this year's numbers for KK. McLeod's 2nd NHL deal is expiring this year however, so I think his next contract would be a better representation of his value and a better comparable with KK (from a future oriented perspective). His next contract will presumably still be lower than KK's current AAV, but he's also never shown any glimpses of producing more than KK has this season. I agree though that the risk is that KK never rises past his current level of play which would be closer to a #3C. That risk is greater given the long duration of this contract. Still, the guy is turning 23 this year and has basically developed in the NHL since he was 18. If he can at least maintain a 30-40 points per year career while playing a very solid 200-foot game that compliments offensive wingers, then personally I see a lot of value in that. $4.82M AAV may be less of an issue as the cap goes up. If there's a better deal from another team for Bo, then of course the Canucks should take it. I'm just commenting on the rumors of Carolina's interest. If Carolina is offering the best return for Bo but excludes KK and Necas, then what kind of return would be acceptable (beyond Morrow and a 1st)?

Yes, the 8-years is a turnoff but KK is only turning 23 this year (about a year younger than Hughes). I can see KK having a career trajectory like Joel Eriksson-Ek (MIN). I don't think KK will ever be a high point producer but do the Canucks need him to be? It would be nice, of course, but a solid 200-ft C who can produce around 40-points per year is not a terrible investment, especially if he can stabilize a line with more offensively inclined wingers. At $4.82M AAV, it may become a steal especially if the cap really does go up substantially in the next few years. If I'm Carolina, then these are things that would make me less inclined to give up KK, notwithstanding his disappointing play in the O-zone.

Can't blame Carolina for being unwilling to part with Necas. He's starting to hit the next level that he was projected for. Personally, I would not be opposed to a return of Kotkaniemi, Morrow and a 1st for Bo if Carolina was willing to do that. Bo is a better player at this point than Kotkaniemi which fits Carolina's window a bit better (if measured by guys like Aho and Terovainen) and also serves as a veteran "replacement" with Staal hitting UFA this summer. The Canes have a few big contracts coming off the books this summer so they should be able to afford Bo, assuming he wants to play there. Kotkaniemi may not be as attractive a player at this stage at least in terms of offense, but he's a strong center and might be a fit with Miller over the longer term since someone needs to have a defensive conscience on that line. Kotkaniemi is also no pushover physically. He might be a good #2C behind EP over the long term.

I agree that retention on deals may make more sense than a buyout, but it seems like many teams are unwilling to take on any salary at all right now. Maybe some of that changes over the summer when contracts expire at the opening of free agency, but that assumes that teams are interested in the Canucks' players. Personally, if it means improving the Canucks' return, then retaining 50% of Horvat's cap hit this season makes sense to me. Obviously he's not a buyout candidate, but retention has to be part of the toolbox for deals right now. It doesn't hurt the Canucks beyond this season. I think Myers may be tradeable with retention after 1 July next year so if they buy him out, then that will be truly puzzling. It's barely any cap savings next season and there's a small cap penalty the following year that wouldn't be there if they just rode out his contract. Even retaining 50% of Myers' salary saves the Canucks $3M. Myers at $3M AAV may be enticing for some teams. Pearson would have been another player that I could have seen being of interest to another team if cap was retained, but with his health situation, who knows if he'll even be able to play (my understanding is he can't be bought out while injured). At this point, it may be better for the Canucks to be able to place Pearson on LTIR. Buying out Boeser saves the Canucks a fair bit of cap but carries such a long cap hit that it's crazy. Retaining for 2 more years on him may not be great, but might be preferable to a buyout. Garland is the player that looks to have the biggest bullseye as a potential buyout candidate. There are noteworthy cap savings for the next two years and the cap hit from 2025 to 2029 is bad but not terrible. Still, it seems like a terrible use of cap space. Miller and OEL buyouts are hard to fathom. Terribly punitive (not to mention totally bizarre for Miller since they just re-signed him). They would be akin to the Parise and Suter buyouts Guerin went ahead with for the Wild which are taking up a huge amount of cap space for 2 more years before dropping to more acceptable levels. Personally, I feel like we're almost back to a LE, Beagle, and Roussel situation again. Putting aside issues of roster construction for next season, the Canucks might need one more year of pain to free themselves of at least the Myers and Pearson contracts (if they cannot otherwise move them). Be disciplined with cap allocations next year (not going to hold my breath for this though). Hopefully the cap goes up a larger amount in 2024-2025 which will create more cap space to re-sign EP (if he wants to stay).

I agree. I doubt the Canucks have the assets to acquire the most coveted top young players. Young players who are already making an impact on their NHL teams are not in surplus on pretty much any team. Even for teams that may be genuinely very interested in acquiring Horvat for a playoff run, unless they can both afford Horvat long term and have a young player the Canucks want that they can part with without hurting their roster, I can't see a deal being feasible. Also agreed that it is pretty much the same strategy as before and it's hard to see it working. The main difference is that when Linden and JB first arrived, they had a much older, veteran "core" to work with. JB eventually "succeeded" in bringing in young talent, largely due to failing to transition the team into a new younger core, but even then, it doesn't take long for "young" talent to cease to be describable as such. The presently constructed group is wasting away prime years of the current young core players' careers, and they have been hamstrung by largely unmovable high $ contracts for veterans who are underperforming. As far as deals made by this management group so far, Bear has been the best acquisiton so far, but he had a track of record of being a solid NHL D prior to falling out of favor in Carolina. Not necessarily an inspired move, but a solid one. Pederson was a nice depth pick up. The Dermott and Studnicka moves were for arguably better prospects than guys like Granlund, Goldobin, and Vey, but not much better. I would actually argue that Baertschi was one of the few OK acquisitions by JB - it was the concussions that seemed to de-rail his career at a point when it seemed like he might make another jump in development. I'm not going to count the Stillman acquisition since despite him only being 24-years old, all signs point to his acquisition as being for cap reasons rather than skill reasons (which I'm sure all fans would agree with). There have been no other notable acquisitions (beyond free agency and depth players) by this management group so the jury is still out, but it doesn't look promising. It feels like they are sitting in their offices tearing their hair out trying to acquire young players that teams most likely do not want to give up, and not for what the Canucks can offer. Until something changes, I'm just going to try and enjoy the fact that at least Abbotsford seems to be playing.

Tough go for Pearson. Even though I questioned the decision to prioritize re-signing Pearson, he has mostly been a decent middle 6 forward for the Canucks. Hope Pearson has a smooth recovery. Assuming Pearson comes back healthy, I can see a team being interested in Pearson for his final year or as a rental next year. A bit of retention on Pearson for 1-year would also not be as painful.

Boeser for Vrana?

Lockwood deserves to get in the line-up and someone had to be demoted, so I guess it makes sense for it to be Aman (waivers exempt). Curious choice though. Aman has been a staple on the 4th line this year, no? I haven't watched the last couple games but I assume that hadn't changed. Will hopefully get to see Lockwood get some decent minutes.

I haven't been following the Canucks as closely this year as it's been generally disappointing to watch them so far this season. Below are a few observations generally about the Canucks and the league right now though: Scoring is up across the league. Far more point per game players right now, for whatever reason. The rules have changed to be more permissive towards scorers. Defenders are having a tougher time in general, and goalies too. It's getting harder for defenders and goalies to keep up long stretches of solid play. This trend seems to have amplified both the good and the bad parts of the Canucks' on ice performance with an added twist that their goaltending isn't as good this season. They are scoring more which you would think would mean more wins, but they are also giving up more goals. Are they vastly worse than last season? No. Are they any better? Also no, perhaps slightly worse if only because their goaltending has not been good. While the Canucks are bad, they also possess sufficient talent (particularly at forward) to win at least some games, especially now that scoring is up across the league. The issue is that they still have long standing roster construction issues. More importantly however, it simply feels like they have lost the spirit to play. Anything negative seems to have the high likelihood of causing the team to shut down, and it seems worse when they play at home. Blown leads, lack of pushback, etc. The team probably needs both a personnel and culture change. Those usually go hand in hand, but might point to a need to dig deeper. This is where trading someone like Horvat would probably make a lot of sense. Depending on how things go with EP and Hughes, the team may need to enter a period where it forges a new identity which will hopefully also be accompanied by the infusion of new personnel. This is just an initial thought - while I loved the era of the Sedins, Luongo, Bieksa, Burr, and Kesler, I wonder if too much has been made of living up to that culture? Bo was literally passed the captaincy by Henrik, and I recall hearing frequent rhetoric about Bo carrying on the leadership legacy of the Sedins (IIRC, he's the last remaining player who played with the Sedins). Maybe what the team needs is to forge a new identity that better matches its core players now? I have been wanting a rebuild for a long time. It has been nice to see EP and Hughes develop well, but the concern with their development has been that the Canucks might waste their best years as the core of the team if they didn't rebuild effectively around them. Do they even want to stick around to be the "veteran core" moving forward to provide the Canucks a foundation to build on? I suspect Benning made the OEL deal as one his final attempts at rebuilding around EP and Hughes, despite a lot of red flags about what doing so would cost the Canucks both in the short and long term if it didn't work out. Considering EP's current contract expires after next season, it feels like the Canucks are about to realize that issue soon, whatever happens with Horvat, Miller, Boeser, etc. If EP holds out with a trade demand or re-signs without giving up any UFA years, then this team's window for contention is going to be completely up in the air. As a fan, I think the most frustrating thing to see is management either do nothing, more of the same, and/or contradictory things. Re-signing Miller can be defensible but doesn't speak well to having a plan if management really thinks that EP is the only untouchable and may have begun actively shopping other players. Right now it's hard to believe management has much of a plan, and if they did have a plan, then it doesn't seem like it was a good one if they are making major changes already. I'll still cheer for the Canucks but it's honestly painful to watch games right now. It's been many years now where the main source of joy in following the Canucks has been watching prospects develop, particularly EP and Hughes. I suspect that's what I'll continue to focus on even if the current pipeline isn't particularly well stocked.

The stat is good for perspective but it also doesn't capture the quality of the turnover. Many of Miller's turnovers this season have been particularly dangerous. It's very different giving the puck away in a corner of the offensive end versus telegraphing a cross ice pass at the blue line that gets picked off (or the behind the back pass he often uses). The speed of the counter attack and the chance it would often generate is vastly different. I'm not here to hate on Miller but he does have to be more responsible with the puck, notwithstanding this stat. I agree that something may be off physically this season though.

Kes' big year was his 41 goal year but he never exceeded 75 pts. As far as outlier years are concerned, I was thinking about Kes as a comparable for Bo's output this year. If Bo wants top line money based on his goal scoring for the last 1 1/2 years, then I think management is wise to be wary about handing it out. Bo is a good player and will be missed if dealt, but I don't think he's a top line play driver, just like Kes wasn't (although Kes was a better defensive player). I'm sure Bo will be good whenever he goes, but probably ideally in a more supportive top 6 role in a deeper team.

I'm pretty sure I recall seeing some discussion about him, but it wasn't pursued further because he intended on returning to the NCAA for another year. Livingstone would be a great prospect to add, not just because he's a RHD, but because he will likely be better positioned to help the team more quickly given his age and college development time. He would improve the Canucks prospect defensive depth quickly. I don't think there's much more to say other than the Canucks should be in on him. No team can promise him more money for his first contract so this will have to come down to wherever he believes he has the best opportunity. We'll see what happens.

Demko has not been good but the team gives up far too many good chances per game. It has been an ongoing problem for years. Demko over the last 1 1/2 seasons and previously Markstrom (under Clark) managed to keep things respectable. Right now we're seeing how bad things can get with average or subpar goaltending. Demko getting on a roll may help with results but it won't address the fact that this team does not know how to lock games down for one reason or another. Teams that can do that AND have good goaltending may still be able to win even with lesser scoring punch.

Wouldn't not buying into the system and going rogue be on the players though? These are similar problems to what we saw under Green at the start of last season. I'm not saying it's just the players but it's hard to believe that two consecutive coaching groups, one of which has a lot of NHL experience, cannot communicate a defensive system. Is it the terminology? Is it the way it's being communicated? IMHO, Bear's comments seem more critical of the players than the system itself. Regularly failing to make the hard play or the safe play doesn't usually seem to be a coaching issue.

I interpret as a shot to the whole team including Demko. The team was bailed out night after night by Demko last season which made it hard to criticize him. This year Demko has been underwhelming and he's no longer covering up some of the problems with the team as a whole. I think it's fair to include him in criticism of the team but his lesser play this year is not the reason the team has struggled. The goalies all face so many grade A chances every game that the team simply cannot give up.

Fair point. I just hope they do put him back at C eventually.

Scratching Hoglander only makes some sense if management wants to send him to Abbotsford to play more minutes and in a more offensive role. Maybe that will help get him going. Just sitting Hoglander doesn't help anyone. Dries has played well in his call-ups but outside of injury, should he really be in the line-up? I am concerned that Studnicka is already being moved to wing. The greatest value he had (IMHO) was that he could possibly play C. Have they given up on that already?

The team looked pretty bad overall against NJD so I think it's hard to judge Studnicka at this early stage. I have similar concerns about Myrenberg being dealt however.

lol haven't heard that name for a long time. I liked Stanton actually. Another journeyman.