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

khay

Members
  • Posts

    6,790
  • Joined

Everything posted by khay

  1. Agree. He scores goals but not quite at OV's rate (or even Stamkos before all those injuries). And OV hits whereas AM doesn't. OV also didn't backcheck in early years and took him some time to figure out his game at both ends of the ice. But one difference is that OV's a winger so he could get away with some of the lapses when the opposition has the puck. AM is a center, he has the most responsibility to help out team defence.
  2. Yzerman, so that after he is done as player, we can hire him as GM.
  3. Is it really that important to play even number of games against every team in the league? I don't see a way around it if that's the case. I'd do 1 game against other conference as it doesn't have much of a playoff implication, it's mostly to showcase players from around the league. And keep 6 games against teams within the division. 16 against other conference 48 against same conference outside of division 18 games against division rivals 82 games.
  4. This is a pretty good comparison IMO. I would love to have a Bouwmeester on my team, but not at the expense of Hughes. Hughes is not just a guy that can skate or with good edge work. He's got the offensive creativity and knows what to do with the puck. I'd bet on him rather than giving up on him way too early. I am optimistic that 1) Hughes will correct his defensive weaknesses to a certain level, 2) the team will find the right partner for him, and 3) the coaches will find optimal deployment for Hughes/exploiting the right matchups for Hughes.
  5. I like the idea. It's fresh. It ensures at least 2 CDN teams make at least the play-in every year and as you said, at least one CDN team in the playoffs. Probably a good thing from the revenue perspective if more CDN teams make the playoffs. The divisions align very nicely in terms of geography. There isn't a single team where you go, WTF, why are they in {fill in the blank} division/conference? The only change I would try to make is to increase the number of within conference games if it's possible to do so in a fair manner. Maybe decrease the games against the division rivals? I guess 8 games against the division is perfectly fine, I liked playing the same teams 9 to 10 times this season.
  6. Keep the pick unless something too good to refuse comes up. The team was on an upward trajectory point wise since Sedins' retirement except for this season, which I see more as an abnormality than the reversal of the trend. And as the core players are getting near the peak performance ages, they will be in the playoffs regularly; I wouldn't be surprised if we are in the playoffs as early as next season. If so, we won't get a top 10 pick for a while. The player we pick with top 10 pick could do what Brayden Point did for Tampa in a few seasons = multiple SCF appearances and cups.
  7. Based on the interview with QH's agent, I wouldn't be surprised if the team does a long term deal at 6-7 mil range for QH and 3 year bridge deal for Petey. I personally hope this does happen because QH at 6-7 mil will be a bargain deal of the NHL in 2 to 3 years. Those players you want to target from NYI are pretty good players but I don't like the idea of trading a budding superstar defenceman, who is already scoring at 60 point pace. In his peak years, we may be looking at an 80+ point player. He may have defensive deficiencies but he is also only 21 years old and can work to improve his weaknesses under the mentorship of an experienced defense coach like Shaw. He can also be paired with a stay home defender to cover up his weaknesses like Erik Karlsson during his tenure with Ottawa.
  8. Winning team is not the best team? Well, the losing team certainly isn't the best team. Having the best players certainly doesn't equate to having the best team. We know that for sure from Toronto Maple Leafs that has the best goal scorer in the league but certainly aren't the best team. Ability to play together as a team, trusting each other, putting your body on the line to block shots for the goalie and defend the lead is a hallmark of a great team and hence the best team.
  9. 1. Make the playoffs. Anything is possible. 2. Great goaltending and defence trumps anything else in the playoffs. 3. You need vets in their prime playing the right way. You need high caliber vets such as Price, Petry, Weber, Toffoli to lead the team. 4. Key young contributors on cheapish contracts are a must. E.g., Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Caufield, Romanov. 5. Good depth throughout the roster. Danault, Perry, Staal, Byron etc. 6. A coaching staff that knows how to play to their strengths. MTL beats you to loose puck with their quickness rather than strengths; they seem to be very good at causing turnovers and pouncing on the puck and the players relay puck up the ice quickly for scoring chances. Good defence backed by great goaltending to withstand the storm helps play that style very well. I think MTL is built very differently from us. Our core doesn't have the ageing vets in the core like they do with Weber, Price, Petry. If it were 2012-2015 Canucks... Imagine infusing a Pettersson or Boeser or Hughes (or Suzuki or Caufield or whoever other young player MTL has) into the lineup on an ELC contract to help Sedins, Kes, Burr, Luongo, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler, Tanev, and etc. I guess one lesson to learn is to be patient and as our young core ages, we should continue to focus on drafting and developing players to give the core a push. It is very much possible that we may not have won a cup by the time EP, QH, Demko, BH, BB are all 27+ but that doesn't mean we should blow the core. We just need to continue to draft and make smart trades for good young players (i.e., Pacioretty for Suzuki) to push the core to the cup.
  10. Agree. We had the best (regular season) team in the cap era. 1st in almost all team stats in 2011. Such stats were not seen before unless you go back to the 70's Habs. Unfortunately,, they didn't deliver in the playoffs. Well, the rules change in the playoffs so.
  11. This draft is shaping out like it will have 9 similarly good players. I'd rather keep our #9 unless we get a young roster player that fills a position of need. Just look at 2011 draft as a comparison. We could walk away with a very good player on an ELC contract to give the current core an extra push in a couple of years.
  12. If Horvat is going into free agency in a year, requested a trade, and told us that he is not re-signing with us? Then, it depends on what other teams offer but if #9 overall pick is the best offer, then yes. The trade market for the goaltenders is a little misrepresented because the #1 goalies rarely get traded. The ones that are traded are either backups or borderline #1s or when a #1 goalie does get traded, it's because the team has two bonafide starters and need to get rid of one (i.e., Luongo/Schneider, Andersen/Gibson in Anaheim, and also Bishop/Vasilievsky in Tampa). And that's why the goalies have lower perceived values. It's a hard position to fill so once you have it filled, you don't mess with it. Again, if Schneider was our #1 goalie and we didn't already have Luongo, there is no way Canucks trade him, let alone for a mere #9 overall pick. Hence, that trade is a good example of why a player's value may decrease due to the circumstances surrounding the team/player/market etc. I agree with you. Buffalo doesn't have a reason to trade Reinhart under normal circumstance. But it's not very normal over there.
  13. Player's value fluctuates over time for various reasons. If Reinhart requested trade and refuses to re-sign with Buffalo, his value would plumment. In anticipation, Buffalo may want to trade him even if it's for #9 overall. Kind of like Schneider for #9 overall? Schneider's value was greater than a #9 overall pick but given that we already had Luongo and his anchor contract, Devils got Schneider at a bit of a discount. Under normal circumstances, I agree with you though. Schneider would have fetched at least a good prospect or a young roster player (a middle 6 player) + #9 overall under normal circumstances and Reinhart would commend similar value under normal circumstances. But what's going on in Buffalo is anything but normal. They have to consider all possibilities and manage their assets properly before the value depreciates. He might be available for a #9 overall. You never know.
  14. Briesbois should be there for putting together a 100 million dollar team.
  15. If Buffalo agrees to take on Eriksson and Roussel's salary, I'd trade 9th overall pick for Reinhart. That should give us enough cap space to sign an RHD and sign a 3C at 2-3 mil on a short term deal. Miller-EP-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Reinhart Hoglander-3C-Podkolzin Highmore-Sutter-Motte QH-RHD Edler-Schmidt Juolevi-Myers Rathbone Demko DiPietro Depending on who we get on RHD and 3C, that lineup should be good enough to make the playoffs and make some noise once there.
  16. I don't know if Hughes camp will agree but this might actually be a great opportunity to sign Hughes to a long term cheapish contract. 8 years x 6 mil. This could become Nathan MacKinnon type bargain in a couple of seasons when Hughes improve his defensive game. He did struggle this season but take out the first 1 and a half of the season and his defensive play was far better. I think his defensive play will improve immensely in a season or two. By then, he might be putting up 60-70 points while putting in solid defensive game with positive +/- numbers. As for Petey, Barzal deal at 7 mil x 3 is a great comparable. Barzal skates better than Petey, while Petey has far better shot and hence, is a better goal scorer than Barzal. Overall skill level is on par for both players. Barzal became a complete player under Trotz although his point totals went down. Petey has shown great defensive awareness and backchecks real well, and could become a bona fide two way player.
  17. This post is the very definition of feeding words into other person's mouth. It's a joke of a post. But I'll respond to it anyways. 1. All I'm saying is I prefer Petey as center over Miller. I am not suggesting we should have tried someone else as a center in Petey's absence because there really wasn't an option. I'm saying that moving forward, let's put Petey at C and Miller on the wing. First example of feeding words into my mouth: I never claimed we should have tried someone else at C last sesaon, I'm saying next season, let's put Miller back on wing. 2. I love Miller and his compete level. But as a center he has far too many responsibilities and gets frustrated when it doesn't go his way. Second example of feeding words into my mouth: I don't want to get rid of Miller. He is a powerforward with skill that we badly need on this team. 3. Petey at center has shown to handle the responsibilities far better. Miller can make plays as a winger no problem. Kucherov makes plays all the time as a center and Stamkos snipes as a center. This notion that wingers snipe and centers make plays is very much outdated. 4. Referencing NHL coaches and GMs to make your point? Are you serious? Are you one of them? Did you even poll them regarding Miller? laughable lol Again, I never said Miller would be undesirable by other teams: another example of feeding words into my mouth. I think you need to improve your reading comprehension. No one wants to get rid of Miller. He is a valuable part of this team. The debatable point for me and many others is whether he should continue to be deployed as a center or a winger. You are free to have your opinion and I'm entitled to mine without some random person feeding words into my mouth and segregate me into some non-existent get rid of Miller" crowd. IMO, if Miller is on the first line, then it should be as a winger with Petey as a C. That's all. If we don't sign a 3C, then Miller can perhaps be placed in that role if he really wants to play C. But I think Miller as a winger can put up 70-80 points playing with Brock and Petey but maybe not as much if he has to handle tough 3C, defending against 1st lines and PK. Speaking of PK, I think he is an excellent on PK. I'd rather we get a 3C with some offensive upside that can also play a shutdown role. Maybe like Danault and let Miller do what he is good at: making plays and scoring.
  18. Of 43 times, how many times were the #3 overall pick a key contributor/main driver? 2011: Seguin and Horton weren't main play drivers. Horton barely played, well I guess he did his job of making our defence weaker. So maybe he played a central role. idk. 2008: Brad Stuart. It was Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk not Brad Stuart that won Detroit the cup. 2002: Shanahan? Although an important player, he was not the main reason why they won. 2001: No #3 overall. 1998: Shanahan, similar as 2002. 1997: Shanahan, similar as 2002. 1996: No #3 overall. 1994: Ed Olczyk. 1993: Brian Bellows and Kirk Muller. Well, they won the cup because of certain hall of fame goalie not because of Bellows or Muller. 1990: Simpson and Carson. I guess Simpson was an important player but the driver was Messier. 1989: No # 3 overall. 1988: Simpson. Not the main play driver. 1987, 1985, 1984: Wayne Gretzky? He was never drafted. They have to cheat and say that he WOULD have gone #1 to make their point? lol Having top 3 pick increases your chance of landing an impactful player but to say that a top 3 pick => cup is just looking for spurious correlation. In fact, if all that matters is having a top 3 pick, let's go and sign Gudbranson as depth defenceman = cup, right? The article may have been more interesting had it been framed as follows. Instead of checking for how many top 3 picks there were, first do a re-draft of every NHL draft. Then, go check how many cup champs have been able to draft the top 3 (or 5) best players. For example, 2014: 1. Draisaitl 2. Pasta 3. Point 2011: redraft 1: Kucherov 2: Huberdeau 3: Scheifele 2009: 1. Hedman 2. Tavares 2008: 1. Doughty T2. Pietrangelo/Karlsson/Stamkos So 2020 TBL had drafted Stamkos, Hedman, Kucherov, and Kucherov who were all top 5 players in their respective draft years. Go back and check for each of the cup champs.
  19. Turning the puck over at the opposition's blue line, followed by just standing there and getting frustrated at himself. That's not accountability. He gets frustrated at the refs for not making a call instead of back checking and getting the puck back. He stick handles at places where he shouldn't as if though he's Mario, resulting in turnovers. IMO, playing as a winger seems to simplify the game tremendously for Miller. He makes a lot of good plays as a winger that he doesn't as a center.
  20. Yes. 2008 Detroit: Brad Stuart? Even 2011 Boston: Seguin was a rookie 4th liner and Horton barely played. 1994 Rangers: Ed Olczyk? Don't think it matters. What matters is having talented players no matter where they are drafted.
  21. Luongo 12 year deal was also just good management? NHL didn't hesitate to punish teams for signing long term contracts. Luongo almost did play out the contract too, just 3 years shy of finishing it I think.
  22. Islanders Montreal (close 2nd because of Burr) . . . Vegas . . . . . . . . . x 100 million Tampa "worst f*cking cap circumvention goes unpunished by the NHL" Lightnings. There should be an asterisk beside Tampa if they win the cup: *Won by spending 25% more cap than allowed.
  23. Although I vowed to not cheer for nay CDN team since 2011, I wanna see Burr win a cup. So, yeah I'm going to cheer for Montreal. I'd be fine if NYI or MTL win the cup. Don't want TB with 20 mil cap circumvention to win one although they are most likely to win. Hate the Avs since Bertuzzi incident. So I don't want to see them win. Vegas, I don't care if they win it but we have a bit of a playoff rivalry from last season.
  24. McDavid. Oilers are not even close to sniffing the playoffs without McDavid winning games singlehandedly for them
×
×
  • Create New...