Letter to Season Ticket Holders on Coaching Changes

[Mustapha]

Trading Tanev is not a smart move IMO. If anyone needs to be on the block, it's Edler. He regressed so much these past 2 seasons. He's a Jekyll/Hyde (inconsistent) player, but to make matters worse he was basically 'Hyde' all season long.

[steviewonder20]

I doubt I deal this year's 1st if I'm the Canucks. Something like Tanev, Hansen, Schroeder and say a 3rd ought to get you something pretty decent though IMO.

Tanev gives you a young reliable D, Hansen a young'ish quality defensive forward with good speed and Schroeder may yet turn in to something down the road somewhat mitigating their loss of a quality forward all at very reasonable salaries and two of which are still RFA's.

That's a pretty good recipe for a team looking to improve defensively but with only moderate cash outlay. (Attractive to both cap spending and cash strapped teams.)

"Tanev gives you a young reliable D". Tanev IS a young, reliable D. I know we're stuck with too many NTCs but our core is aging and Tanev should be kept, and those with NTCs should be asked about where they would be willing to go.

[aGENT]

Trading Tanev is not a smart move IMO. If anyone needs to be on the block, it's Edler. He regressed so much these past 2 seasons. He's a Jekyll/Hyde (inconsistent) player, but to make matters worse he was basically 'Hyde' all season long.

"Tanev gives you a young reliable D". Tanev IS a young, reliable D. I know we're stuck with too many NTCs but our core is aging and Tanev should be kept, and those with NTCs should be asked about where they would be willing to go.

Like it or not Tanev's about the only easily movable asset with value on our back end.

Also Edler and Garrison aren't old. Stanton and Corrado are ready and we have a whole waive of other D-men who will be set to come on board in 2+ years.

Not to mention a guy like Niskanen is also still young.

We don't need Tanev. Period.

[DefCon1]

Weak. Just ???? rebuild god damn it. I wanna win, i couldn't care less HOW we win. Yeah, let's get back into the playoffs next season so we can get eliminated in the 1st round. Or just miss the playoffs. Linden hasn't done a lot yet, but i'm not a big fan of his moves so far.

Aside from the firing of coach, what were his other moves? The firing of the coach was the right move and that has been his only move so far. Jeez, it hasn't been a month since the guy was hired yet we have people here bashing him already.

You want to win yet you also want a rebuild? Isn't this contradictory?

[DefCon1]

Like it or not Tanev's about the only easily movable asset with value on our back end.

Also Edler and Garrison aren't old. Stanton and Corrado are ready and we have a whole waive of other D-men who will be set to come on board in 2+ years.

Not to mention a guy like Niskanen is also still young.

We don't need Tanev. Period.

Tanev is also the only guy that can defend aside from Hamhuis. Just because we can move a player, doesn't mean we should move them. Kassian is also moveable but do you want him gone?

Making trades or moves for the sake of change is probably the worst thing that can be done. I'd rather keep Tanev and move one of Garrison or Edler.

[aGENT]

Tanev is also the only guy that can defend aside from Hamhuis. Just because we can move a player, doesn't mean we should move them. Kassian is also moveable but do you want him gone?

Making trades or moves for the sake of change is probably the worst thing that can be done. I'd rather keep Tanev and move one of Garrison or Edler.

Kassian isn't redundant.

Also It's not "for the sake of change". We have too many middling d-men with overlapping skill-sets (and tweener/defensive 3rd liners) and we have a hole on the second line LW/C. Deal from a strength to shore up a weakness.

Me too but they have NTC's, aren't as young and have larger salaries. All of which = Tanev being FAR more likely to move IMO.

Again we don't need Tanev we'd like to have Tanev.

[Carl's Jn]

Why was Glen Gulutzan kept? Anyone know why?

he was good with players like kassian... anyone noticed how well kassian was doing at the end of the season.

[Carl's Jn]

Kassian isn't redundant.

Also It's not "for the sake of change". We have too many middling d-men with overlapping skill-sets (and tweener/defensive 3rd liners) and we have a hole on the second line LW/C. Deal from a strength to shore up a weakness.

Me too but they have NTC's, aren't as young and have larger salaries. All of which = Tanev being FAR more likely to move IMO.

Again we don't need Tanev we'd like to have Tanev.

sorry man, i got to disagree with you... we need tanev... tanev is a must for us to keep!

[tas]

sorry man, i got to disagree with you... we need tanev... tanev is a must for us to keep!

yep. tanev is an important part of the new core.

[Dazzle]

he was good with players like kassian... anyone noticed how well kassian was doing at the end of the season.

Yeah, I agree. I don't want the guy fired, as I said.

[King Heffy]

Tanev is also the only guy that can defend aside from Hamhuis. Just because we can move a player, doesn't mean we should move them. Kassian is also moveable but do you want him gone?

Making trades or moves for the sake of change is probably the worst thing that can be done. I'd rather keep Tanev and move one of Garrison or Edler.

Tanev's the complete opposite of Edler:

Tanev - Right handed, can play with anyone, great defensively, outstanding hockey IQ, good skater, good passer, below average shot, lacks size

Edler - Left handed, needs a babysitter, defensive liability, terrible hockey IQ, poor mobility, passes to the other team, hard shot, has size

We badly need defensemen who can actually play defense. Given Linden's preference for good fundamentals (which means we need guys with hockey sense), getting rid of the older, slower, more overpaid Edler is the only sensible solution.

[bigbadcanucks]

I was going to write something earlier regarding Niskanen but I wasn't sure if that guy was trolling or serious. Probably good that I left it alone (especially since these boards don't need another 2000 words or so about how good I believe Nisky could be for us).

Agree with you completely...Canucks need to go hard at Niskanen as UFA signing.

Niskanen, a solid 6'0 210 lbs., right handed d-man, 27 years old, who's trending north would be a solid UFA signing.

C'mon Trevor...sign Niskanen and Paul Statsny...Kesler and Edler become redundant. Move them out, along with Burrows and Hansen. Now, only if we can get these fragile guys (except Hansen) to waive their NTC, we're in business.

[Twilight Sparkle]

We don't need Tanev. Period.

idk JR-- you say that now, but give that guy a couple of years to add some more size-- not like he'd compete for the norris or anything, but he'd be a complete shut down defenseman that will raise some eyebrows around the league

[bigbadcanucks]

Tanev's the complete opposite of Edler:

Tanev - Right handed, can play with anyone, great defensively, outstanding hockey IQ, good skater, good passer, below average shot, lacks size

Edler - Left handed, needs a babysitter, defensive liability, terrible hockey IQ, poor mobility, passes to the other team, hard shot, has size

We badly need defensemen who can actually play defense. Given Linden's preference for good fundamentals (which means we need guys with hockey sense), getting rid of the older, slower, more overpaid Edler is the only sensible solution.

One similarity...both are fragile as glass. Edler plays like he's hopped up on pain meds for his back (how else do you explain his constant state of slumber on the ice?), and Tanev has broken down physically two years in a row, and has yet to show that he's durable enough to play a full pro season.

As much as I like Tanev, I have a suspicion that he's going to be a player that gives the team no more than 60-65 games a year. And of the games that he plays, he'll be playing hurt for half of them, so he's overall effectiveness will never be realized...a shame, because if he were durable enough, he'd easily be a top 4.

[JamesB]

Probably because he isn't a Torts guy.

With Torts and Sullivan being carbon copies of each other, I figure that Gulutzan didn't have a ton of influence with regards to coaching decisions. He's not nearly as defensive-minded as those two (at least from what I saw of him in Dallas).

Right. No reason to fire Gulutzan as there is no way he was responsible for the main coaching decisions. He certainly deserves another shot.

[tas]

One similarity...both are fragile as glass. Edler plays like he's hopped up on pain meds for his back (how else do you explain his constant state of slumber on the ice?), and Tanev has broken down physically two years in a row, and has yet to show that he's durable enough to play a full pro season.

As much as I like Tanev, I have a suspicion that he's going to be a player that gives the team no more than 60-65 games a year. And of the games that he plays, he'll be playing hurt for half of them, so he's overall effectiveness will never be realized...a shame, because if he were durable enough, he'd easily be a top 4.

he got broken hands from blocking shots. its not like its a groin or shoulder or hip. it's not wear and tear.

its not like he's jason garrison with nagging injuries in both groins all year long that make it so instead of being a very slow skater, you actually needed a time lapse camera to prove that he was moving.

[CB007]

Tanev's the complete opposite of Edler:

Tanev - Right handed, can play with anyone, great defensively, outstanding hockey IQ, good skater, good passer, below average shot, lacks size

Edler - Left handed, needs a babysitter, defensive liability, terrible hockey IQ, poor mobility, passes to the other team, hard shot, has size

We badly need defensemen who can actually play defense. Given Linden's preference for good fundamentals (which means we need guys with hockey sense), getting rid of the older, slower, more overpaid Edler is the only sensible solution.

Edler can improve from all these short comings like he was when he was younger. He is not old.

[-DLC-]

he got broken hands from blocking shots. its not like its a groin or shoulder or hip. it's not wear and tear.

its not like he's jason garrison with nagging injuries in both groins all year long that make it so instead of being a very slow skater, you actually needed a time lapse camera to prove that he was moving.

100% agree. It's not being fragile - happens to everyone who blocks shots. It was that element of the game that was taking players out, NOT any deficiencies in Tanev.

[SamJamIam]

he was good with players like kassian... anyone noticed how well kassian was doing at the end of the season.

Trevor said the same thing. He said Gully did a lot of good for the younger players (and I suspect may have played a bit of a role in insulating them from Torts and letting them learn from their mistakes without being crushed for messing up). Seems like everyone in the organization from the players to the other coaches and staff felt that Torts and Sully were very much separate from what Gully was doing and that Gully did a lot of good.

There was a question in the presser that asked why Gulutzan was kept on since he was in charge of the PP which was awful. Linden basically said "We'll make a role for him because he does good work in other areas". Plus he may have been totally powerless to deploy his preferred lines if they were gassed because Torts was using them or Torts was forcing certain roster decisions (like the Sedins on the PK).

[aGENT]

idk JR-- you say that now, but give that guy a couple of years to add some more size-- not like he'd compete for the norris or anything, but he'd be a complete shut down defenseman that will raise some eyebrows around the league

He's a smaller, less talented Hamhuis. He's a complimentary piece, not a building block.

Would I ideally prefer to keep him as a "poor man's Hamhuis"? Sure. But not at the expense of the roster elsewhere.

We already have a Hamhuis, we need a PMD and a top 6 forward. SOMEONE has got to go and he's far more easil;y moved due to his age, contract status and lack of NTC than anyone else (and holds value).