oldnews Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No defenseman aside from MA Bergeron in that roster was more sheltered than him though. Considering Carolina, a team that is absolutely barren on defense, let him go you have to raise an eyebrow. I see BS as a Comet with callup potential. Just hasn't put it together enough to gain a full-time roster spot. Reminds me of Gragnani. Aha. Leave it to Ban to argue with that. Your meter isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I like the demograhic change in the middle range of the lineup. The Canucks have veteran presence. They've added to that in Miller and Vrbata, but those are short term deals, and don't alter the future youth in the franchise given they were both free agent signings that cost no youth assets. They were an arguably wise use of cap space, and as Benning mentioned, if youth push for spots, he'll move players and make room for them. The Canucks also had a vastly improved prospect pool that Benning further added to, but not a great deal of NHL ready prospects. So what Benning did add was players in the range of establishing themselves in the NHL. Bonino just coming off a break out season at 26. Sbisa just emerging as an NHL defenseman. Vey right at that age of NHL readiness. Aside from Kassian and Tanev, the Canucks didn't really have a lot of talent in that range. Matthias was a good addition of Gillis' in that direction, but this new group, including Dorsett (at 27) really balances out the demographic of the franchise imo, which is important once the current group at or in their 30s start to depart in the next five years.... Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Defense usually wins Championships. The value of the defense on the President Trophy Canuck's teams (includes the 2011 team) were underrated. This shows when the players (defensemen) started going to other teams without having the same value and quality of player in their system or being brought in to replace them. This is what the GM gets paid to do. Since 2011, very little has been done to bring in the required defenseman to replace the quality "D" players that were lost. I believe this is due to the previous defensemen's value being underrated; in other words, not being considered a priority to be replaced and thinking the Sedins and Kesler were the players that made the team tick. Unfortunately, hockey is the ultimate team game and ignoring the demise of the defense is a large contributor of the team in decline. The core group getting older >30 years old is another factor that can't be ignored. In regards to Mitchell's value, he was a shutdown D-man, one of the best; When his value is underrated, he is considered expendable. Since leaving the knuckleheads, his record speaks for itself. The second year with LA a large role as a shutdown "D" winning the holy grail; year 3 season ending knee surgery and rehab, LA lost to Chicago in the playoffs; year 4 a large role as a shutdown "D" winning the holy grail. Arguably Mitchell and Greene were the best shutdown duo in the league. A team needs a shutdown duo to be successful...if we had Mitchell and Greene, our record the past few years would have been better. We need this kind of quality back on the Canucks to be successful. Our current group does not add up to this quality and value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Defense usually wins Championships. The value of the defense on the President Trophy Canuck's teams (includes the 2011 team) were underrated. This shows when the players (defensemen) started going to other teams without having the same value and quality of player in their system or being brought in to replace them. This is what the GM gets paid to do. Since 2011, very little has been done to bring in the required defenseman to replace the quality "D" players that were lost. I believe this is due to the previous defensemen's value being underrated; in other words, not being considered a priority to be replaced and thinking the Sedins and Kesler were the players that made the team tick. Unfortunately, hockey is the ultimate team game and ignoring the demise of the defense is a large contributor of the team in decline. The core group getting older >30 years old is another factor that can't be ignored. In regards to Mitchell's value, he was a shutdown D-man, one of the best; When his value is underrated, he is considered expendable. Since leaving the knuckleheads, his record speaks for itself. The second year with LA a large role as a shutdown "D" winning the holy grail; year 3 season ending knee surgery and rehab, LA lost to Chicago in the playoffs; year 4 a large role as a shutdown "D" winning the holy grail. Arguably Mitchell and Greene were the best shutdown duo in the league. A team needs a shutdown duo to be successful...if we had Mitchell and Greene, our record the past few years would have been better. We need this kind of quality back on the Canucks to be successful. Our current group does not add up to this quality and value. Well said. It would help if we could have a Norris calibre D-man like Shea Weber, but those don't grow on trees. I don't get the love for Hoff. He was more of a rover than a D-man because defensively he was not that great. I'd take a Weber or a Brent Seabrook over a guy who's supposed to defend, not just score goals from the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Well said. It would help if we could have a Norris calibre D-man like Shea Weber, but those don't grow on trees. I don't get the love for Hoff. He was more of a rover than a D-man because defensively he was not that great. I'd take a Weber or a Brent Seabrook over a guy who's supposed to defend, not just score goals from the point. Speaking of trees,lots and lots of trees: Weber:$14 million this season on a $110 million contract. Seabrook:$5 million this season/$5.8m cap hit $29 million contract Ehrhoff : $4 million salary $4 million cap hit-$18m / seven years remaining on his contract Played very well with the Sedins and his contract is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Aha. Leave it to Ban to argue with that. Your meter isn't working. Argue with what? Dude, guy was out of the NHL last year and you're telling us he's a pmd. Hey, whatever. It's good to be positive. But i'm just saying there's wishful thinking and then there's wishful thinking that should probably just be kept to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Speaking of trees,lots and lots of trees: Weber:$14 million this season on a $110 million contract. Seabrook:$5 million this season/$5.8m cap hit $29 million contract Ehrhoff : $4 million salary $4 million cap hit-$18m / seven years remaining on his contract Played very well with the Sedins and his contract is fair. If we had Weber or Seabrook instead of Ehrhoff, we'd all be gladhanding each other about how much of a genius Gillis was for getting either of them because we'd have watched the Sedins chug booze from the cup. But no, instead here we are bickering about which contract after the fact is more bloated, days away from a listless camp because this team got their freaking asses handed to them in the finals that year because "I'm Christian Ehrhoff, and I can't for the life of me figure out what to do when a forward comes into my zone with the puck." Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Besides never being able to afford Weber, history articulates that the Sedins and this club were amongst the very best in the league with Ehrhoff in the lineup. I am rather proud of the success the twins and Christian had when they played together. Some Canucks fans? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Then you're proud of what Gillis had accomplished here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Besides never being able to afford Weber, history articulates that the Sedins and this club were amongst the very best in the league with Ehrhoff in the lineup. I am rather proud of the success the twins and Christian had when they played together. Some Canucks fans? Not so much. Sedins and this club were also the very best when Ehrhoff was out of the line up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Well, no. This club and the Sedins peaked when Ehrhoff was around. D. Sedin career year. Kesler career year. 41 goals apiece. Henrik's career year was also with Ehrhoff. There's no doubt of the importance of having a pmd in the lineup, at least offensively. It added a dynamic to the attack that the team truly misses. But he wasn't a #1D either. Maybe if he was we would have won the cup. Gillis knew what he was doing when he let Ehrhoff go, because he wasn't worth it. But at the same time letting him go meant the team was losing a pretty important piece. It sped up the decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Well, no. This club and the Sedins peaked when Ehrhoff was around. D. Sedin career year. Kesler career year. 41 goals apiece. Henrik's career year was also with Ehrhoff. There's no doubt of the importance of having a pmd in the lineup, at least offensively. It added a dynamic to the attack that the team truly misses. But he wasn't a #1D either. Maybe if he was we would have won the cup. Gillis knew what he was doing when he let Ehrhoff go, because he wasn't worth it. But at the same time letting him go meant the team was losing a pretty important piece. It sped up the decline. Agreed ....The combination of the Sedins and Ehrhoff was brilliant,especially on the rush...The loss of Salo and Ehrhoff were obvious to all..Canucks PP went first to worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Well, no. This club and the Sedins peaked when Ehrhoff was around. D. Sedin career year. Kesler career year. 41 goals apiece. Henrik's career year was also with Ehrhoff. There's no doubt of the importance of having a pmd in the lineup, at least offensively. It added a dynamic to the attack that the team truly misses. But he wasn't a #1D either. Maybe if he was we would have won the cup. Gillis knew what he was doing when he let Ehrhoff go, because he wasn't worth it. But at the same time letting him go meant the team was losing a pretty important piece. It sped up the decline. Ehrhoff left the summer of 2011 Please tell me again which team won the PT in 2011-12, without Ehrhoff on their roster? Therefor my statement stands "Sedins and this club were also the very best when Ehrhoff was out of the line up." People are acting like Ehrhoff was the glue that held this team together and him leaving was the root cause of this team dropping in standings. If Ehrhoff was truly that important to the roster there should have been immediate negative results in the Canucks win column and not a back to back president trophy. Perhaps there was more to the demise of this team than the just absence of Ehrhoff. Possible things such as: coaching was stale, age of core, amount of mental fatigue of being the number one team, teams starting to read the Sedin's play, dressing room drama. Was Ehrhoff a piece? Sure but don't forget that there was basically no decline the year after Ehrhoff left the roster as canucks were once again the best regular season team in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Argue with what? Dude, guy was out of the NHL last year and you're telling us he's a pmd. Hey, whatever. It's good to be positive. But i'm just saying there's wishful thinking and then there's wishful thinking that should probably just be kept to yourself. Argue with someone who is pulling your leg. Twice. Your meter still isn't working, but regardless, even if you bought that as serious, it still succeeded in distracting off that Ehrhoff sidetrack (that has nothing to do with Benning's remake, a debate that has already been overkilled for years on these boards). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Ehrhoff left the summer of 2011 Please tell me again which team won the PT in 2011-12, without Ehrhoff on their roster? Therefor my statement stands "Sedins and this club were also the very best when Ehrhoff was out of the line up." People are acting like Ehrhoff was the glue that held this team together and him leaving was the root cause of this team dropping in standings. If Ehrhoff was truly that important to the roster there should have been immediate negative results in the Canucks win column and not a back to back president trophy. Perhaps there was more to the demise of this team than the just absence of Ehrhoff. Possible things such as: coaching was stale, age of core, amount of mental fatigue of being the number one team, teams starting to read the Sedin's play, dressing room drama. Was Ehrhoff a piece? Sure but don't forget that there was basically no decline the year after Ehrhoff left the roster as canucks were once again the best regular season team in the league. Ehrhoff was just the 1st in a series of dominoes that fell. We were weaker the year after. The stretch run of wins we lacked scoring punch and were winning alot due to team defense. What people seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around was we never had a second line again after 2011. Other teams got stronger and we got weaker. No one player made the difference it was a series of miscues. 1. Ehrhoff and his 50 pts walks. 2. Torres is let go. 3. Samuelsson never gets healthy. 4. Raymond takes 2 yrs to return to form. Does so as a leaf. 5. Booth busts 6. Hodgson and Schneider get dealt for future"s 7. Gillis blows the cap on Garrison. 8. Luongo sideshow 9. Core gets old and no help ready. 10. Kesler demands trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spur1 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 5 to 10 has nothing to do with 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spur1 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Meaning eff all to do with ehrhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spur1 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The thing I most remember about Ehrhoff is him fishing the puck out of his own net against the Bruins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Meaning eff all to do with ehrhoff. Do you mean the part where I explain that Ehrhoff was not the only reason we came to be who we are today??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckledraggin Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.