Corrado up, Sanguinetti down

[Dogbyte]

Funny to see all the armchair GM's our there questioning the use of our call ups. If you listen to Benning's interview he explains it quite well. The bottom line is they are there as an injury call up, not to see what they can do with the club. As such, in each call up case our top 6, which has been deemed to be the best course at the NHL level right now, were all fit. So they all played, while the injury call up was there for insurance.

I don't really think putting these guys in for one or two games in going to suddenly change what the coaching staff's have been looking at 24-7 for the last 5 months. They have been watching closely and at the point that they believe this is a serious route they will address it then, not now on a whim to try something out, when the purpose of the call up is to provide injury relief in a backup role.

In fact, Benning mentioned he thinks Corrado is NHL ready right now, so it's possible he's just waiting it out as none of regulars can move freely between leagues. Also, as per Benning, Sanguinetti has sent down in accordance to the two week rotation, not necessarily the All Star game although they might have sent him down anyway for that.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

^

I understand what Benning is saying, I just don't agree, or better, just don't know how they can be so sure that Sanguinetti is an inferior player to any of Weber, Stanton or Sbisa without giving him a chance in NHL game action. After all, he got a grand total of one pre-season game with the big club, the same one in San Jose where they hid Markstrom so they could sneak him through waivers. That made sense as a way to retain depth then, but now it seems like we're not taking advantage of it.

To put it another way, what more does Sanguinetti have to do to get a look? He's an all-star in the AHL and seems to have addressed the defensive issues in his game that held him back earlier in his career while remaining an offensive force and a great puck mover. Everyone knows we're missing that on the big club, but still no opportunity for him.

I appreciate loyalty to the existing lineup and don't think any of them deserve to be snubbed, but there has to be a way of working a player like this in for at least an audition without it getting personal. It's not in the collective interest of the club to run it on this rigid a seniority system.

[RRypien37]

What is this a game?

Really couldn't have given BS one game to see what he has?

[wallstreetamigo]

I don't understand why someone's first thought when replying is a poor attempt to belittle. You have no clue what kinda of teams I currently or have previously played on.

Go ahead and bench one of your alternate captains and see what happens. I guess by the same logic, you would bench Henrik if he fell into a prolonged slump because he somehow needs to learn to be accountable. Thats downright laughable. The veterans are the most accountable players on the team. I think it's safe to assume that Bieksa has addressed his struggles with the group or atleast with Daniel and Henrik and they are 100% behind him. How could they not be?? They have been teammates for years. You of all people should know that you don't all of a sudden turn your back on a teammate just because he is struggling. He can and should be given as long as needed to play out of it.

Henrik and Daniel are probably not the best ones to judge Bieksa's struggles as that is not their job. You are overstating what a captain at the NHL level should be doing. Support your teammate for sure, which I am sure they do. But they do not have authority over what he needs to do or doesn't need to do to be in the lineup and an effective player. It's simply not their job.

My problem with Bieksa is not that he struggles, even for long periods of time. It is that he changes nothing in his game to address it and minimize the issues so he can be a more effective player moving forward. He just keeps playing the same way hoping it will eventually turn back the clock to 2011 or earlier and he will be as effective as he was.

Leadership is by example more than anything. And I don't like the example that a player can play like $&!# for as long as they want doing the same things over and over until they work it out simply because they are a veteran and feel entitled to be immune from accountability to improve.

I wish you were my boss. Then I could do whatever I want all day long and still get paid. As long as my co workers like me and think I am funny.

[wallstreetamigo]

^

I understand what Benning is saying, I just don't agree, or better, just don't know how they can be so sure that Sanguinetti is an inferior player to any of Weber, Stanton or Sbisa without giving him a chance in NHL game action. After all, he got a grand total of one pre-season game with the big club, the same one in San Jose where they hid Markstrom so they could sneak him through waivers. That made sense as a way to retain depth then, but now it seems like we're not taking advantage of it.

To put it another way, what more does Sanguinetti have to do to get a look? He's an all-star in the AHL and seems to have addressed the defensive issues in his game that held him back earlier in his career while remaining an offensive force and a great puck mover. Everyone knows we're missing that on the big club, but still no opportunity for him.

I appreciate loyalty to the existing lineup and don't think any of them deserve to be snubbed, but there has to be a way of working a player like this in for at least an audition without it getting personal. It's not in the collective interest of the club to run it on this rigid a seniority system.

I think there is some merit to the approach they are taking but I tend to agree with you. If Sanguinetti doesn't get a look before Hamhuis gets back then he very likely isn't getting one at all unless we are decimated by injury.

Weber is a good depth guy but sitting him in the press box for a game or two would not be a bad thing.

[aGENT]

Funny to see all the armchair GM's our there questioning the use of our call ups. If you listen to Benning's interview he explains it quite well. The bottom line is they are there as an injury call up, not to see what they can do with the club. As such, in each call up case our top 6, which has been deemed to be the best course at the NHL level right now, were all fit. So they all played, while the injury call up was there for insurance.

I don't really think putting these guys in for one or two games in going to suddenly change what the coaching staff's have been looking at 24-7 for the last 5 months. They have been watching closely and at the point that they believe this is a serious route they will address it then, not now on a whim to try something out, when the purpose of the call up is to provide injury relief in a backup role.

In fact, Benning mentioned he thinks Corrado is NHL ready right now, so it's possible he's just waiting it out as none of regulars can move freely between leagues. Also, as per Benning, Sanguinetti has sent down in accordance to the two week rotation, not necessarily the All Star game although they might have sent him down anyway for that.

FTR, I'm not questioning Bennings tactics here. Like SID, I agree that it's the fair way to run the roster. The Canucks have simply been lucky enough (and the prospects unlucky) to not have enough D injuries to warrant slotting any of them in. (Though I too question how close to 100% Bieksa is as well.)

My initial "*yawn*" reactions is that it's really a non-story at this point unless any of them actually get playing time.

And I'll go on record again saying that I hope Sanguinetti gets that call when the opportunity does arise. I'd REALLY like to see if he maybe could be that missing offensive D piece we're all waiting for. But realistically, the only guy he's replacing is Weber.