Benning needs to deal miller, lack or markstrom before July 1st

[aGENT]

Perhaps Benning is more interested in short-term help? Who knows.

I'm REALLY curious to see what Benning does with the D-core this summer/next season. It needs a VAST overhaul, the right side is small both at the NHL and prospect level, we have little in the way of prospects who project as top 4 let alone top 2, we're looking to have too many 7/8 guys next season...

Then there's the what to do with expiring Hamhuis/Bieksa contracts.

There's a LOT of work to do there over the next year. Lots of which could have been saved by not signing Miller and getting a mid 20's, top 4 capable, RH'd D with speed and the ability to skate/pass the puck.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Sorry but i will take Garrison's 33 points on a crap coached Torts team over Sbisa's 11 point and a couple of hit season this year. Garrison played most of his time here on his off side with triple the points of Sbisa.

I’ll take Yannik weber with his 11 goals and less than 1 mill cap hit over Garrison, his 4 goals, and his 4.6 cap hit any day. Both players are week defensively (neither are shut down guys), neither player uses the body (even though garrison has the size for it), and both have a hard shot (except weber seems to know how to hit the net). I’ll take that extra 3.6 million, saved between the two and gladly spend it elsewhere. Sbisa isn't even part of the topic... why? because he's a different type of player. A type of player that this team doesn't have on their back end.

[RonMexico]

I'm REALLY curious to see what Benning does with the D-core this summer/next season. It needs a VAST overhaul, the right side is small both at the NHL and prospect level, we have little in the way of prospects who project as top 4 let alone top 2, we're looking to have too many 7/8 guys next season...

Then there's the what to do with expiring Hamhuis/Bieksa contracts.

There's a LOT of work to do there over the next year. Lots of which could have been saved by not signing Miller and getting a top 4 capable RH'd D with speed and the ability to skate/pass the puck.

What is the ideal makeup for a team anyways?

[aGENT]

What is the ideal makeup for a team anyways?

Do you have a real question/comment hiding in there somewhere?

[TOMapleLaughs]

I'm REALLY curious to see what Benning does with the D-core this summer/next season. It needs a VAST overhaul, the right side is small both at the NHL and prospect level, we have little in the way of prospects who project as top 4 let alone top 2, we're looking to have too many 7/8 guys next season...

Then there's the what to do with expiring Hamhuis/Bieksa contracts.

There's a LOT of work to do there over the next year. Lots of which could have been saved by not signing Miller and getting a mid 20's, top 4 capable, RH'd D with speed and the ability to skate/pass the puck.

Hopefully some real steps are taken, like using the draft to acquire a franchise-level guy, instead of acquiring overpaid leftovers via free agency. Because option one may lead to future success.

[aGENT]

Hopefully some real steps are taken, like using the draft to acquire a franchise-level guy, instead of acquiring overpaid leftovers via free agency. Because option one may lead to future success.

Yeah I'd hate to see them spend ~$4m on some middling, "leftover" guy as you say as some sort of stop gap. Either break open the piggy bank and buy the guy you actually need (Green) or sell off the vets and draft/develop. Poop or get off the pot.

The only guy I'd be remotely interested in as depth D would be a guy like McQuaid at $2.5-$3m. He'd at least give us some size/snarl on the right side and could cover nicely for the inevitable loss of Bieksa. Problem then becomes our already crowded 6-8 D's get more crowded by one then unless we preemptively move one of the top 5...

I suppose we could always sign McQuaid and package off Corrado with one of Weber/Clendening (I vote Weber) and say Lack and get a decent return.

[RonMexico]

Do you have a real question/comment hiding in there somewhere?

Yes. What is the criteria for a championship calibre defense?

This fanbase is always chasing a certain style that has made other teams successful like there is only one way to build a winner.

Look at the defense of the teams in the playoffs. Anaheim and NYR have no clear number 1 but a solid top 4. TB is bulit around Hedman. Chicago is built around Keith and Seabrook. What do they all have in common? Nothing really other than their 5-6 D play sparingly. Yet everyone is so concerned about who is the 5-6 guy on the Canucks and want to overpay FAs for these spots.

What the Canucks have been doing the past few years hasn't worked so by all means they have to do something. But I am not sold that spending more of the back end is the answer. But I don't know what it takes to build a winning defense. Yet Benning is on record saying he wants his defense to be 10 guys deep who can play in the NHL. This sounds very optimistic to me. Is there a winning formula out there? Or are people just wanting to add some bigger guys and hope for the best?

[aGENT]

Yes. What is the criteria for a championship calibre defense?

This fanbase is always chasing a certain style that has made other teams successful like there is only one way to build a winner.

Look at the defense of the teams in the playoffs. Anaheim and NYR have no clear number 1 but a solid top 4. TB is bulit around Hedman. Chicago is built around Keith and Seabrook. What do they all have in common? Nothing really other than their 5-6 D play sparingly. Yet everyone is so concerned about who is the 5-6 guy on the Canucks and want to overpay FAs for these spots.

What the Canucks have been doing the past few years hasn't worked so by all means they have to do something. But I am not sold that spending more of the back end is the answer. But I don't know what it takes to build a winning defense. Yet Benning is on record saying he wants his defense to be 10 guys deep who can play in the NHL. This sounds very optimistic to me. Is there a winning formula out there? Or are people just wanting to add some bigger guys and hope for the best?

There's no 1 magic bullet IMO, no. It's also highly dependent on who you already have in your organization. But VERY generically you want a good mix of size, speed (including the ability to move the puck in all zones), grit, offense (including PP) and the ability to shutdown (including PK). You also need guys in complimentary roles (which is why I'd want nothing to do with Franson no matter how good he is, given we already have Edler filling that role and just got rid of Garrison because he too was redundant in that same role).

I think there's a couple different main "routes" you can go though.

There's the clear cut, you have a #1D route in which case you build a dominant 1st pairing that can play any situation and eats nearly half the game, in all situations on their own. You add a good, generally safe second pairing (perhaps with some unique intangibles be that offense, shutdown, "truculence" etc) and you likely have a third pairing that's used sparingly unless you're lucky enough to have a talented guy or two on ELC's that can fill in there. There's only a few of those #1 guys around at any given time though so that model won't work/be possible for like 80% of the league.

The other major route you eluded to would be to have no true #1 D but build a top 4 full of #2-#3 guys and a bottom pair ideally with good #4-#5 guys and/or good players on ELC's that can play a regular shift. That's basically what we've had when our D core was actually good and we kind of, sort of tried to do this year (though we're lacking the parts/quality to actually make it work).

Let me know if you want me to elaborate further, specifically on the Canucks.

[Vancouver FTW :D]

I have a feeling Clendenning makes the Nucks roster next year. Benning loves this guy, so he went out and got him, now hes doing well in Utica.

[aGENT]

I have a feeling Clendenning makes the Nucks roster next year. Benning loves this guy, so he went out and got him, now hes doing well in Utica.

Pretty much has to unless he's traded...

[ice orca]

I’ll take Yannik weber with his 11 goals and less than 1 mill cap hit over Garrison, his 4 goals, and his 4.6 cap hit any day. Both players are week defensively (neither are shut down guys), neither player uses the body (even though garrison has the size for it), and both have a hard shot (except weber seems to know how to hit the net). I’ll take that extra 3.6 million, saved between the two and gladly spend it elsewhere. Sbisa isn't even part of the topic... why? because he's a different type of player. A type of player that this team doesn't have on their back end.

You are the guy that brought Sbisa into this and you are right about him bringing something different.

[RonMexico]

There's no 1 magic bullet IMO, no. It's also highly dependent on who you already have in your organization. But VERY generically you want a good mix of size, speed (including the ability to move the puck in all zones), grit, offense (including PP) and the ability to shutdown (including PK). You also need guys in complimentary roles (which is why I'd want nothing to do with Franson no matter how good he is, given we already have Edler filling that role and just got rid of Garrison because he too was redundant in that same role).

I think there's a couple different main "routes" you can go though.

There's the clear cut, you have a #1D route in which case you build a dominant 1st pairing that can play any situation and eats nearly half the game, in all situations on their own. You add a good, generally safe second pairing (perhaps with some unique intangibles be that offense, shutdown, "truculence" etc) and you likely have a third pairing that's used sparingly unless you're lucky enough to have a talented guy or two on ELC's that can fill in there. There's only a few of those #1 guys around at any given time though so that model won't work/be possible for like 80% of the league.

The other major route you eluded to would be to have no true #1 D but build a top 4 full of #2-#3 guys and a bottom pair ideally with good #4-#5 guys and/or good players on ELC's that can play a regular shift. That's basically what we've had when our D core was actually good and we kind of, sort of tried to do this year (though we're lacking the parts/quality to actually make it work).

Let me know if you want me to elaborate further, specifically on the Canucks.

Do you really think this defence is one guy away from being effective if they are adding a player like McQuaid? While yes they should improve but it's not a guarantee that a player like him just fits right in like a glove (same goes for any FA).

I would be more comfortable moving out some of the older vets and giving some of the prospects full reign at the NHL level. I just can't sit there and think that no one is ready in our system when Anaheim has 4 guys 24 years old or younger in their starting 6. And if a few our prospects fail, are we really any worse off than failing with the current starting 6 we have?

I won't sit here and claim my opinion is any better than yours as there are just way too many unknowns, but I am willing to throw caution to the wind at this point. I want to think the fan base is willing to risk having a lot of green players in the lineup as it shows hope for the future.

I bought into the plan by management of creating a winning atmosphere to develop in and the organization has responded well but I want to see continued progress in that direction. Instead, I look at the contracts they currently have, the salary cap and the words of management and I expect relatively the same group on the ice next year with the exception of a player or two here and there. That sounds more like stagnation than progress. I am begging to be wrong about my assumption.

[aGENT]

Do you really think this defence is one guy away from being effective if they are adding a player like McQuaid? While yes they should improve but it's not a guarantee that a player like him just fits right in like a glove (same goes for any FA).

I would be more comfortable moving out some of the older vets and giving some of the prospects full reign at the NHL level. I just can't sit there and think that no one is ready in our system when Anaheim has 4 guys 24 years old or younger in their starting 6. And if a few our prospects fail, are we really any worse off than failing with the current starting 6 we have?

I won't sit here and claim my opinion is any better than yours as there are just way too many unknowns, but I am willing to throw caution to the wind at this point. I want to think the fan base is willing to risk having a lot of green players in the lineup as it shows hope for the future.

I bought into the plan by management of creating a winning atmosphere to develop in and the organization has responded well but I want to see continued progress in that direction. Instead, I look at the contracts they currently have, the salary cap and the words of management and I expect relatively the same group on the ice next year with the exception of a player or two here and there. That sounds more like stagnation than progress. I am begging to be wrong about my assumption.

Where did I say that...?

"Effective"... Yes I think McQuid would make this team more "effective". That's not the same as being a cup contender though. No I don't think we're one guy, and certainly not just a "McQuaid" away from being contenders. He'd just give us some size, grit and depth that would make us harder to play against. He's also only 28.

To even start to get close to that conversation we'd need a good #2-#3 guy. Ideally of the PMD variety. And really that'd be one piece of a good few we'd need to remotely be considered "contenders".

As for our youth... particularly on our right side we lack size, skill, speed etc. We have no RH'd D who project to be top 2 guys...heck they'll be a stretch to be top 4 guys for the most part. As of right now we have a redundant Weber and Clendening, Corrado who's not beating any of the 4 middling guys ahead of him out for a spot yet (though with Bieksa likely gone in the next ~year...). Without injecting some size, grit, speed and skill with that youth on that right side, that's a sad looking D.

[BMorrison 7]

don't worry, i'm here to say that benning should trade a goalie.

Thank you captain highnsight!!!

[Crabcakes]

4 qualities for defensemen:

1. Puck moving
2. Offense, pp specialist
3. Defensive specialist
4. Physicality

I know that there is some debate as to definitions etc but I am basically repeating what JR has said above. In my opinion, you want all 4 attributes in each pair ideally, 3 at least. And among a teams 6 defenders, at least 2 of every category.

On the physical side, the Canucks are lacking. Physicality is tied to size and most of the Canucks D are less than 200 lbs (209 is average for NHL). This is why the addition of a player like McQuaid would help so much. They are relying on the undersized Bieksa (198) to bring some snarl but he is getting older and losing a step and it shows in his physical play. When he was younger, he got away with being on the small side with tenacity.

I welcome some of the smaller, quick, offensively talented prospects like Weber, Subban and Clendening but they need one or 2 guys who can clear the front of the net too. Pedan (215) and Tryamkin (230) are a year away.

McQuaid is only one player and certainly wouldn't put the Canucks over the top but he would certainly help with the mix.

[messier's_elbow]

1st > 3rd so no thanks...

Your posts are delusional. We aren't getting a first for Miller buds.

[aGENT]

On the physical side, the Canucks are lacking. Physicality is tied to size and most of the Canucks D are less than 200 lbs (209 is average for NHL). This is why the addition of a player like McQuaid would help so much. They are relying on the undersized Bieksa (198) to bring some snarl but he is getting older and losing a step and it shows in his physical play. When he was younger, he got away with being on the small side with tenacity.

He's also likely gone some time this year (deadline?) or next summer. Canucks have to plan for a declining and soon to likely be completely absent, Bieksa landscape on D.

Perhaps Sbisa, Pedan etc can bring some of that size and snarl in the near future but they're both lefties.

Our right side of Tanev, Weber/Clendeing, Corrado is not striking fear in to anyone with really any kind of physical or offensive prowess. Tanev's good defensively (at least cerebrally), Corrado's a good 2-way/jack of all trades guy that can play bottom pairing/spare and Clendening/Weber are both complimentary offensive guys (IE: should not be relied upon as your main offensive D..and should also be bottom pairing/spare). They're all under 200lbs. Opposition coaches will target them all season long and hammer them with big forecheckers. Particularly in our division.

That side lack ANY size of consequence and does not have the skill level required to negate that size deficit. It's a MAJOR problem. If we can't get (afford) both (size and skill...AKA Green) we need a major injection of at least one of the two and size tends to be cheaper and easier to find (McQuaid).

About our only other hope is that Subban (skill and speed) is ready to play in the NHL next year (HIGHLY unlikely, particularly given his age and size).