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

[Signing] Ducks extend Juice


Recommended Posts

Anaheim has good young D, talented at that, running around all over the place. Fowler, Depres, Lindholm, Vatanen in no particular order... Theodore on the way!

A good, tough veteran presence, who works out like a freak to set an example, willing to play a role and do anything to help the team will be a great component for them IMO. Taking on 235 lb Maroon at the center ice, at the start of the game, the 2knd or 3rd last time we played them > probably showed the Ducks what they needed to know about a guy who shows up for his team.

Congratulations Kevin & good luck! :towel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Ouch, rough deal for Anahiem. I'm sure they love him over there but he's regressed so much over the last season, who knows how bad he'll be next year or the year after that. 4M for a turnover machine 2 years from now is going to hurt them, especially when they can't trade him and their young defencemen are chomping at the bit for more ice-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Ouch, rough deal for Anahiem. I'm sure they love him over there but he's regressed so much over the last season, who knows how bad he'll be next year or the year after that. 4M for a turnover machine 2 years from now is going to hurt them, especially when they can't trade him and their young defencemen are chomping at the bit for more ice-time.

Bieksa is a Canucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replacing Beauchemin with Bieksa hasn’t worked out so great for Anaheim

Anaheim is 3-4-2 in its last nine games. The Ducks have allowed 27 goals in regulation during that stretch — that’s three per game on average — plus two more in a pair of overtime losses.

In a related story, per the O.C. Register, here’s what coach Bruce Boudreau said the other day about offseason acquisition Kevin Bieksa:

“He’s a veteran guy that has to fight his way out of this. We count on him to not make mistakes. We will go as far as guys like him take us.”

Bieksa, 34, is minus-7 in his last four games combined. True, he’s forced to play a lot of hard minutes against good players. But then, that’s exactly what he was brought in to do. The Ducks even gave him a two-year, $8 million extension, locking him up through 2017-18.

Now consider what Boudreau said during last year’s playoff run, about the guy Bieksa was brought in to replace:

“He’s the voice. Everybody else is so young. [He] is the voice back there.”

And Beauchemin was more than just a talker. He led the Ducks in ice time. He had nine assists in 16 playoff games. Bottom line: he was a big part of a team that fell one win shy of making the Stanley Cup Final.

Beauchemin, of course, signed a three-year deal with Colorado on July 1, for a cap hit of $4.5 million. So far, he’s been as advertised for the Avs. The 35-year-old has two goals and 10 assists. He gets the most ice time on the team, an average of 23:33.

more here

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/11/27/replacing-beauchemin-with-bieksa-hasnt-worked-out-so-great-for-anaheim/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, theminister said:

Probably a good lesson on showing restraint with re-signing Hamhuis. 

My worst nightmare is Benning doing little in the way of reshaping our D and re-signing Hamhuis as veteran 'band-aid' to tide us over until our drafted guys develop :sick:

The only way I remotely re-sign Hamhuis is if we move either of Edler or Sbisa to improve our D elsewhere. And even then it better be no more than 2-3 years and closer to ~Sbisa $$.

Our D core needs a MAJOR shake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

My worst nightmare is Benning doing little in the way of reshaping our D and re-signing Hamhuis as veteran 'band-aid' to tide us over until our drafted guys develop :sick:

The only way I remotely re-sign Hamhuis is if we move either of Edler or Sbisa to improve our D elsewhere. And even then it better be no more than 2-3 years and closer to ~Sbisa $$.

Our D core needs a MAJOR shake up.

I think opportunity plays a key role in things at times. I bet Benning's had more opportunity when it comes to forwards in his first year here than he has defense. Sometimes the old Bertuzzi saying of "it is what is it" really.... is lol

That being said, Bartkowski does at least make the backend more mobile and Hutton has been a nice surprise. I highly doubt Hamhuis will be signed for big money if he is. I would think that even he realises his game has needed work as of late. He just doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would be "up-at-arms" in trying to get another big deal in the works. I could be wrong in that assumption but, outside-looking-in, that's how I'm reading the situation.

I have a feeling our d-core will be talked about for a while on these forums. I wish it were as easy as saying "get Hamonic" but really it has to be hard and it's really one of those situations where patience will be needed. Perhaps a lot of patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I think opportunity plays a key role in things at times. I bet Benning's had more opportunity when it comes to forwards in his first year here than he has defense. Sometimes the old Bertuzzi saying of "it is what is it" really.... is lol

That being said, Bartkowski does at least make the backend more mobile and Hutton has been a nice surprise. I highly doubt Hamhuis will be signed for big money if he is. I would think that even he realises his game has needed work as of late. He just doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would be "up-at-arms" in trying to get another big deal in the works. I could be wrong in that assumption but, outside-looking-in, that's how I'm reading the situation.

I have a feeling our d-core will be talked about for a while on these forums. I wish it were as easy as saying "get Hamonic" but really it has to be hard and it's really one of those situations where patience will be needed. Perhaps a lot of patience.

Oh, I agree, what needs to happen won't be remotely easy. Especially given the team's desire to 'remain competitive/make the playoffs'. IMO, that's handcuffing them a bit to make any serious (and much needed) changes to the D. Even if that means the teams might struggle a little more the next 1-2 years to make the playoffs.

To clarify, I'm in no way advocating a 'tank'. I still think we'd be competitive with a generally pretty darn good forward group and goaltending. But IMO we're clinging to the few mediocre D-pieces we have to currently 'remain competitive' at the expense of the future. And it's, IMO, a mistake. I'd prefer our D be mediocre, even at times shaky the next 1-2 years because of youth and inexperience than the mediocre-ok it is now simply because of a lack of talent.

I'd literally move anyone on our D not named Hutton if it got us a legit, young top 4, right side D. Tanev least of all only due to our lack of depth on that side and that's the only reason. If I could somehow move Edler, Tanev + for something like Hamonic and Barrie, I'd do it in a heart beat.

For the record, I have no problem with Bartowski. I'd be more than happy to re-sign him so long as he was played in an appropriate bottom pair role. He's an excellent 3rd pair, physical D who transitions the puck well. He (nor Weber) just shouldn't be playing in the top 4 barring VERY short term injury replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Oh, I agree, what needs to happen won't be remotely easy. Especially given the team's desire to 'remain competitive/make the playoffs'. IMO, that's handcuffing them a bit to make any serious (and much needed) changes to the D. Even if that means the teams might struggle a little more the next 1-2 years to make the playoffs.

To clarify, I'm in no way advocating a 'tank'. I still think we'd be competitive with a generally pretty darn good forward group and goaltending. But IMO we're clinging to the few mediocre D-pieces we have to currently 'remain competitive' at the expense of the future. And it's, IMO, a mistake. I'd prefer our D be mediocre, even at times shaky the next 1-2 years because of youth and inexperience than the mediocre-ok it is now simply because of a lack of talent.

I'd literally move anyone on our D not named Hutton if it got us a legit, young top 4, right side D. Tanev least of all only due to our lack of depth on that side and that's the only reason. If I could somehow move Edler, Tanev + for something like Hamonic and Barrie, I'd do it in a heart beat.

For the record, I have no problem with Bartowski. I'd be more than happy to re-sign him so long as he was played in an appropriate bottom pair role. He's an excellent 3rd pair, physical D who transitions the puck well. He (nor Weber) just shouldn't be playing in the top 4 barring VERY short term injury replacement.

Well, I think what we're seeing is kind of a "middle" ground at the moment. If we truly wanted to stay competitive over getting better, I think we would have seen at least one of Matthias or Richardson back. I was actually surprised (pleasantly I might add) that we didn't sign either. On defense, we let Stanton and Bieksa go and only signed Bartkowski.

So I actually think we are inching in the direction you're already preaching about. There are just obstacles like contracts, trying to make good trades, etc. I personally don't know if I'd move everyone in our d out (I don't really believe in being that extreme), but I have a feeling we'll see something happen in a year or 2 with our defense. Until then, this is what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...