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

Was Benning right about Sutter?


BlackRedYellow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mathew Barzal said:

A foundational player who got outplayed at center position by a sophomore and a rookie.

And now he's lost his RW position to Hansen.

He'll probably bump the kids down as a pity move when he returns though.

Sorry, when did Sutter ever get outplayed by Bo or McCann this year (assuming this is what you meant)? Because those two are playing so great in Sutter's absence, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Bonino - 5 points in 25 games

Clendening - 1 point in 7 games

I think people should definitely be looking at the trade a little differently now.

People won't unfortunately. They're too stubborn and need someone to blame.

"How dare you prove them wrong!" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't fathom how there can be so much non-believers of Sutter being a foundational player for the current Canucks especially seeing the exact things we have been missing in most of our games are exactly what he brings to the table. FO/PK/Ice time against top offensive opponents/over-exposing Bo/etc.  Or maybe it's just a different interpretation of what 'foundational' player means.

If you define it as THE player to build a team around, then you are wrong of its definition by maybe correct in your assessment.

I define it as an integral piece of the team that is fundamental to a healthy team structure. Foundation by definition is buried below the surface of a fancy house (stats/flash) but takes the heavy load and hard minutes. Sutter is a foundational player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't like the trade that much. But I didn't think it was anything outrageous. I didn't like extension right away, especially at the term and length (and I still don't). It's folly to look at the Canucks struggles and think that if Sutter was healthy the Canucks would be doing much better. That's just wishful thinking. If Sutter is actually a foundational player for the Canucks then we are in more trouble than I originally thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

I didn't like the trade that much. But I didn't think it was anything outrageous. I didn't like extension right away, especially at the term and length (and I still don't). It's folly to look at the Canucks struggles and think that if Sutter was healthy the Canucks would be doing much better. That's just wishful thinking. If Sutter is actually a foundational player for the Canucks then we are in more trouble than I originally thought.

Says the guy who thought this trade made the Canucks worse lol, or that the team would be improved by replacing Sbisa with virtually any AHL defenseman.

Captain tanknation here moping about the results of a shortened bench and young roster - "being in more trouble" than you thought lol - is exceedingly ironic.  

But whiners gonna whine regardless.

The actual folly is in thinking that the real world results with an extremely definitive control group - the difference between the results with Sutter in vs out of the lineup - aren't more significant than your patented moping - or that a player like Sutter wouldn't make a difference in the handfuls of one goal games this team has played in his absence.

I suppose there's also no differences in the performances of our teenage centers with a legitimate veteran two way shutdown center in the lineup vs their performance having to step up in the lineup and fill those harder minutes in Sutter's absence.  And yet you're an analytical genius, right.

The deal is better than you originally thought - that much was clear from day 1.

That you're a rainy day kinda guy who substitutes your disposition for thinking is evident.

But carry on with riding your comical contradictions.  You'll have plenty of time to eat your words when guys like Sutter and Sbisa return to the lineup - and regardless, the team should be better without them, and if not, well that's just a bonus, right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

I didn't like the trade that much. But I didn't think it was anything outrageous. I didn't like extension right away, especially at the term and length (and I still don't). It's folly to look at the Canucks struggles and think that if Sutter was healthy the Canucks would be doing much better. That's just wishful thinking. If Sutter is actually a foundational player for the Canucks then we are in more trouble than I originally thought.

Well, let's summarize a few things, without Sutter:

1. The rookies have been forced to step up

2. Because of 1, they are forced in their development where they shouldn't be

3. We lose a speedy 2-way forward

4. We lose an energy player that helps drive the team (yes, it's different from number 3, 2-way does not mean energy)

5. We lose a player who would have been 4th or 5th in points on the team (he's currently that in ppg)

I don't know about you but, on this team, that's a big gaping hole.... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sutter has always been a low event player analytically.

 

You won't expect much from Sutter offensively and do not expect to give up much defensively. He's no manny Malhotra defensively but he's decent enough. Losing him really hurt. But what hurt this team more is the fact we didn't have enough capspace to resign Richardson incase of injury. Richardson was our best PK center statistically last year. We couldn't resign him because we had to sign Dorsett to a huge contract apparently.

 

Goes to show how bad Benning is at using capspace and the fact he is targeting the wrong type of players. Bonino would have worked out just fine we actually didn't need Sutter. Bonino is a much better offensive player than Sutter it shows in his scoring chances for. Albeit Bonino does give up more high danger scoring chances than Sutter. But does that really matter. If we had secondary scoring right now we'd be just fine.

 

But whatever doesn't matter now #dontwinforthefins #Laine2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all who's the head of  Pro scout supplying the data on Pro trades ?    John Weisbrod another Flames cast off

Miller, OK but worth $6.0 mill doubtful

Bartkowski  we gave a better D away on waivers

Weber, ditto Bartkowski

Sutter OK but that's the best I can offer

Cracknell, vanila

Baertschi I'd rather have the 2nd round pick

Prust so far he's shown very little

Markstrom or Lack I'm not sure maybe maybe not

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really accurate to call Sutter a "foundation player" when he's actually a "transition player". From day 1, Sutter himself acknowledged that he was here to help transition Horvat into a bigger role and then Henrik into a lesser one. 

I'd really like to see Vey back in the lineup. He was not horrible as 2C when Bonino was injured last year and maybe that extra muscle this year will make him better equipped to play 3C. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Are all these injuries a blessing in disguise? Discover that the team's about as deep as Bieber lyrics.

May's well be patient & build properly.

You gave me a really weird image of the Canucks dancing awkwardly and singing to "baby" How dare you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Lock said:

You gave me a really weird image of the Canucks dancing awkwardly and singing to "baby" How dare you!

One of the blessings of living in Asia, is that I don't even know any of this bloke's stuff..just see all these derisive opinions(cmt section) on every old Youtube tune I hear. Almost like living thru the 80's without hearing Madonna(unfathomable). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, thejazz97 said:

Until just recently, Daniel was >1 PPG. Henrik's near a PPG as well.

Before Sutter was injured, McCann had 5-6 goals. Since then, he's had what? One?

Bo was on a steep learning curve already.

Sbisa actually looked good to start the year off.

Miller was lights-out until he got fatigued, and Markstrom was amazing before his injury. He's still not doing half-bad.

Hutton became injured.

 

We've got a good team. We've just had a series of unfortunate events.

I admire your confidence Jazz, but where you see a good team currently falling on hard times, I see a mediocre team that rode the hot starts of the Sedins and Miller to a somewhat inflated point total.

I believe the current position is more indicative of where this roster belongs, although I do agree that it has been exacerbated by the injuries to Sutter and Hutton.

As far as Sutter being a "foundational player", I think many are just arguing semantics. There is no hard and fast definition of a foundational player. Suffice it to say that when a team loses it's 2nd line center and has to allot his ice time to a second and a first year pro, there are going to be some growing pains.

FTR, I think the team will pick things up when Sutter and Hutton return, but Istill see the Canucks as a bubble team and I believe they'll finish outside the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6 December 2015 at 14:17:26, ice orca said:

He is a good defensive center with experience and a good pk,er. With him out we have Hank and Bo a 20 yr old trying to shoulder a massive load in all situations. McCann is 19 on the 3rd line plying his guts out but very raw. Crack is what he is a 4th line C and doing a decent job. Combined with our fragile D-corp, add a few injuries, revolving door wingers for the 2 kids at center and you are seeing the results.

Except Bo and McCann are getting just what most of CDC wanted. I cringed at the number of people who wanted "kid lines" and Bo at 2nd line centre, then it was McCann at 3rd line centre. These people are all ducking low now hoping that no one will remember how they have embarrassed themselves.

Just about every single thing CDC berated Willie for, he has done, yet it has made little difference and it's still all Willies fault according to some.

I do think we have badly missed Suter and Sbisa and Prust. I have no doubt if all three had been fit we would have been sitting far higher than we are. Foundational player? I think it is too early for that anointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

As far as Sutter being a "foundational player", I think many are just arguing semantics. There is no hard and fast definition of a foundational player. Suffice it to say that when a team loses it's 2nd line center and has to allot his ice time to a second and a first year pro, there are going to be some growing pains.

FTR, I think the team will pick things up when Sutter and Hutton return, but Istill see the Canucks as a bubble team and I believe they'll finish outside the playoffs.

This is it! I think you nailed it pretty good! :) At least for all of us who thinks Sutter does make a difference.

The level of how much of a difference is something else. But perhaps Benning just meant that for the Canucks squad, Sutter will be an important piece the next 4-5 years. While others, in here, thought a foundational player is someone like McJesus etc...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

Well, let's summarize a few things, without Sutter:

1. The rookies have been forced to step up

2. Because of 1, they are forced in their development where they shouldn't be

3. We lose a speedy 2-way forward

4. We lose an energy player that helps drive the team (yes, it's different from number 3, 2-way does not mean energy)

5. We lose a player who would have been 4th or 5th in points on the team (he's currently that in ppg)

I don't know about you but, on this team, that's a big gaping hole.... lol

Sure, whenever you lose an NHL player to injury it will affect your team. I just think Sutter is a one-way player and that the hole he left is not big enough to attribute his injury as the reason for the Canucks' record thus far. It is one of many reasons why Benning's Canucks are performing poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fred65 said:

First of all who's the head of  Pro scout supplying the data on Pro trades ?    John Weisbrod another Flames cast off

Miller, OK but worth $6.0 mill doubtful

Bartkowski  we gave a better D away on waivers

Weber, ditto Bartkowski

Sutter OK but that's the best I can offer

Cracknell, vanila

Baertschi I'd rather have the 2nd round pick

Prust so far he's shown very little

Markstrom or Lack I'm not sure maybe maybe not

 

You've got it all figured out and simplified for us.  Thanks.

But Weisbrod was hired in August.

Miller signed long before that.

Bartkowski signed before that.  Weber ditto.  Love Corrado, but he hasn't earned a single start in Toronto, so add that up and into your sum.

Cracknell=vanilla is one of the dumbest attempts I've seen to belittle a player.

Prust was here before Weisbrod.

Markstrom or Lack - I'm not sure what you're not sure about, but if you have a point, it's not really making you look smarddder dan Bennig.

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...