[Rumour/Speculation] Hudler/Canucks

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

17 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I hate exposing players to waivers as much as anybody. But we shouldn't become paralysed by the fear of losing a #12-14 grade forward or #7-8 defenseman.

 

If you can upgrade a top-six position then you take the risk of exposing a depth player to waivers.

 

I like guys like Etem, Granlund, Pedan, etc, and recognize that we traded good assets for them, but if they're sitting in bubble positions on our roster (which isn't all that strong a group to begin with), then you don't let waivers risk stop you from making additions that will improve the team.

 

Of course it's tough to risk losing a early-to-mid twenties player to make room for a 30+ player. And such a move goes against the spirit of a rebuild. But if we're truly "retooling" and trying to compete, then sometimes these risks need to be taken.

 

There are lots of young bubble players moving up and down every season. Many similar players to our current depth guys will hit the waiver wire. If we lose another Corrado type, we should be able to replace them fairly easily, either through in-season waiver claims, signings/trades next offseason, or upward pressure from developing prospects. Our current D depth chart, compared to that of one year ago, pretty much proves this point (and the Corrado loss, for all the handwringing, myself included, hasn't really set us back one bit).

 

 

 

 

I could give a shat about Corrado, or Grenier, or Pedan, and I laugh at the hand-wringing.  But, Etem, Granlund, Rodin, and Larsen are a different thing altogether.  Even Biega would sting.  I really think Virtanen should start in the bigs, and I imagine that Burrows will too, so it is a little crowded.

 

I'm not against getting Hudler, but I feel the need to point out that it limits options as much as it adds them.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

38 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

I could give a shat about Corrado, or Grenier, or Pedan, and I laugh at the hand-wringing.  But, Etem, Granlund, Rodin, and Larsen are a different thing altogether.  Even Biega would sting.  I really think Virtanen should start in the bigs, and I imagine that Burrows will too, so it is a little crowded.

 

I'm not against getting Hudler, but I feel the need to point out that it limits options as much as it adds them.

I get that 100%. But I suppose what I'm saying is that if one of Etem, Granlund, Rödin, or Larsen ends up getting waived, it's not a huge loss if they're claimed (and odds are pretty good they clear if they can't crack the opening roster)

 

These are 23-25 year old players who know they're coming into a competitive camp and will need to work hard to earn their spots. Whoever draws the short straw, knowing full well what's expected of them, is probably not an NHL grade player right now and may never be more than a depth/bubble player in their career.

 

If those guys can't stay above a 13/14F or 7/8D line on a roster, at this point in their careers, then they don't really have great odds of becoming very good players. And if we're not willing to carry them, most of the other teams likely won't be interested in making a waiver claim and carrying them in their NHL lineup (especially during the roster squeeze every club faces getting down to 23 players for the season opener). 

 

When you you look at a list like Etem, Granlund, Rödin, Grenier, Larsen, Pedan, Biega, you think, crap, I don't want to lose any of those guys. But pulling one player out of that list, and that guy being the one who did the very worst of the bunch at camp/preseason, and exposing him to waivers isn't all that scary, even if they're claimed.

 

There are young free agent players currently unsigned that are arguably better players than whoever we might theoretically need to waive. There will be similar guys available next year (and every year). Plugging depth holes isn't all that difficult. And sometimes you need to "thin the herd" anyway and mid-20s guys who can't crack NHL lineups are ripe for being "culled" from the roster. 

 

EDIT: To be clear, the arguments I'm making are within the framework of the retool model management is currently claims to be following. I'd have an entirely different view of things if we were in the middle of a "blow it up" style rebuild. But that's never been the brief given to management by ownership. In a rebuild you'd just put all those 23-25 year old guys in the lineup, sell veterans, hoard picks, and wait for your prospect pool to develop. In a retool, you fill roster spots with the best players you can find, and have a competive, winning environment where only the cream rises to the top (and sometimes young guys get lost in the process). It is what it is. And I won't get into which model is better. But if we're trying to win this year and every year, then risking one of those 23-25 year olds (especially at the low odds of waiver claims) is a reasonable cost for acquiring a player of Hudler's caliber.

[mll]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I wonder if things are all kind of in limbo until the Vesey decision and then teams will go with plan B.

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if Benning makes a hard push for Vesey as well.  Whenever he talks about his needs he says a LW with some size and grit to be slotted into the top 6 and can score them 20 goals.... sounds a lot like the kid from Harvard to me.  Not exactly an established player who has shown that kind of production at the NHL level, but most certainly a better option than Hudler considering age and upside.

 

Apparently all has been completely silent from the player's camp and the rumours are all rampant speculation rather than sources.  Most of them have him wanting to be in the East, not sure if that is based on anything beyond where his hometown is and where he played in college.

 

If he is just concerned over having an opportunity to play significant minutes and have a chance at power play time, etc... we are a great option.

Vesey turned down the opportunity to play LW1 besides Ryan Johansen and James Neal on a team heading to the playoffs.  

 

Benning says LW2 is where Baertschi will be.  He just doesn't want to put pressure on him to produce before he is ready.  It doesn't sound like they are trying to give his spot away.  He's not a bottom-6 player.  Instead it looks like they are doing like with Horvat easing him into the role and looking for a stop-gap.

[aGENT]

36 minutes ago, cbdoubleu said:

People keep talking about toughness like they still think we are in the 2011 SCF.

 

I think he's a great utility piece to add to a team that is in desperate need of secondary scoring.

 

I think people keep talking about it because, while our bottom 6 and D have a decent amount of size/grit/toughness, our top 6 is all but vacant of it.

[DeNiro]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

I think people keep talking about it because, while our bottom 6 and D have a decent amount of size/grit/toughness, our top 6 is all but vacant of it.

Our top 6 is lacking scoring as well.

 

If it's a choice between scoring and toughness I'll take scoring. Scoring gets you actual victories while toughness simply gets you moral victories.

 

 

[aGENT]

Just now, DeNiro said:

Our top 6 is lacking scoring as well.

 

If it's a choice between scoring and toughness I'll take scoring. Scoring gets you actual victories while toughness simply gets you moral victories.

 

 

Don't disagree, just answering his question

[IbanezRG]

I'm a yes for hudler so long as cap and term are reasonable. 

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

2 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I get that 100%. But I suppose what I'm saying is that if one of Etem, Granlund, Rödin, or Larsen ends up getting waived, it's not a huge loss if they're claimed (and odds are pretty good they clear if they can't crack the opening roster)

 

These are 23-25 year old players who know they're coming into a competitive camp and will need to work hard to earn their spots. Whoever draws the short straw, knowing full well what's expected of them, is probably not an NHL grade player right now and may never be more than a depth/bubble player in their career.

 

If those guys can't stay above a 13/14F or 7/8D line on a roster, at this point in their careers, then they don't really have great odds of becoming very good players. And if we're not willing to carry them, most of the other teams likely won't be interested in making a waiver claim and carrying them in their NHL lineup (especially during the roster squeeze every club faces getting down to 23 players for the season opener). 

 

When you you look at a list like Etem, Granlund, Rödin, Grenier, Larsen, Pedan, Biega, you think, crap, I don't want to lose any of those guys. But pulling one player out of that list, and that guy being the one who did the very worst of the bunch at camp/preseason, and exposing him to waivers isn't all that scary, even if they're claimed.

 

There are young free agent players currently unsigned that are arguably better players than whoever we might theoretically need to waive. There will be similar guys available next year (and every year). Plugging depth holes isn't all that difficult. And sometimes you need to "thin the herd" anyway and mid-20s guys who can't crack NHL lineups are ripe for being "culled" from the roster. 

 

EDIT: To be clear, the arguments I'm making are within the framework of the retool model management is currently claims to be following. I'd have an entirely different view of things if we were in the middle of a "blow it up" style rebuild. But that's never been the brief given to management by ownership. In a rebuild you'd just put all those 23-25 year old guys in the lineup, sell veterans, hoard picks, and wait for your prospect pool to develop. In a retool, you fill roster spots with the best players you can find, and have a competive, winning environment where only the cream rises to the top (and sometimes young guys get lost in the process). It is what it is. And I won't get into which model is better. But if we're trying to win this year and every year, then risking one of those 23-25 year olds (especially at the low odds of waiver claims) is a reasonable cost for acquiring a player of Hudler's caliber.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, and you said it well.  I think we'll lose Pedan anyway, and I really don't care.  I don't think that anyone will claim Grenier, and I don't think he has much to offer at the NHL level.  But Rodin, Granlund, and Etem are not complete unknowns - they definitely have potential, and it seems a drag to ask them to better than Hudler at this camp.  

 

I agree about a continual threshing and refining process, shedding guys that you know are below the bar, ie, Corrado.  

 

All in all, I'm so glad that these guys are going into camp much less comfortable than during the Gillis years.

[Ruxin'sVinegarStrokes]

http://www.tsn.ca/the-case-for-signing-jiri-hudler-1.536740

 

 

Has anyone mentioned this post by Travis Yost at TSN? I'm thinking on a one year or max two year deal at under 3 mill and he is a decent fit for the club.  I'd rather have 26 guys battling for a spot anyways.  Knowing this team we will be 3 injuries deep early in the season we need the depth.  

[Provost]

7 hours ago, mll said:

Vesey turned down the opportunity to play LW1 besides Ryan Johansen and James Neal on a team heading to the playoffs.  

 

Benning says LW2 is where Baertschi will be.  He just doesn't want to put pressure on him to produce before he is ready.  It doesn't sound like they are trying to give his spot away.  He's not a bottom-6 player.  Instead it looks like they are doing like with Horvat easing him into the role and looking for a stop-gap.

I don't recall Benning saying Baertschi will be gifted a 2nd line spot which seems to be what you are implying.  He has said he sees Baertschi as a top 6 player but wants to ease him into that role with less pressure.

 

Nothing in that suggests they wouldn't take an upgrade if it presented itself.  Same way he says Tanev is a top pairing D but would have jumped at the chance to swap him out for Subban.

Most teams now try for 3 scoring lines so 2nd and 3rd line distinctions aren't quite what they were before.

 

 

[mll]

21 minutes ago, Provost said:

I don't recall Benning saying Baertschi will be gifted a 2nd line spot which seems to be what you are implying.  He has said he sees Baertschi as a top 6 player but wants to ease him into that role with less pressure.

 

Nothing in that suggests they wouldn't take an upgrade if it presented itself.  Same way he says Tanev is a top pairing D but would have jumped at the chance to swap him out for Subban.

Most teams now try for 3 scoring lines so 2nd and 3rd line distinctions aren't quite what they were before.

 

 

I don't expect him to be gifted LW2.  Benning's quote was: "We’d like to add a proven scorer who brings some grit to take the pressure off Sven, so he can keep developing at his own pace.  At some point, that (second line) is where he’s going to be (...)."

 

That quote kind of suggests that they aren't going to put pressure on someone with even less experience to produce in that role.  

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

6 hours ago, Ruxin'sVinegarStrokes said:

http://www.tsn.ca/the-case-for-signing-jiri-hudler-1.536740

 

 

Has anyone mentioned this post by Travis Yost at TSN? I'm thinking on a one year or max two year deal at under 3 mill and he is a decent fit for the club.  I'd rather have 26 guys battling for a spot anyways.  Knowing this team we will be 3 injuries deep early in the season we need the depth.  

Dunno if it's been posted already but thanks for sharing.

 

I'm not a fan of Yost so I don't generally click on his stuff but this one was worth the read. He touches on some of the things I've also noticed when perusing Hudler's stats the past couple days. And the numbers definitely support the idea that Hudler would help us score more goals (and at a better differential).

 

EDIT: gave you a +1 for sharing that article and, if I'm being really honest, because I just liked the symmetry of bringing your rep up to +63 on 63 posts.  

[ice orca]

11 hours ago, Ruxin'sVinegarStrokes said:

http://www.tsn.ca/the-case-for-signing-jiri-hudler-1.536740

 

 

Has anyone mentioned this post by Travis Yost at TSN? I'm thinking on a one year or max two year deal at under 3 mill and he is a decent fit for the club.  I'd rather have 26 guys battling for a spot anyways.  Knowing this team we will be 3 injuries deep early in the season we need the depth.  

The problem is we don't have scoring depth in the system in case of any injuries in the top 6, center being the worst. If Hank goes down for any length of time the house of cards is ready to fall. The last 2 seasons Hank has been dealing with injuries and you could see the effect it had. Hudler might be fine but you need a play making center to make it work. Sutter is not a play making center nor is Bo as of yet, you might end up with Granlund as the 1st line guy and that is way over his pay grade.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

2 hours ago, ice orca said:

The problem is we don't have scoring depth in the system in case of any injuries in the top 6, center being the worst. If Hank goes down for any length of time the house of cards is ready to fall. The last 2 seasons Hank has been dealing with injuries and you could see the effect it had. Hudler might be fine but you need a play making center to make it work. Sutter is not a play making center nor is Bo as of yet, you might end up with Granlund as the 1st line guy and that is way over his pay grade.

Hudler can play centre.

 

That's actually a big part of his appeal. He plays all three forward positions and that versatility would be useful over a long season where we're almost certainly going to have injury issues.

[Bigturk8]

6 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Hudler can play centre.

 

That's actually a big part of his appeal. He plays all three forward positions and that versatility would be useful over a long season where we're almost certainly going to have injury issues.

While not ideal, if Hank goes down to injury, a temporary 1st line of D. Sedin - Hudler - Eriksson doesn't look bad at all. I think the best part is it keeps Sutter in that 2C position as well. When you take a center out of a line, it's more likely to destabilize the line as opposed to removing a winger.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

17 minutes ago, Bigturk8 said:

While not ideal, if Hank goes down to injury, a temporary 1st line of D. Sedin - Hudler - Eriksson doesn't look bad at all. I think the best part is it keeps Sutter in that 2C position as well. When you take a center out of a line, it's more likely to destabilize the line as opposed to removing a winger.

Yeah, there's no replacing Hank if he's injured. But Hudler could at least get us through a few weeks filling in at centre. If Henrik gets hurt longterm, we're probably screwed no matter who we have available. And I like the idea of swapping Hudler in more than trying to hang first line centre duties on Bo or Sutter for any length of time.

[Boudrias]

2 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Yeah, there's no replacing Hank if he's injured. But Hudler could at least get us through a few weeks filling in at centre. If Henrik gets hurt longterm, we're probably screwed no matter who we have available. And I like the idea of swapping Hudler in more than trying to hang first line centre duties on Bo or Sutter for any length of time.

Sid;

The case for a older vet seems to be the idea that he can shelter a younger player like Baer. I ask myself how much worse could it get than last year? This year should have Sutter at 2C and Burrows is coming back. Again how many vets does it take to shelter who? To me it seems more like an effort to create a more competitive team and maybe a playoff contender.

 

Considering the talent evaluation required for players like Gaunce, Rodin and Etem and development TOI needed for Baer, Horvat and Virtanen I don't see a need to sign Hudler unless it is a 1 year deal. Signing Hudler does not make the Canucks a serious CUP contender. The slow and sometimes painful process of developing talent has to continue.    

[Hairy Kneel]

On 8/9/2016 at 4:46 PM, Canuck Surfer said:

IF Juolevi was spectacular in camp & looked ready...

 

I could see a movement to move Edler for a forward. My own opinion is that conversation might best happen at the deadline in 2018 or19?

 

If it happened now & Juolevi was ready it has some substance as a tactic.  But it leaves us with sophomore Hutton, rookie Olli & rookie Tryamkin as your cored D on the left hand side? Unless you also believe in the merits of Sbisa as a top 4 D? Or at least depth long term foundational guy??  Hutton, Juolevi, Tryamkin is just too inexperienced to throw completely to the wolves is my suggested point...

I think the next deadline would be best as teams are losing roster forwards to LV for nothing.

They might trade if they have a spot for a defenseman...Sbisa could be exposed and guaranteed not to be taken.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

39 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Sid;

The case for a older vet seems to be the idea that he can shelter a younger player like Baer. I ask myself how much worse could it get than last year? This year should have Sutter at 2C and Burrows is coming back. Again how many vets does it take to shelter who? To me it seems more like an effort to create a more competitive team and maybe a playoff contender.

 

Considering the talent evaluation required for players like Gaunce, Rodin and Etem and development TOI needed for Baer, Horvat and Virtanen I don't see a need to sign Hudler unless it is a 1 year deal. Signing Hudler does not make the Canucks a serious CUP contender. The slow and sometimes painful process of developing talent has to continue.    

Without a doubt. A Hudler signing would be much more about this year's record (and possibly making the playoffs) than providing the best development for our young players (although they're not necessarily mutually exclusive).

 

I don't disagree with what I believe you're saying about the best model this team could be following right now. But I've long since given up on talking about whether or not we're using the best model. We're using the one we're using and I'm just trying to get on board with that, I suppose.

 

If it's about winning environment and getting into the postseason, while bringing young players through the lineup when they show NHL readiness, then a Hudler signing makes sense to me.

 

If it was about developing young talent on the NHL roster, not worrying about the W/L consequences, and stockpiling draft picks and prospects, then I'd have much different ideas about constructing the 2016-17 roster.

 

I'll leave it at that because I really don't want to chum the water for a debate regarding Benning's plan.  

[mll]

3 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Hudler can play centre.

 

That's actually a big part of his appeal. He plays all three forward positions and that versatility would be useful over a long season where we're almost certainly going to have injury issues.

Are you sure?  He didn't play centre in Calgary.  

Also just checking # of face-offs - he didn't play centre since 2010/11. Stats don't go further back so maybe he did before but that's at least 6 years where he hasn't.