DSVII Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: It actually blows me away the endless $&!# that Sbisa gets. Gudbranson is shaping up to as well. I I personally think Sbisa has improved his consistency and has been able to step up to the top 4 at times without hurting us. What more can people expect from him? He is a solid d in my mind. A lot of it stems from his role in losing to the flames in 2015 playoffs. The Sbisa/Bieksa pairing was brutal. Secondly, was the contract. I agree, he is a serviceable 5/6 defenseman and he has improved. Are they worth 3.6 million a year? He has yet to earn that IMO. His contract also inadvertantly cost us Hamhuis (which is another topic all together) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuman491 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said: It actually blows me away the endless $&!# that Sbisa gets. Gudbranson is shaping up to as well. I I personally think Sbisa has improved his consistency and has been able to step up to the top 4 at times without hurting us. What more can people expect from him? He is a solid d in my mind. Well said! He has been one of our most consistent D man all year! Maybe with Gudbranson in the linup he hasn't had to be the lone physical defenseman out there every night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: Dude - you play the "what are you basing that on?" game, where there was no claim in the first place that 'Sutter is a better offensive player than Eriksson'. Sorry - don't have much patience for that kind of manipulative 'conversation'. You earn every strawman you get wallstreet. Okay. 1. Do you think Sutter is a better offensive player than Eriksson? 2. IF YOU DO, I would be interested to see your statistical points supporting that (because I know you are heavy into analytics, not because I agree or disagree) Less straw-manny for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCK-EXPRESS Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: Okay, Landeskog it is. I'd be happy with Landeskog of it happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyM Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 4 hours ago, S'all Good Man said: Say what you want about Jimbo, the man doesn't dodge a tough question. Totally. I like his very informal style. It almost seems like he has to tell himself subconsciously not to say too much because otherwise he'd just shoot the breeze with you with exactly what's on his mind. "Hey Jim, with the depth, it looks like you would likely need to move a defenseman in a trade if you're looking to add offense" The vast majority of GMs would likely not want to go into specifics of what he's looking to move. But Jim is all, "Yeah, we'd look to moving a defenseman to add a forward" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: t's an honest question that I am curious about. I don't think Sutter is a better offensive player than Loui, just different. I think the right handed shot does make a difference, particularly on the powerplay. I also think Sutter is far, far more talented offensively than his career in Pitt suggests. He played a shutdown role with legit 4th line talent / AHL tweeners there. His production in context was very impressive imo - he can generate pretty much by himself on the rush with his speed - and that is enhanced by his outstanding defensive game and abiltiy to end opposition possession / turn the puck over. 20 goals in the context he played (I've flushed it out a lot in other threads, particularly the trade thread) is pretty damn impressive. Some 'analytics' guys attempt to dwell on indicators like primary assists and conclude that he can't pass the puck - which imo is absurd - and the more he plays with the Sedins, the more this market will see / the more the eye test will show us that's not really the case. Instead of intellectual honesty imo, they opt for slanted attempts to qualify their opinion/biases - and ignore factors like this - Sutter's linemates in Pittsburgh were Craig Adams, Steve Downie, Tanner Glass, Nick Spaling, Joe Vitale......No disrespect intended to those players, but how many primary assists is Sutter supposed to produce in a shutdown role alongside guys that don't score? That's my take - Sutter offers different weapons than Eriksson - but I really like them both. I won't expect Sutter necessarily to produce as much because of the shutdown component of his role, but who knows - if he keeps producing in the minutes he does get with the Sedins, he could be a 50 pt player as opposed to a 40 pt player? Regardless, I have loved the Sutter acquisition from day 1 and that's despite how much I love Nick Bonino. Bones is tremendously smart and crafty, but I think the team needed those additiional elements of speed and rush offense that Sutter can generate - as well as the right handed shot option. I think Sutter was well worth the investment - and the 'analytics' around him were very off - misleading - and had negative value imo. That however can serve us because those general devaluations can help in the trade market if you're acquiring under-rated or misjudged assets. At the same time, I doubt most NHL teams are as bent and deluded as some of the analytics out there that cherry pick certain indicators and lack real integrative analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Okay. 1. Do you think Sutter is a better offensive player than Eriksson? 2. IF YOU DO, I would be interested to see your statistical points supporting that (because I know you are heavy into analytics, not because I agree or disagree) Less straw-manny for you? haha - was working on this - I'm not just a prick - but posted it in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee51 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 A lot of good stuff you guys have been bantering about. Nice to see an actual conversation thats interesting, informative and reasonably congenial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 18 minutes ago, Warhippy said: We gave away McCaan who had the possible playmaking ability. We continue to see our offensive players ground in to two way players. We're 2-3 years out and a significant mindshift away from true competition. And by that tie, IF we've figured it out and started acquiring/drafting or developing (without trading) those players we're in tight in our division and conference that continued to get younger faster and more skilled while we tinkered. Build from the net out. We swapped McCann (who wasn't going to be play-making for us THIS season anyway) for Gudbranson, a D (who take longer to develop) and then Benning promptly replaced McCann with Lockwood. In 2-3 years, as you say, that looks better IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Thanks to OP for this overall summary. I had asked in another thread, & will repeat it here. How many of the other 29 GM's would LOVE to trade all their top-10 D players(that is, their 6 regular D & 4 best prospects) for ours? Factor in the relative-youth of our brilliant collection. In only about a calendar yr, it's astounding what JB has done to our blueline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Build from the net out. We swapped McCann (who wasn't going to be play-making for us THIS season anyway) for Gudbranson, a D (who take longer to develop) and then Benning promptly replaced McCann with Lockwood. In 2-3 years, as you say, that looks better IMO. You make really good sense, JR. I really like the Lockwood kid. I wonder if he is mature to come out next spring, along with Boeser, or if he will need his sophomore season too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Build from the net out. We swapped McCann (who wasn't going to be play-making for us THIS season anyway) for Gudbranson, a D (who take longer to develop) and then Benning promptly replaced McCann with Lockwood. In 2-3 years, as you say, that looks better IMO. Exactly true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 If the Canucks did things right, by trading away the vets and accepting that they are in a rebuild, a couple of things could go wrong for upper management and the owners: fans stop buying merch and attending games and ownership loses a lot of money. TL and JB are in denial and have to stop thinking this is a playoff team and if they only bring in a 20 goal scoring winger things would be fixed, or at least the fans would be appeased and fooled into thinking the Canucks just got better with that trade. I include myself into this fooled bunch. When they signed Eriksson I thought the Sedins would be refreshed and that line would kill it every night. Same with Gudbranson, I thought he would pummel everyone in his way and beat down those who get in our goalie's crease. Nope, not even close. Now that they're losing again and in (or near) last place, JB wants to bring in another 20 goals scoring winger. Why?! The Canucks management is selling false hope to sell more tickets. Plain and simple. They're afraid to rebuild because there will be some pain along the way. Easier to sign a new shiny player and sell it to the fans as an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, Alflives said: You make really good sense, JR. I really like the Lockwood kid. I wonder if he is mature to come out next spring, along with Boeser, or if he will need his sophomore season too? I'd prefer he either stay in college one more year, or even better, turn pro and go to Utica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, wallstreetamigo said: Exactly true. Our Goal-tending and D actually look pretty good. there is that rumor that Hutton could be trade bait. I wonder if that's the case (trading Hutton) because Brisbois looks so good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 11 minutes ago, oldnews said: haha - was working on this - I'm not just a prick - but posted it in the meantime. I truly enjoy your analysis and thought process on things. That really is why, unlike with most people on CDC, I ask you for your opinions and to flesh them out. Gotta be willing to look at other people's perspectives and insight to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 1 hour ago, oldnews said: love the hyperbole LB. But I'd take that eye candy garbage in a heartbeat. There isn't much difference in CLB structure. He will come over here, have a cool name, and Etem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, J.R. said: I'd prefer he either stay in college one more year, or even better, turn pro and go to Utica. That would be the best for both the Canucks and him. Would he knock two years off his ELC by signing with us (as soon as his season ended in college) and getting in some games with the Comets? That's kind of what Tryamkin did, I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, Alflives said: That would be the best for both the Canucks and him. Would he knock two years off his ELC by signing with us (as soon as his season ended in college) and getting in some games with the Comets? That's kind of what Tryamkin did, I think? One year but yes, that's a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 16 minutes ago, oldnews said: I don't think Sutter is a better offensive player than Loui, just different. I think the right handed shot does make a difference, particularly on the powerplay. I also think Sutter is far, far more talented offensively than his career in Pitt suggests. He played a shutdown role with legit 4th line talent / AHL tweeners there. His production in context was very impressive imo - he can generate pretty much by himself on the rush with his speed - and that is enhanced by his outstanding defensive game and abiltiy to end opposition possession / turn the puck over. 20 goals in the context he played (I've flushed it out a lot in other threads, particularly the trade thread) is pretty damn impressive. Some 'analytics' guys attempt to dwell on indicators like primary assists and conclude that he can't pass the puck - which imo is absurd - and the more he plays with the Sedins, the more this market will see / the more the eye test will show us that's not really the case. Instead of intellectual honesty imo, they opt for slanted attempts to qualify their opinion/biases - and ignore factors like this - Sutter's linemates in Pittsburgh were Craig Adams, Steve Downie, Tanner Glass, Nick Spaling, Joe Vitale......No disrespect intended to those players, but how many primary assists is Sutter supposed to produce in a shutdown role alongside guys that don't score? That's my take - Sutter offers different weapons than Eriksson - but I really like them both. I won't expect Sutter necessarily to produce as much because of the shutdown component of his role, but who knows - if he keeps producing in the minutes he does get with the Sedins, he could be a 50 pt player as opposed to a 40 pt player? Regardless, I have loved the Sutter acquisition from day 1 and that's despite how much I love Nick Bonino. Bones is tremendously smart and crafty, but I think the team needed those additiional elements of speed and rush offense that Sutter can generate - as well as the right handed shot option. I think Sutter was well worth the investment - and the 'analytics' around him were very off - misleading - and had negative value imo. That however can serve us because those general devaluations can help in the trade market if you're acquiring under-rated or misjudged assets. At the same time, I doubt most NHL teams are as bent and deluded as some of the analytics out there that cherry pick certain indicators and lack real integrative analysis. Thanks for this. Pretty much my feelings regarding Sutter. Another player who gets $&!# on by the analytics crowd without taking into account proper context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.