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

Canuck's Defense (Discussion)


Recommended Posts

What an interesting dilemma Benning has do figure out. As a fan of the Canucks, it is always more important that we grow, than we do anything else. This in the end, will be what gets us the Stanley Cup, we all dream about.

So as I sit here eating my humble pie for the time being, I have watched in total fascination at the incredible development of our defense.

I wonder what Benning will do with such a wonderful  problem…………….let’s look at our defensive depth, their ages, contracts and replacements……..

 

 

Alex Edler                        30 yrs.             NTC  contact expires July 1st, 2019

Chris Tanev                     27 yrs.             NTC kicks in July 1st, 2017, contract expires July 1st, 2020  

Erik Gunbranson             25 yrs.             RFA July 1st, 2017

Nikita Tryamkin               22 yrs.             RFA  July 1st, 2017

Troy Stecher                   22 yrs.              RFA July 1st, 2018

Luca Sbisa                      26 yrs.             UFA July 1st, 2018

Ben Hutton                      23 yrs              RFA July 1st, 2019

Olli Juolevi                      18 yrs.              First Year Pro July 1st, 2018

Guillaume Brisebois        19 yrs.              First Year Pro July 1st, 2017

Andrey Pedan                 23 yrs.              RFA  July 1st, 2017

Jordan Subban               21 yrs.

 

I think it is obvious from this list that we won’t be drafting defensemen for a while, not in the first couple rounds anyways, that is for sure!

But what is less obvious and more to the point is where you think they rank and what, if anything does Benning do with 8 possibly 9 NHL defensemen, not counting Biega, who is under contract for one more year.

And what does  Jordan Subban’s  future hold with the Canucks?

The Canuck’s defense has quite a rosy future anyway you shake it! ........What order would you place our depth chart in?   Mine was kinda in a loose order depth chart.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question.  Who do they lose in the expansion draft.  Benning can protect 7 forwards and 3 defenders or if he wants to protect more D, he can protect a total of 8 skaters.  Young D are exempt so i think that Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson, and Sbisa are vulnerable.  Edler has a NTC so he will be one of the protected.  (I may be wrong in this so somebody please correct me).  Many think they will lose a defender.  Who knows?

 

Second, Guddy, Trammer, Horvat, Miller, and Burrows all need new contracts.  What they decide to do with those contracts, may dictate whether they keep Tanev or not.  

 

Personally, I think they'll protect Edler, Tanev and Guddy and take their chances by exposing Sbisa.  Other than that, I think they'll try and keep them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Tanev

2. Stecher

3. Tryamkin

4. Edler

5. Sbisa

6. Hutton

7. Juolevi

8. Gudbranson

7. Pedan

8. Biega

9. Brisebois

10. Subban

 

This is my depth chart if the Canucks kept all their defenseman for next year. This obviously won't happen because of expansion draft, salary issues, trades etc. But if they were to keep all their D-man, this is my list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As its stands, and LOL we seem to be talking expansion most, or first, to sort out priorities. And do a best case scenario trade list, to illustrate the OP's point, inclusive?

 

Bo, Danny, Hank, Sutter, Eriksson, Baertschi, Granlund & we trade Hansen is my suggestion. Expose Gaunce, Dorsett & Rodin if he is re-signed.

 

Trade Edler, protect Guddy, Tanev, Sbisa, expose Biega & Pedan.

 

Trade Miller, protect Marky, expose Bachman.

 

That considered Vegas picks Dorsett. Which also saves us cap! Leaving our D one additional year ahead and with Sbisa as a rental at the deadline 2018;

 

Tryamkin Stecher

Hutton Tanev

Juolevi Gudbranson 

 

That's three balanced pair's!   :towel: 

 

 

 

 

 

But if things REALLY go perfect???  We sign Shattenkirk, and then (check this out @Alf ) we could have also traded (finally) Chris Tanev!  B) And while some call for the Twins to be traded, I still suggest we retire them Nucks.  Dumb butt that I really am...

 

Tryamkin Shattenkirk

Hutton Gudbranson

Juolevi Stecher

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

First question.  Who do they lose in the expansion draft.  Benning can protect 7 forwards and 3 defenders or if he wants to protect more D, he can protect a total of 8 skaters.  Young D are exempt so i think that Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson, and Sbisa are vulnerable.  Edler has a NTC so he will be one of the protected.  (I may be wrong in this so somebody please correct me).  Many think they will lose a defender.  Who knows?

 

Second, Guddy, Trammer, Horvat, Miller, and Burrows all need new contracts.  What they decide to do with those contracts, may dictate whether they keep Tanev or not.  

 

Personally, I think they'll protect Edler, Tanev and Guddy and take their chances by exposing Sbisa.  Other than that, I think they'll try and keep them all.


The NHL does not view expansion as a trade so technically Edler despite his NTC can be left unprotected (same for Hansen).

Only NMCs need to be automatically protected: Eriksson, Henrik, Daniel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

As its stands, and LOL we seem to be talking expansion most, or first, to sort out priorities. And do a best case scenario trade list, to illustrate the OP's point, inclusive?

 

Bo, Danny, Hank, Sutter, Eriksson, Baertschi, Granlund & we trade Hansen is my suggestion. Expose Gaunce, Dorsett & Rodin if he is re-signed.

 

Trade Edler, protect Guddy, Tanev, Sbisa, expose Biega & Pedan.

 

Trade Miller, protect Marky, expose Bachman.

 

That considered Vegas picks Dorsett. Which also saves us cap! Leaving our D one additional year ahead and with Sbisa as a rental at the deadline 2018;

 

Tryamkin Stecher

Hutton Tanev

Juolevi Gudbranson 

 

That's three balanced pair's!   :towel: 

 

 

 

 

 

But if things REALLY go perfect???  We sign Shattenkirk, and then (check this out @Alf ) we could have also traded (finally) Chris Tanev!  B) And while some call for the Twins to be traded, I still suggest we retire them Nucks.  Dumb butt that I really am...

 

Tryamkin Shattenkirk

Hutton Gudbranson

Juolevi Stecher

 

 

One thing I disagree with what you say. Trade Edler ? Nope. I am not against retiring the twins as Nucks, they are a package deal and their salary makes them impossible to move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

What an interesting dilemma Benning has do figure out. As a fan of the Canucks, it is always more important that we grow, than we do anything else. This in the end, will be what gets us the Stanley Cup, we all dream about.

So as I sit here eating my humble pie for the time being, I have watched in total fascination at the incredible development of our defense.

I wonder what Benning will do with such a wonderful  problem…………….let’s look at our defensive depth, their ages, contracts and replacements……..

 

 

Alex Edler                        30 yrs.             NTC  contact expires July 1st, 2019

Chris Tanev                     27 yrs.             NTC kicks in July 1st, 2017, contract expires July 1st, 2020  

Erik Gunbranson             25 yrs.             RFA July 1st, 2017

Nikita Tryamkin               22 yrs.             RFA  July 1st, 2017

Troy Stecher                   22 yrs.              RFA July 1st, 2018

Luca Sbisa                      26 yrs.             UFA July 1st, 2018

Ben Hutton                      23 yrs              RFA July 1st, 2019

Olli Juolevi                      18 yrs.              First Year Pro July 1st, 2018

Guillaume Brisebois        19 yrs.              First Year Pro July 1st, 2017

Andrey Pedan                 23 yrs.              RFA  July 1st, 2017

Jordan Subban               21 yrs.

 

I think it is obvious from this list that we won’t be drafting defensemen for a while, not in the first couple rounds anyways, that is for sure!

But what is less obvious and more to the point is where you think they rank and what, if anything does Benning do with 8 possibly 9 NHL defensemen, not counting Biega, who is under contract for one more year.

And what does  Jordan Subban’s  future hold with the Canucks?

The Canuck’s defense has quite a rosy future anyway you shake it! ........What order would you place our depth chart in?   Mine was kinda in a loose order depth chart.............

I've got one more for you: Evan McEneny. It appears, based on some observations by Utica followers, that he very well may have caught or even passed Subban on the overall depth chart.

This coming trade deadline and offseason are going to be pivotal. Just my opinion, but...I would be very willing to move Sbisa, at the right price. Call it a 3rd (with a decent prospect), or a low 2nd. If the offers are not at least that, he stays. But say he goes. That leaves us being able to protect 3 of: Edler, Tanev, Guddy and Pedan. I would not protect Edler (if this is possible, due to his NTC). I seem to remember that an NTC doesn't require protection, as opposed to an NMC. All the rest of our depth hasn't been in the NHL long enough to be draft eligible. If Sbisa isn't traded, then I protect him, Tanev and Guddy, leaving Pedan exposed (and if I'm LV, I grab him).

Personally, I would like to see Subban traded in the off-season (after the expansion draft) or at the trade deadline. I just don't see him playing for us, not with the depth we have. Who would he replace? Edler; not a chance. Tanev; same, no way. Hutton; maybe, but if Subban was that good, he would already be here. Stetcher; same as Hutton. Tryamkin; please, replace a mountain with a midget? Guddy; same as Try. Juolevi: you don't replace top 5 picks with 3rd rounders, at least not before determining that the aforementioned top 5 pick is a bust, which doesn't happen for at least 4 more years. Pedan; same as Try  & Guddy, but this time remotely possible. That now has him at 9th, and I agree, Brisebois is ahead of him. With the earlier mention of McEneny, that lowers him all the way to 11th on depth. So...when does he actually play for us?

 

Oops, almost forgot; Biega. Sorry Subban, now you're in 12th.

 

All in all, it's going to be an interesting off-season, actually starting at the trade deadline!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

6. Hutton

7. Juolevi

8. Gudbranson

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Winter Soldier said:

lol

Yeah I know Hutton probably won't be better than these two but I have liked his game this year. He has been shaky at times but when he is good he is good. Can't say the same for Guddy. Hasn't impressed anyone this year. As for Juolevi well who knows how he'll play at the NHL level. All 3 of these players have a lot of potential though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion but none of these guys can run a power play unit from the point.  None of them can consistently hit the net with their point shots and none of them with perhaps The Train are willing to run guys through the boards or knock them down in front of their nets.  None of them are feared by the opposition.  To say we don't need to look at future draft picks (defense) doesn't make sense.  Outside of goalkeeping we need help everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the thing some people are missing in these proposals is each team has to expose a certain amount of dollar value. Why not protect Tanev, Sbisa, Gudbranson and expose Edler. If he cannot be traded this would be one way to get him off the team.

 

My understanding is he has a NTC not a no movement clause so he can be exposed. Don't get me wrong, I like Edler and if he were to go I would rather see a return, but if we have tried to get him to waive and he refuses, this may be the best way to rid ourselves of him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Tanev

2. Edler

3. Tryamkin

4. Sbisa

5. Hutton

6. Stecher

7. Gudbranson

8.  Juolevi

9. Biega

10. Pedan

11. Brisebois

12. Subban

 

 I hope that JB trades Edler this summer (before expansion hopefully). If we keep Gudbranson not sure there is any point keeping Pedan.  Although if Gud is going to be on our third pairing than Pedan might be a better option as he will be cheaper (obviously a step down, but we could trade Gud for something).  My top 6 next year would be.  I would be okay with Subban replacing stecher in the lineup if we need power play help still at the end of the season.  If that was the case the obviously Subban is on the third pairing seeing limited minutes until his defensive play picks up.  

 

Tryamkin - Tanev

Sbisa - Stecher

Hutton -  Gudbranson or Pedan  (prefer Gudbranson if we have the cap room and he isn't too expensive)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Father Ryan said:

"I've got one more for you: Evan McEneny. It appears, based on some observations by Utica followers, that he very well may have caught or even passed Subban on the overall depth chart."

 

Oops, almost forgot; Biega. Sorry Subban, now you're in 12th.

 

All in all, it's going to be an interesting off-season, actually starting at the trade deadline!

Subban has a offensive upside and speed, we should really try him at a forward spot especially seeing him plummet down the depth chart like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Subban has a offensive upside and speed, we should really try him at a forward spot especially seeing him plummet down the depth chart like this.

Well, maybe we will get to see something. I just saw where he was recalled, and Pedan sent down. I totally agree with giving the depth a chance, but...if I was Pedan, I would be talking to my agent. This up and down, never seeing any playing time, getting out of game shape and then sent down again...not right. I applaud Benning and Linden for many things, but player utilization, at times, is not one of them.

As for Subban...I guess I better find some salt and pepper to season the words I'm eating right about now (ie never playing for the Canucks)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mll said:


The NHL does not view expansion as a trade so technically Edler despite his NTC can be left unprotected (same for Hansen).

Only NMCs need to be automatically protected: Eriksson, Henrik, Daniel.

Interesting comments in the Jim Benning interview today.

 

They're going through team by team and trying to figure out who they will all be protecting.  Presumably, this is so that they can make a pretty good guess at who Vegas will be selecting and who they need to protect and/or trade.  It's not a surprise that they would be doing this but it's nice to hear it from the horses mouth.

 

I still think they protect 3 D:  Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson as I said above because I would rather see 10 players protected than only 8.

 

Benning has also said that he won't be asking players with NTC's to waive so that takes Edler (and Hansen) off the list for a potential trade.  I also get the feeling that Benning really likes Tanev.  Bailing on Guddy before he's even adjusted properly to the team makes him look like he traded away McCann impulsively which he did not.  Not fair to Guddy or the fans.  If there's a trade, I think it's Sbisa and he would get a decent price because as the season goes on, he is looking more and more like a top 4 player who can skate with the puck.  So if Sbisa can be moved, he can expose Biega (who needs 19 games to qualify and has played 15 already)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

I'd be surprised if JB doesn't opt to protect 8 skaters, as the Canucks D right now has a lot more promise.

I doubt we do 8 total, when we can do 7 and 3 and protect 10 overall. This is particularly true since we don't have to worry about protecting guys like Hutton and Tryamkin since they're ineligible, and we aren't likely to lose someone like Biega (or care if we do). The only ones we have to consider are Tanev, Edler, Gudbranson and Sbisa. The plan certainly would have been to leave Sbisa unprotected, but he's been better this year. If we trade one of Edler or Tanev, then we could protect Sbisa and still have Biega exposed to meet the draft requirements.

 

If we don't leave someone as attractive as Sbisa exposed though, we have some players in the forward group at risk. With our top forwards taken care of we'll likely have to expose two of Baertschi, Granlund and Rodin (maybe only one if we trade someone like Hansen). If we protected 4 D, it'd leave even less forwards protected since we could only choose 4 more players and we'd be at greater risk than just having one worry over a D unprotected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Interesting comments in the Jim Benning interview today.

 

They're going through team by team and trying to figure out who they will all be protecting.  Presumably, this is so that they can make a pretty good guess at who Vegas will be selecting and who they need to protect and/or trade.  It's not a surprise that they would be doing this but it's nice to hear it from the horses mouth.

 

I still think they protect 3 D:  Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson as I said above because I would rather see 10 players protected than only 8.

 

Benning has also said that he won't be asking players with NTC's to waive so that takes Edler (and Hansen) off the list for a potential trade.  I also get the feeling that Benning really likes Tanev.  Bailing on Guddy before he's even adjusted properly to the team makes him look like he traded away McCann impulsively which he did not.  Not fair to Guddy or the fans.  If there's a trade, I think it's Sbisa and he would get a decent price because as the season goes on, he is looking more and more like a top 4 player who can skate with the puck.  So if Sbisa can be moved, he can expose Biega (who needs 19 games to qualify and has played 15 already)

Yes and the comments surfaced, including on maybe trading a D, from questions surrounding the expansion draft. When asked about who we might protect?

 

Benning made note their / our pro meetings were next month. And, like the depth chart on his office walls, they were tracking what was likely for all teams.  This kind of chatter surfaced before the Kesler trade.  They are looking at it like a bigger puzzle.

 

Which is good...

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...