Improving the Defence

[komodo0921]

4 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

On a rebuilding team.  That is a crazy idea.  Our only D prospect for a way past his time, currently barely NHL capable player with an awful contract.  All so we can get a first round pick that likely isn't going to be as good as OJ.

You may have taken the lead for CDCer I am happiest is not our GM.  That is saying something too.

LOL.

Big, physical, defenively solid, decent offensively and affordable.

What a crazy concept.

[kenhodgejr]

Trade Tanev to Toronto for Timothy Liljegren 

 

Draft Bouchard or Dobson with our first

 

Aim for Miller, Samuelsson, Alexyev or another good LD with our second pick. BPA with our third. 

 

            

Juolevi Liljegren 

Tyramkin Stetcher 

Miller Dobson 

            

 

[Canuck Surfer]

10 hours ago, Alflives said:

Tryamkin plays the right side.  Plus, our D would look better if our goalies stopped letting in weak goals. 

Tryamkin is a LHD.  Yes he can play the right side. 

 

It is still easier to make plays on your fore-hand, and where you can see the open ice. Versus make plays with a quick look over your shoulder. That is the play you constantly have to make playing your weak side. Travis Green among other coaches have stated a clear preference to playing guys on their strong side. 

 

The off side on the PP, where you can shoot through the middle? Instead of around traffic is completely different. Routinely LHD will play the right side, and vice versa on the PP. And considering the OP had a stated goal of more offense from our blue liners? But is Tryamkin good enough to be on our power play...

 

And also considering the OP was discussing more offense from the D, why troll regarding goaltending?  Which was better the last 10 games in particular, the last 3rd of the year in general.

[beni]

11 hours ago, buddyguy said:

Canucks are high on Noah Dobson. He's likely the guy we get unless we win the lottery lol.

Seems like he would be a pretty safe pick to boot. 

[MoneypuckOverlord]

2 hours ago, kenhodgejr said:

Trade Tanev to Toronto for Timothy Liljegren 

 

Draft Bouchard or Dobson with our first

 

Aim for Miller, Samuelsson, Alexyev or another good LD with our second pick. BPA with our third. 

 

            

Juolevi Liljegren 

Tyramkin Stetcher 

Miller Dobson 

            

 

Liljegren is an awful defencemen, gosh.

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Jesus, how do you fix that mess?

 

Like 9 of those guys should be in the AHL.  Tryamkin isn't coming back.  So, that means we need at least 2 left and 2 right (NHL caliber) D-men to appear out of nowhere.

You don't.   You keep it and drive people so crazy they give themselves names like bloody.....oh, nevermind.

[kenhodgejr]

1 hour ago, MoneypuckOverlord said:

Liljegren is an awful defencemen, gosh.

he is a puck moving high end prospect who is physical.

[JeremyCuddles]

I am really hoping Pouliot works on his game this offseason. There's still a ton of potential with this guy. 24, good offensive instincts and moves pretty well. And can play the right side as a left handed guy. He played the right side with MDZ on the left for the most part. This will be his most important offseason yet. He is a top 6 guy in my books, but if he can round out his game a bit more I think he'll get more minutes, and subsequently be an offensive option on the back end. 67 giveaways is a bit much, Edler who I bag on more than I should has 11 fewer with 7 more minutes of ice time per game. Edler is our primary puck handler from the back end as well. I think his improvement there will come from playing more NHL games. Getting a feel for the flow and what not and as our forwards get younger and faster he'll have more/better options.

 

Carlson would be a really solid pick up if we don't draft Dahlin or any D prospects in the top 10. Offer him slightly more than what Shattenkirk got in NY. 6x7.5 maybe. Cause of our rebuilding status and our taxes. He plays 70+ games consistently. He fell short of that mark once, excluding the lockout shortened season and his first season. He plays Edler minutes for Washington, and he has the majority of his even strength starts in the D zone last year, which here would be Tanev's and Guddy's deployment so we could get him more Ozone starts. With our right side depth we could shorten those minutes to try keep him healthy since our travel will likely be worse than there travel. I don't see anyone on our D-core making more than 5 mil in the foreseeable future so overpaying a bit on him wouldn't kill us. Unless Lu retires in one of the final 2 years of his deal. Outside of Boeser and maybe Pettersson I don't see any forwards breaking bank either in the near future. He might sacrifice some dollars for better term and a better chance at a Cup elsewhere though.

 

All in all I think we'll thank our lucky stars we took Juolevi instead of Tkachuk since our defense is hurting bad on top 4 players, which we are hoping he develops into. We got a bunch of 5/6/7s but no real top 4s outside of Edler and Tanev. Similar to our forward core that is primarily bottom 6 guys and two legit top 6 guys. Bo and Boeser. Baer is a fringe top 6. Eriksson now that the Sedins are gone can maybe find his scoring touch which sounds bass ackwards as I type this out. Our scoring woes are throughout our lineup and not just our defense. As we get better our scoring will go up. Once our defense have guys that can score to send the puck to they'll get points. Edler's numbers look solid cause he was regularly used when the Sedins were on and they were good for points. Just gotta trust the process and keep hoping we have guys make meaningful strides in their game.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

8 minutes ago, kenhodgejr said:

he is a puck moving high end prospect who is physical.

ohhhhh boy.

[BigTramFan]

First up I believe JB will not trade Tanev. There was a window a couple of years back where Tanev was worth so much more than today. I don’t think JB will be able to get the value he would like, so will keep Tanev long term.

 

Secondly, I don’t get the feeling that any of our current D prospects, except for Juolevi, will do any better than bottom pairing. And so I have assumed that these guys will not have a big impact on improving our D.

 

We are also not going to be able to trade for a true #1 D. So we have two ways to get an elite D – draft (takes time) or UFA (costs a lot and comes with risk).

 

JB has to go with both options, because we can’t assume one way or the other will succeed.

 

Regardless of what happens we have to buy ourselves some time until Juolevi and prospects from 2018 draft are ready. I suggest JB should re-sign Stecher and Pouliot to minimum possible contracts – they both have to prove themselves. Trade MDZ at the next TDL and bring Juolevi in then. 

 

At draft lottery: Unlikely but there is a small chance we win the lottery and draft Dahlin. If this happens we are suddenly way ahead in our rebuild. Pair him up with Tanev next season. Waive Hutton. Starting lineup for 2018/19:

 

Edler Stecher

Dahlin Tanev

MDZ Gudbranson

Pouliot Biega

 

In off-season 2018: 

If we do not get Dahlin, go all in for Carlson. Again it is unlikely Carlson comes to VAN, but we gotta give it a decent shot. He can be the #1D we have been looking for. Perhaps pay more than market value, but too bad, we need someone like him. Even if it costs $8m per year, we have space next year. Again trade MDZ at TDL (clears $3m), waive Hutton. Starting lineup for 2018/19:

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Edler Carlson

Stecher Tanev

MDZ Gudbranson

Pouliot Biega

(with Juolevi in for MDZ at TDL)

 

Perhaps we cannot get Carlson, then sign De Haan for $3.5m for 3 years. Line up becomes:

 

Edler Stecher

De Haan  Tanev

MDZ Gudbranson

Pouliot Biega

(with Juolevi in for MDZ at TDL)

 

Off season 2019: We didn’t get Dahlin and so we need a top pairing LHD to replace Edler in 2019. Hutton and MDZ are gone. Go all in for OEL who is UFA in 2019. This is regardless of whether we get Carlson or De Haan. Again I don’t care if it is unlikely or costs us $8m per year, get it done. If we cannot get OEL then re-sign Edler for $3.5m per year for 3 years. Possible line up in 2019/20 not including prospects from 2018 draft:

 

OEL Carlson

Juolevi Tanev

Stecher Gudbranson

Pouliot Biega

 

or maybe without Carlson:

 

OEL Tanev

Juolevi Gudbranson

De Haan Stecher

Pouilot Biega

 

Plus over the next few years: Pull out all stops to get Tryamkin back to VAN. He has potential to be a top 4 D, and would be priceless during playoffs.

[Baggins]

9 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Tryamkin is a LHD.  Yes he can play the right side. 

 

It is still easier to make plays on your fore-hand, and where you can see the open ice. Versus make plays with a quick look over your shoulder. That is the play you constantly have to make playing your weak side. Travis Green among other coaches have stated a clear preference to playing guys on their strong side. 

 

The off side on the PP, where you can shoot through the middle? Instead of around traffic is completely different. Routinely LHD will play the right side, and vice versa on the PP. And considering the OP had a stated goal of more offense from our blue liners? But is Tryamkin good enough to be on our power play...

It doesn't really matter what you see as easier. It's what the player is most comfortable with. Tryamkin played the right side in the KHL as well as here. Ehrhoff, a LHD, was quite successful playing on the right side. Some can play either side with equal comfort, while others are really only comfortable on the side they're accustomed to. Salo could play either side. Ballard, with Hamhuis and Edler ahead of him on the left side, was given a chance playing right side with Edler. After one game he said he just wasn't comfortable playing right side. Now if Tryamkin is most comfortable playing right side why would you force to play left?

 

Really it's a moot point if Try never comes back. I rather doubt he will.

[Rush17]

I was listening to ray Ferraro doing an interview last week I believe. He was going on about how concerned he'd be of paying Carlson the big $$ given this is his major breakout season in a contract year.

 

One could argue the departure of kevin shattenkirk and his longtime d partner Karl Azlner leaving to Montreal may of been a factor in his up tick due to having more opportunity. Or a better transitional D partner.  

 

He also went on to say he doesn't know why John Carlson would want to come to Canada when he is an American Boy. He believes he would probably prefer to stay in the states. Perhaps money / term can change that. He looks like a pretty safe bet as long as the $$ or term are not completely ubserd.  If we picked him up then flipped him before any decline we would be alright. Chicago is known for doing this well. Issue is if Carlson needs a certain d partner to succeed do we have that style d man here?

 

Is that Edler or more likely Pouliot or Juolevi who have better new age transitional games with better offensive instincts. Carlson would be a nice add as long as the term and $$ make sense but management's msg heading into the summer didn't really lineup with adding a guy like him. (Or perhaps it does?)

[Canuck Surfer]

18 minutes ago, Baggins said:

It doesn't really matter what you see as easier. It's what the player is most comfortable with. Tryamkin played the right side in the KHL as well as here. Ehrhoff, a LHD, was quite successful playing on the right side. Some can play either side with equal comfort, while others are really only comfortable on the side they're accustomed to. Salo could play either side. Ballard, with Hamhuis and Edler ahead of him on the left side, was given a chance playing right side with Edler. After one game he said he just wasn't comfortable playing right side. Now if Tryamkin is most comfortable playing right side why would you force to play left?

 

Really it's a moot point if Try never comes back. I rather doubt he will.

Of course left handed shots will play the right side. There are not enough RHD. 75 to 85% of players are going to be left handed shots. Many a LHD  will have earned a job by being more functional than others on the right side. Is there a plus? Sweeping behind your own net from your side see's you on the forehand. They also like the glory big shot in the offensive zone, which is a strategic advantage.

 

There are just that many more skills that are harder to execute. Its rarely your fore-hand anywhere else on the boards. Find me a guy who can shoot & pass as hard or accurately backhanded as fore hand? Or see as much of the ice as they look over their off shoulder? Instead of ahead with clear view of the play & all the opposing players who might steal the puck. Go ahead and try it? Clear a puck backhand, up two zones through traffic over your shoulder. Another example, scream into your own defensive corner? To pass on your fore hand you have to pass through the middle, across and in front of your own net. Or the long way all around the boards. So normally you chip it blind back up the boards behind you.  Its why coaches that pay attention to percentages play strong side D whenever possible.

 

Phaneuf prefers the right side doesn't he? That should tell you enough...

 

Coaches still like to get that big, hard hitting, hard shooting D into the line up?  But have to put up with the extra mistakes that will naturally occur. And see's him fall out of favour in multiple markets. 

 

I point to us going with Garrison, Edler, Hamuis & Tanev, who was hurt half the year in our top 4.  Somebody, usually two guys were always on their off side. Suddenly Edler sucked! Led the league in minus. People were wondering what was suddenly wrong with Hammer? Why the fluck did we do this huge free agency signing with Garrison??? 

 

It's just the percentages. Its all percentages.

 

   

 

    

[Rush17]

.

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Of course left handed shots will play the right side. There are not enough RHD. 75 to 85% of players are going to be left handed shots. Many a LHD  will have earned a job by being more functional than others on the right side. Is there a plus? Sweeping behind your own net from your side see's you on the forehand. They also like the glory big shot in the offensive zone, which is a strategic advantage.

 

There are just that many more skills that are harder to execute. Its rarely your fore-hand anywhere else on the boards. Find me a guy who can shoot & pass as hard or accurately backhanded as fore hand? Or see as much of the ice as they look over their off shoulder? Instead of ahead with clear view of the play & all the opposing players who might steal the puck. Go ahead and try it? Clear a puck backhand, up two zones through traffic over your shoulder. Another example, scream into your own defensive corner? To pass on your fore hand you have to pass through the middle, across and in front of your own net. Or the long way all around the boards. So normally you chip it blind back up the boards behind you.  Its why coaches that pay attention to percentages play strong side D whenever possible.

 

Phaneuf prefers the right side doesn't he? That should tell you enough...

 

Coaches still like to get that big, hard hitting, hard shooting D into the line up?  But have to put up with the extra mistakes that will naturally occur. And see's him fall out of favour in multiple markets. 

 

I point to us going with Garrison, Edler, Hamuis & Tanev, who was hurt half the year in our top 4.  Somebody, usually two guys were always on their off side. Suddenly Edler sucked! Led the league in minus. People were wondering what was suddenly wrong with Hammer? Why the fluck did we do this huge free agency signing with Garrison??? 

 

It's just the percentages. Its all percentages.

 

   

 

    

Agree with a lot of what u say. What about Rasmus Dahlin who is a lefty who prefers the right. Would u be open to an exception to the rule of he's an all star caliber D?  

 

I prefer lefty righty combos myself but for Dahlin do you keep him where he is comfortable or do you try to switch him fully to left. I am guessing he played left at some point. A lot of his plays are from being a left shot player on the right side. Do we Rob him of what makes him so great if that is a factor? Im not saying it is. But would you?

 

I'd love to see Dahlin - Carlson. Followed by Edler - Gudbranson, and Juolevi - Stecher.  With all that said above.  I would prefer Dahlin on the left but what about you?

 

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, wildcam said:

That would still be a bad deal as Vancouver has 6yr contract for a player 33 with 6 yrs left on contract...

You Don't make that deal... Chic would need to really sweeten the deal...

I want nothing to do with fixing the bed CHI made for themselves.  They are a prime example of what happens to a star laden team in the cap era.  Four guys eating up 30+ million is ridiculous, roughly 40% of your cap for four guys, two that are approaching or in their mid thirties, and the others in their mid to late prime...missing the playoffs is something they will have to get used to.

 

I

[kloubek]

23 hours ago, coastal.view said:

we really need a true #1 or quality #2 dman

so that the depth is pushed down a bit to a position they can better handle

This.  We have quantity for sure, but we have a lack of quality.

Our defense isn't really THAT bad defensively.  I think it was a combination of several factors:

1) Tanev and to a lesser degree Gudbranson being injured

2) Crappy goaltending
3) Many players on our team not able to keep up defensively.  Like the Sedins.

Take away these factors, and I think we are a bit better than mid-pack in goals against.  Perhaps around 12th best in the league.  That's still not amazing, but not nearly as bad as it appears.

 

The problem is that if we give up Tanev, we are probably going to be at least close to that 6th worse stat again next season.  So if we DO get rid of him, we are going to have to get a legit defensive defenseman to take on the opposition's top lines.

Then there is the issue, as you pointed out, that we need a top guy who can score.  Not #2.  #1.  We might get this guy in the draft, but that's always a question mark, and he probably wouldn't be ready to play in the bigs for at least 2-3 years so we are unlikely to get short term help there.  Carlson is indeed a guy we should focus on, but he has had one exceptional year.  I'm afraid that if we did sign him we'd see the Carlson of a year ago as opposed to the one we see now.  OEL would be another one to focus on next season as well.  Or even Karlsson - even though he will command one heck of a salary.  If we can manage to snag one of these guys, like you said, it would push everyone else one level down to where they belong.  

 

Really, if you look at it we don't have a bad D overall... we just expect too much out of our guys. Stecher is developing and already a mobile and smart guy.  MDZ (as much as he is ragged on here) is a hitting machine and can put up some points.  Edler would likely be out or demoted in a year but he has a good all-around game.  Gudbranson hits like a freight train (when he wants to) and can fight. Jolevi should hopefully end up a solid #2/#3 guy.  I think we will be ok if we can just get that one guy who can put up points.  And, if we do lose Edler, a guy who can shut down top lines.

[Father Ryan]

LEFT                    RIGHT

Edler                   Tanev

Del Zotto             Stetcher

Juolevi                Gudbranson

Puoliot                Biega

Hutton                Chatfield

McEneny

Brisebois

Sautner

Tryamkin???

 

I agree the D needs a facelift. Looking at this selection, I would:

Trade MDZ. He would bring something, say a 3rd round pick.

Trade one of Hutton or Puoliot (not both).

Pick up someone along the lines of Ian Cole (decent stay-at-home type, L shot, likely salary in the 2-2.5 range)

 

Go with: Edler-Stetcher

              Cole - Tanev

              Puoliot/Hutton - Guddy

              Biega/Sautner

Make the first two pairings basically interchangeable, depending on what kind of team we are playing. Even without injuries, and unless one of them gets on a "hot" streak, I would like to give each one a "maintenance" game at least one in ten.

Start Juolevi in Utica. Shelter his minutes initially, letting the pairing of Brisebois/Chatfield be the top pairing, and then McEneny with, say, Irving (signed to a two way contract) be the second pairing. I would like to see the team offer Brassard a contract also. Team him with Juolevi; this would have Juolevi playing around 15 min/game and Brassard would be the PMD of the two. In the second half (if warranted) start increasing his minutes. You know that injuries will happen...this is Vancouver, after all.

 

Of course, if miracles actually happen, and we win the lottery, then Sautner goes to Utica and whichever of Puoliott/Hutton is still here becomes the 7th dman, putting Dahlin with a big body to "discourage" some of the dirtier play. But then...who am I kidding?

[Rush17]

Cole in top 4 really bothers me.i understand where your coming from but I prefer mdz's play until Hutton, Pouliot or Juolevi surplant him.

 

I'm actually in favor of moving mdz at the deadline even if the other guys haven't earned it.  Give them half a season to all try the role and see if anyone takes off. Some players play better with more ice time.

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, kloubek said:

This.  We have quantity for sure, but we have a lack of quality.

Our defense isn't really THAT bad defensively.  I think it was a combination of several factors:

1) Tanev and to a lesser degree Gudbranson being injured

2) Crappy goaltending
3) Many players on our team not able to keep up defensively.  Like the Sedins.

Take away these factors, and I think we are a bit better than mid-pack in goals against.  Perhaps around 12th best in the league.  That's still not amazing, but not nearly as bad as it appears.

 

The problem is that if we give up Tanev, we are probably going to be at least close to that 6th worse stat again next season.  So if we DO get rid of him, we are going to have to get a legit defensive defenseman to take on the opposition's top lines.

Then there is the issue, as you pointed out, that we need a top guy who can score.  Not #2.  #1.  We might get this guy in the draft, but that's always a question mark, and he probably wouldn't be ready to play in the bigs for at least 2-3 years so we are unlikely to get short term help there.  Carlson is indeed a guy we should focus on, but he has had one exceptional year.  I'm afraid that if we did sign him we'd see the Carlson of a year ago as opposed to the one we see now.  OEL would be another one to focus on next season as well.  Or even Karlsson - even though he will command one heck of a salary.  If we can manage to snag one of these guys, like you said, it would push everyone else one level down to where they belong.  

 

Really, if you look at it we don't have a bad D overall... we just expect too much out of our guys. Stecher is developing and already a mobile and smart guy.  MDZ (as much as he is ragged on here) is a hitting machine and can put up some points.  Edler would likely be out or demoted in a year but he has a good all-around game.  Gudbranson hits like a freight train (when he wants to) and can fight. Jolevi should hopefully end up a solid #2/#3 guy.  I think we will be ok if we can just get that one guy who can put up points.  And, if we do lose Edler, a guy who can shut down top lines.

sorry to call a spade a spade

but there is no way in hell that our existing group of d and goalies can achieve top 12 in the league in defensive stats

we'd have to stock our offensive group with solely 2 way defensive focused players to actually achieve that and then the team would have the lowest offensive out put in the league by a country mile

 

there is no getting around the d problem

we need a top tier quality dman to take some of the load off our existing group

and we need a real #1 starting goalie

then we have a shot at being middle of the pack defensively ..

and i think with those changes even 12th overall would be a bit of a reach

[kloubek]

7 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

sorry to call a spade a spade

but there is no way in hell that our existing group of d and goalies can achieve top 12 in the league in defensive stats

we'd have to stock our offensive group with solely 2 way defensive focused players to actually achieve that and then the team would have the lowest offensive out put in the league by a country mile

 

there is no getting around the d problem

we need a top tier quality dman to take some of the load off our existing group

and we need a real #1 starting goalie

then we have a shot at being middle of the pack defensively ..

and i think with those changes even 12th overall would be a bit of a reach

Completely disagree.  

The Sedins alone were both -22.  If they played even, that's 22 goals against right there.  Then there is our "#1" goalie who's save % was ..912, which is about .01 off the AVERAGE of #1 goalies, and that's about 18 goals there not even counting our even more crappy backup. That's already 40 goals against that we can lose with those two elements changed.  That already puts us at about #5 or #6 best in the league in goals against.  Then factor Tanev being healthy the whole season (if that's possible) and we actually be doing very well indeed... likely near the best in the league.  

 

So basically, if we got two players who were even in +/-, and an average goalie along with a healthy Tanev, the scenario changes pretty quickly.  So then you might say, "most of our players were minuses".  That would be true, but then, it would still remain true that some were not, and that missing Tanev hurt us a ton, and that our goalie was not good enough.

You can call a spade a spade all you want, but basing your opinion on facts instead of scratch-the-surface emotion would serve you well.