So...next year. Where are we going?

[riffraff]

2 hours ago, Pickly said:

Only thing that makes sense is a Boeser trade for defensive help. Especially if they are keen on bringing back Taffoli. 

Imo it’s pretty sad if that’s what it takes to improve the D.

 

addition by subtraction.

 

so now instead of developing through the draft, JB’s strong suit,  we will have traded picks and in this case Boeser for Miller and Toff and whatever hypothetical defensive help we need.

Edited March 2, 2020 by riffraff

[aGENT]

Just now, riffraff said:

Is this confirmed?

Nothing will be 'confirmed' until it is.

 

But Benning, Tryamkin's agent and Tryamkin himself have all insinuated that he will be back when his current contract is up. I think it's a pretty safe bet.

 

Just now, riffraff said:

 

And considering he has been scratched in the khl what type of chance does he have here at making an impact defending against goals.  We all know he has impactful size but so did Tom sestito.

And he's not really being 'scratched' on his team as some depth schmuck that can't stay in the lineup. They rotate D in the KHL. He's a top 4 D there, basically their Tanev and has been part of the leadership group including being captain while their usual one was out with injury IIIRC.

 

Just now, riffraff said:

JB has more or less gone all in via trade to get us into the playoffs.  That’s fine.  I like playoffs.

 

but our all in defence is a seven deuce in measurable skill atm.

Nobody's suggesting our D is a finished product or something like tops in the league. In fact, I'm very much suggesting that we will see a LOT of transition there over the next few years. Just as we've seen the last couple, until Benning gets the mix he's looking for.

[riffraff]

Just now, riffraff said:

 

 

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Nothing will be 'confirmed' until it is.

 

But Benning, Tryamkin's agent and Tryamkin himself have all insinuated that he will be back when his current contract is up. I think it's a pretty safe bet.

 

And he's not really being 'scratched' on his team as some depth schmuck that can't stay in the lineup. They rotate D in the KHL. He's a top 4 D there, basically their Tanev and has been part of the leadership group including being captain while their usual one was out with injury IIIRC.

 

Nobody's suggesting our D is a finished product or something like tops in the league. In fact, I'm very much suggesting that we will see a LOT of transition there over the next few years. Just as we've seen the last couple, until Benning gets the mix he's looking for.

All true.  But his moves at forward are too far ahead of the moves or lack thereof at the back end.

[189lb enforcers?]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Solely? No.

 

But we do have him, a returning Tryamkin, OJ, Rathbone and Woo all on solid trajectories. Are all of them likely to make it as top 4/impact D? Probably not...but I'd not put it past one or two, with another one or two being decent depth guys. Add them to Hughes, Edler, Tanev (assuming he re-ups) and Myers and that's plenty capable/potentially capable D over the next couple years to fill out a roster. And guys like Brisebois, and potentially Utunen etc for affordable depth roles as well.

 

Beyond that, assuming we re-sign Toffoli, I'd be pretty surprised to not see one of Boeser/Virtanen moved for a D at some point. And there's always free agency as guys like Edler/Tanev age out in the next 3+ years (right around the time the cap is expected to rise with a new TV deal AND we're shedding the last of our expensive 'bridge' vets AND Luongo's cap recapture).

 

Do we need at least one other impact D to pair with Hughes? Probably somewhere in the next few years, ya. But home grown from our pool, traded for, or signed as UFA, I'm not particularly worried. We've got enough other guys to fill in the bottom two pairs behind Hughes and whoever emerges from those multiple scenarios.

 

 

Being worried, not being worried and being convinced that help is in the way are different things, which is what my coffee-fuelled sermon attempts to convey. 
 

The site and the fanbase does this same dance each season. We engage in what ifs and depending on your level of optimism, forecast the future of the prospects. 
 

“Help is in the way. Tree, OJ, Woo, Rathbone, Rafferty, etc., they are coming to secure the Dcore woes.” 

It has been the same safety dance for the 2 plus decades that I’ve frequented this site. Using hope in place of reason is actually a plus-worthy behaviour here, which is in itself quite the discussion. God forbid that some negative Nancy black sheep poster states the obvious in this dance-off. 
 

It seems like you don’t actually disagree with my premise, but instead bent it to suit some points you’d like to attach here to the simplicity in restating the obvious here, that both the odds of the D prospects all making it AND being at all impactful are both equally an unlikely outcome by the time Edler and co are no longer an effective top 4. 
 

You’ve also been here a long while and know the forums’s propensity for over evaluating the team’s prospects. We both know that what ever eventually squeezes out of the pipeline is seldom what the optimism had been conjuring. 
 

I started this rant to state that I that I agree with the assessment of the OP regarding the Dcore and then elaborated on the current prospect pool’s capacity to raise the bar, stating that I consider most of the players to be long shots at both making an impact on the quality of the Canucks Dcore AND that I think that as Edler and co fade, this problem will be more apparent, not solved, as the optimism on display in the thread would instead have me believe.
 

The Canucks need a great Dcore, not depth and QH to succeed in the playoffs. What I see in the pipeline does not match or compliment the current window JB built. What I see is a perpetual middling team, but that crystal balling is as good as my lottery ticket selections, a guess. 
 

Sorry.
Help is not on the way, Canucks Dcore and fans.

Too little too late, to help before the current Dcore fades, is my best guess. 
 

Am I hopeful? Sure, but I’m not about to pretend that every or most Canucks D prospects will make the team, be the best version/projection they had at the draft table, and either supplement to supplant the soon to expire Dcore JB chose for this cap team-window. Not happening. That’s reality.

 

Citing Rafferty, Tree and Woo as reasons to believe is almost as sad as the dire reality of the future Dcore’s issues, IMO, but whatever floats your boats. 
 

Edited March 2, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[Playoff Grit]

Pearson- Miller - Toffoli
Virtanen- Petey - Boeser

Hoglander- Horvat-Podkolzin

Leivo-Gaudette-MacEwan

 

 

Hughes- Tanev

Edler -Myers
Juolevi - Tryamkin

 

Markstrom
Backup

[189lb enforcers?]

3 hours ago, Canadian said:

They brought in Hughes, Myers long-term this year, and Benn / Fantenburg as stop gaps. Edler is also another 1-more-year stop-gap.

 

This summer will be some hard decisions on longer term:

 

Big decisions to make, hopefully not one based on cap troubles.

 

Edler - ___________

Hughes - __________

Tryamkin - Myers

__________ - _____________

Lots of gaps and also lots of hard miles on those D. 
It will take some magic to fix the future Dcore. 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Being worried, not being worried and being convinced that help is in the way are different things, which is what my coffee-fuelled sermon attempts to convey. 
 

The site and the fanbase does this same dance each season. We engage in what ifs and depending on your level of optimism, forecast the future of the prospects. 
 

“Help is in the way. Tree, OJ, Woo, Rathbone, Rafferty, etc., they are coming to secure the Dcore woes.” 

It has been the same safety dance for the 2 plus decades that I’ve frequented this site. Using hope in place of reason is actually a plus-worthy behaviour here, which is in itself quite the discussion. God forbid that some negative Nancy black sheep poster states the obvious in this dance-off. 
 

It seems like you don’t actually disagree with my premise, but instead bent it to suit some points you’d like to attach here to the simplicity in restating the obvious here, that both the odds of the D prospects all making it AND being at all impactful are both equally an unlikely outcome by the time Edler and co are no longer an effective top 4. 
 

You’ve also been here a long while and know the forums’s propensity for over evaluating the team’s prospects. We both know that what ever eventually squeezes out of the pipeline is seldom what the optimism had been conjuring. 
 

I started this rant to state that I that I agree with the assessment of the OP regarding the Dcore and then elaborated on the current prospect pool’s capacity to raise the bar, stating that I consider most of the players to be long shots at both making an impact on the quality of the Canucks Dcore AND that I think that as Edler and co fade, this problem will be more apparent, not solved, as the optimism on display in the thread would instead have me believe.
 

The Canucks need a great Dcore, not depth and QH to succeed in the playoffs. What I see in the pipeline does not match or compliment the current window JB built. What I see is a perpetual middling team, but that crystal balling is as good as my lottery ticket selections, a guess. 
 

Sorry.
Help is not on the way, Canucks Dcore and fans.

Too little too late, to help before the current Dcore fades, is my best guess. 
 

Am I hopeful? Sure, but I’m not about to pretend that every or most Canucks D prospects will make the team, be the best version/projection they had at the draft table, and either supplement to supplant the soon to expire Dcore JB chose for this cap team-window. Not happening. That’s reality.

 

Citing Rafferty, Tree and Woo as reasons to believe is almost as sad as the dire reality of the future Dcore’s issues, IMO, but whatever floats your boats. 
 

Nobody has a crystal ball so I'm not sure why one would simply assume we're doomed to mediocrity (or worse), as you are, or that all of those 5'ish guys are sure things to be top pair D. Both are equally reductive and frankly silly, opinions.

 

You're failure is not recognizing that you're simply the opposite, negative side to the same irrational, extreme coin.

 

You have no idea if any of OJ, Woo, Tryamkin, Rafferty or Rathbone will eventually become top pair D (or if we'll even need them to, should we find one elsewhere). None of this has anything to do with some of the fan base 'overvaluing prospects'. It's a convenient narrative you like to espouse that doesn't actually have any bearing on the management of the team.

 

But I can all but guarantee the D core will massively change from one year to the next as our own prospects advance, we make trades, and we sign UFA's. So much so that you making any prediction of what the future D corp will or won't look like with the certainty you seem to be selling here, is in fact laughable.

 

'What I see in the pipeline.' 

 

'Help is not on the way.' 

 

'Too little too late.'

 

 Hilarious 189. 

 

 

 

 

[khay]

11 minutes ago, Playoff Grit said:

Pearson- Miller - Toffoli
Virtanen- Petey - Boeser

Hoglander- Horvat-Podkolzin

Leivo-Gaudette-MacEwan

 

 

Hughes- Tanev

Edler -Myers
Juolevi - Tryamkin

 

Markstrom
Backup

This is an interesting lineup. Although Podz won't be on the team until the season after next due to his KHL contract.

 

IMO, Petey needs puck on his stick and with Miller, he is playing like a supporting player. Miller needs to drive his own line and the same with Petey.

 

Toffoli is really good at finding open space, and he has found chemistry with Miller already. Boeser has chemistry with EP.  And Pearson has good chemistry with Bo.

 

Gaudette-Miller-Toffoli (Both wingers can find open seams and shoot)

Virtanen-EP-Boeser (Virtanen and EP forechecks, Boeser can make plays with EP, all 3 guys can shoot)

Pearson-Horvat-MacEwen (Match up line that brings high intensity forechecking)

Motte-Beagle-Roussel

Eriksson (I'm assuming he doesn't retire and we can't trade him)

 

Defensive pairing of Juolevi and Tryamkin should be sheltered but it comes with a lot of promise.

[aGENT]

45 minutes ago, riffraff said:

 

All true.  But his moves at forward are too far ahead of the moves or lack thereof at the back end.

You do what you can with the hands your're dealt. As much as he might have 'liked' to have added another top 4 D already, you actually need to have them available, have assets for them etc.

 

Moving forward, I fully expect him to make a deal from that F depth, for a D. But that F depth had to accumulate and develop to make that move. 

 

You make the incremental improvements, as they present themselves.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by aGENT

[Devron]

It’s a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll

[189lb enforcers?]

55 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nobody has a crystal ball so I'm not sure why one would simply assume we're doomed to mediocrity (or worse), as you are, or that all of those 5'ish guys are sure things to be top pair D. Both are equally reductive and frankly silly, opinions.

 

You're failure is not recognizing that you're simply the opposite, negative side to the same irrational, extreme coin.

 

You have no idea if any of OJ, Woo, Tryamkin, Rafferty or Rathbone will eventually become top pair D (or if we'll even need them to, should we find one elsewhere). None of this has anything to do with some of the fan base 'overvaluing prospects'. It's a convenient narrative you like to espouse that doesn't actually have any bearing on the management of the team.

 

But I can all but guarantee the D core will massively change from one year to the next as our own prospects advance, we make trades, and we sign UFA's. So much so that you making any prediction of what the future D corp will or won't look like with the certainty you seem to be selling here, is in fact laughable.

 

'What I see in the pipeline.' 

 

'Help is not on the way.' 

 

'Too little too late.'

 

 Hilarious 189. 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea, but I do have statistics, probability and actual roster issues to base my assumptions on.
 

It’s up to you if you want to cite hope as your argument. 

 

There are no irrational, extreme positions on my side of the reality coin.
 

If we agree that the ratio of prospects is dwarfed by the busts and that Rafferty (sorry kid, it’s not you, its a situation) is among the heralded saviours of the Canucks Dcore, what is there left to say? 
 

A spade is a spade, not an excavator. 
Rafferty is just a Rafferty, not an Edler, etc. 
 

There is nothing extreme about using stats as logic, unlike what you started out with by citing every warm body as *hopeful roster replacements. The Feelz Party! Fun! 

 

Your approach and deflection is what gives you away here. Stop playing the crowd and look at facts. Save your banter for something subjective. 
 

If you are able to, why not answer the questions I laid out in the initial post you quoted where I ask questions about the prospect pool, which a clever guy like yourself could answer, but this deflection is cool too.
 

Whichever, take your time because we both know I am right; my crystal ball is statistics and not based on anything except the base fact that not all prospects make it or make an impact when they do. Soooo extreme... I know, right? 
 

By all means pencil those several prospects into the future Canucks roster and enjoy your day. Your opinions on the matter are yours to express and enjoy. I think I’ve done the same here and can comfortably disengage from this dance. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[189lb enforcers?]

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Which prospective Dmen are potential impact players? 
Which of these Dmen are/project to be better options than we already have?

How far out are they?

Which of these players can’t easily be replaced/acquired as/by FA signings, PTO, etc?  

For your convince @aGENT
I will not provide a response, instead hope to leave this as food for critical thought for those engaged in well-wishing that the Canucks’ D prospects are soon riding in to save the day, as it relates to the OPs assertion concerning the current cupboards and my relating it to Dcore woes. 
 

Seems like this happens every year.

One day it will be one, maybe some, of you posting this in my place on here. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[Pickly]

1 hour ago, riffraff said:

Imo it’s pretty sad if that’s what it takes to improve the D.

 

addition by subtraction.

 

so now instead of developing through the draft, JB’s strong suit,  we will have traded picks and in this case Boeser for Miller and Toff and whatever hypothetical defensive help we need.

The Canucks don’t have any real surefire defensive prospects. Rafferty is as close as it gets and who knows how his AHL game will translate to the bigs. You then have Juolevi who is a major question mark  at this stage in his development, a real nice but unknown in Rathbone, and a couple of fringe bottom pairing guys ie Chatfield and Brisbois. So now what? That doesn’t leave you a ton of options to improve the D. The Canucks need to

add another top 3 defenceman because Edler and Tanev are getting long in the tooth and we cannot continue to ride them without gradually replacing those minutes. 

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I have no idea, but I do have statistics, probability and actual roster issues to base my assumptions on.
 

It’s up to you if you want to cite hope as your argument. 

 

There are no irrational, extreme positions on my side of the reality coin.
 

If we agree that the ratio of prospects is dwarfed by the busts and that Rafferty (sorry kid, it’s not you, its a situation) is among the heralded saviours of the Canucks Dcore, what is there left to say? 
 

A spade is a spade, not an excavator. 
Rafferty is just a Rafferty, not an Edler, etc. 
 

There is nothing extreme about using stats as logic, unlike what you stated out on by citing every warm body as hopeful roster replacements. 

 

Your approach and deflection is what gives you away here. Stop playing the crowd and look at facts. Save your banter for something subjective. 
 

If you are able to, why not answer the questions I laid out in the initial post you quoted where I ask questions about the prospect pool, that clever guy like yourself could answer, but this deflection is cool too.
 

Whichever, take your time because we both know I am right; my crystal ball is statistics and not based on anything except the base fact that not all prospects make it or make an impact when they do. Soooo extreme... I know, right? 
 

By all means pencil those several prospects into the future Canucks roster and enjoy your day. Your opinions on the matter are yours to express and enjoy. I think I’ve done the same here and can comfortably disengage from this dance. 

My 'argument' is that Benning will continue to manage and improve the club. D core included. Just as he has been doing since he got here. I'm not claiming every last one of our D prospects, or Rafferty specifically (you seem a touch obsessed with him), becomes the next Lidstrom like your straw man narrative aims to. I think he has a solid shot at being a decent 3rd pair/spare offensive D. Anything over that is gravy. Zero expectation. Zero Assumption. Not penciling anything in Mr. Straw Man.

 

Crystal balling what the D will or won't look like in three years with a handful of promising prospects already in the pipeline, more drafts, more free agency periods and more seasons (and assets) with which to trade for the pieces we may or may not need, is a fools errand. As is fretting on how 'doomed' it is without knowing literally ANY of how any of those things turn out..

 

If you can't see the hilarious irony in you lambasting (what is really a few, fringe people) for their 'everyone's going to be a top 4 D!' opinion while simultaneously holding a 'they're all more likely to bust/be fringe AHL'ers/depth D' opinion...that's on you man  All while you also ignore that we can also trade for and sign players as part of the solutions as well. You have zero statistics on reading the future there 189. If you do, feel free to show your work, I'll wait here 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by aGENT

[aGENT]

16 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

For your convince @aGENT
I will not provide a response, instead hope to leave this as food for critical thought for those engaged in well-wishing that the Canucks’ D prospects are soon riding in to save the day, as it relates to the OPs assertion concerning the current Dcore woes. 
 

Seems like this happens every year.

One day it will one or some of you posting this in my place on here. 

I'd say Rathbone and OJ have the highest likelihood of being impact players. Outside shot at Woo (though most likely bottom pair). You'll note I'm not suggesting any are guarantees. Those don't exist in this business. And likewise ANY of these guys could equally surprise and surpass their current expected ceilings.

 

Beyond that, as you like to keep ignoring, I'd wager we trade some of our F depth for D at some point. There's also UFA's and a few more drafts to round it out.

 

If I had to (blindly, wildly) guess, in 3-4+ years our D will look something like:

 

Hughes, Trade

OJ/Rath, UFA

OJ/Rath, Tryamkin/Rafferty/Woo/Other

 

If any of Tryamkin/Rafferty/Woo/future picks (or other acquisitions etc) surprise and exceed, maybe you don't need one of the UFA or trade.

 

The horrors. We're doomed.  

 

 

[RowdyCanuck]

2 hours ago, riffraff said:

Imo it’s pretty sad if that’s what it takes to improve the D.

 

addition by subtraction.

 

so now instead of developing through the draft, JB’s strong suit,  we will have traded picks and in this case Boeser for Miller and Toff and whatever hypothetical defensive help we need.

You have to though look at who the Hawks have traded away over the years....

[aGENT]

11 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

You have to though look at who the Hawks have traded away over the years....

It seems some people here thought that we'd only have 100% drafted D on our team or something moving forward. I'd like to see this magical NHL team that never traded for or signed a UFA to round out their roster 

[189lb enforcers?]

51 minutes ago, aGENT said:

My 'argument' is that Benning will continue to manage and improve the club. D core included. Just as he has been doing since he got here. I'm not claiming every last one of our D prospects, or Rafferty specifically (you seem a touch obsessed with him), becomes the next Lidstrom like your straw man narrative aims to. I think he has a solid shot at being a decent 3rd pair/spare offensive D. Anything over that is gravy. Zero expectation. Zero Assumption. Not penciling anything in Mr. Straw Man.

 

Crystal balling what the D will or won't look like in three years with a handful of promising prospects already in the pipeline, more drafts, more free agency periods and more seasons (and assets) with which to trade for the pieces we may or may not need, is a fools errand. As is fretting on how 'doomed' it is without knowing literally ANY of how any of those things turn out..

 

If you can't see the hilarious irony in you lambasting (what is really a few, fringe people) for their 'everyone's going to be a top 4 D!' opinion while simultaneously holding a 'they're all more likely to bust/be fringe AHL'ers/depth D' opinion...that's on you man  All while you also ignore that we can also trade for and sign players as part of the solutions as well. You have zero statistics on reading the future there 189. If you do, feel free to show your work, I'll wait here 

 

 

Why did you ever quote me? To run parallel? You bored little dude, go outside. 
 

Your argument is literally no different than mine except to add the Mr. Obvious premise that JB can trade to fix the Dcore rather than it come through the AHL. 

 

Take a big, slow bow there, Captain. Wow. Brilliant. 
 

Could you be any more pompous in your lecturing on the obvious?
 

“Benning will likely trade to address the Canucks D issues”?

Wow, JR, a stunning revelation, not at all related to my prospect comments though. 

All you have Actually said is a reiteration of the same outcome of what I (don’t) foresee the pipeline producing as it relates to D prospects being useful Canucks, adding in the answer to the question nobody asked, for obvious reasons, that being the obvious means to address the Dcore via trade. None of that has to do with the likelihood/hopes of the impact our prospects will soon have on the Canucks D, though.
 

Conflate issues much. Pure drama. 
 

I am staying good with not responding to the questions post, but this was too much bait to resist. 
 

Edited March 2, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Why did you ever quote me? To run parallel? You bored little dude, go outside. 
 

Your argument is literally no different than mine except to add the Mr. Obvious premise that JB can trade to fix the Dcore rather than it come through the AHL. 

 

Take a big, slow bow there, Captain. Wow. Brilliant. 
 

Could you be any less pompous in your lecturing on the obvious?
 

“Benning will likely trade to address the Canucks D issues”?

Wow, JR, a stunning revelation, not at all related to my prospect comments though. 

All you have Actually said is a reiteration of the same outcome of what I (don’t) foresee the pipeline producing as it relates to D prospects being useful Canucks, adding in the answer to the question nobody asked, for obvious reasons, that being the obvious means to address the Dcore via trade. None of that has to do with the likelihood/hopes of the impact our prospects will soon have on the Canucks D, though.
 

Conflate issues much. Pure drama. 
 

I am staying good with not responding to the questions post, but this was too much bait to resist. 
 

See below:

 

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It seems some people here thought that we'd only have 100% drafted D on our team or something moving forward. I'd like to see this magical NHL team that never traded for or signed a UFA to round out their roster 

So basically, you had some delusional hope for a 100% home grown D that no team has ever had. OK  

 

And no, you weren't acknowledging that we'd be trading/signing part of the solution. We were 'doomed to mediocrity' according to you. Way to attempt digging up and relocating those goal posts though!

 

And no, you have no more idea than anyone else whether or who of our prospects, will/won't be 'impact' players. Rafferty could be the next Giordano. He also might (likely) not! Thanks Kreskin.

 

Also, you keep responding...so who needs to go outside?  

 

 

[riffraff]

1 hour ago, RowdyCanuck said:

You have to though look at who the Hawks have traded away over the years....

Forgive me if I dont recall who the hawks have traded away at forward or what prospects they have traded to improve their s corps - which still sucks like ours.

 

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

It seems some people here thought that we'd only have 100% drafted D on our team or something moving forward. I'd like to see this magical NHL team that never traded for or signed a UFA to round out their roster 

we have already done this with Miller and Toffoli. There are no picks to trade that will garner help on d.

 

trade boeser:  everybody's default answer nowadays.  We finally have a shooter like brock so now let’s trade him.  Oh but he is injured and is now a variable to regain his rookie form.  I love brock.  I hope he comes back 100% healthy and contributes in which case why trade him?  Or if he doesn’t and is no longer the sniper Brock then what do we get for him in a trade?

 

i mean as right as you are that everything could work out it’s easily within view to see the chance that this team becomes chronically mediocre going forward.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by riffraff