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

[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks @ Toronto Maple Laffs | February 4, 2021 | 4 p.m. PT | SNP

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, CanucksForever2 said:

Most people have us as a down year anyways. I rather have a setback for 1-2 years and then really contend for the next 7-8 years

 

If we re-sign Marky, tanev, tofu... We might be good for 2 years. Then we will lose demko in the expansion, very difficult to re-sign brock, Bo, Petey, Hughes or can't add any other key players. 

 

Tanev, tofu, Marky will likely all slow down significantly in the 3rd and fourth years of the contract and really impede the team. Just think long term. 

This is wise wish i read more of this on here.   Get the frustrations too - most are valid.   I am concerned mostly on does JB have the stomach to see it through - and what his plans are for the 8.5 million in savings which opens up if Holtby is picked or after he's done - plus the 9 million in the bank for LE and Luongo.   Hamilton is a pipe dream - if he pulled that out of his hat i'd be shocked ... CAR has said many times they are signing him long term - but it does happen (AP last year)....point is its very hard to predict the quality of players that will become available when the money comes out and there for sure is a lot of holes left to fill, especially on D.   Speaking of which maybe it's time to give OJ some more games - the season isn't over yet - not even close (14 games).... if things aren't different by the TDL then sell what we can, play the kids and look forward to the draft.   On that note for this to work out with this core we still need a couple more blue chippers... 

 

Would be great to have the inside knowledge and find out if this was the plan all along .... no playoff games best time to tank it hard for ownership at least..

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lazurus said:

Not until he is gone will all his unachievments be charted, most likely right here in this forum. How many time Gillis had a beer was reported here after. Do you think that Benning's religion which preaches non competition will come to the forefront?

 

How more talented, players got older, much slower and the defence, man the defence. I will keep hammering on it Hughes has been on the ice for half the team's total goals against. 26 goals against.

More talented at answering meaningless questions that they can't do much more than apologize each time.

Been saying it all along... Hughes could be the worse D at actual defending in the league.  Physically hes incapabable of playing the body, his intensity and wherewithal within his own end are non existent.  Tanev covered most of his defenciencies up last year.   This isnt something new, and the system has nothing to do with it.  This team needs to develop a true number one dman if its ever going to get anywhere.   

Same goes for Brock up front... you cant rely on one dimensional players to lead your team if you want to compete.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IBatch said:

We went from " Insert anyone's name" to JB.   JB would have done great in his place with that team, any GM would except maybe Milbury.  We'd have at least come out of that five year period with some good young players via drafting (MG drafting was some of the worst ever - even without all the picks) ...

 

Do agree JB shelf life could be at a point where he loses his job.   That said it's not a written rule anywhere that GMs only get 5 years etc.   He's done an above average job.   Not great no terrible.   Sure it will come down to Aquaman's stomach for some more rebuilding - the teams not a contender.   Playoff revenue was always impossible this year - if there ever was a year to give this team one more marquee player via the draft this was it.   

Gillis only dealt one first round pick; I believe Benning in charge of a rebuilding team team has actually dealt MORE picks.  The knock on Gillis I have is that he didn’t go ‘all in’ when he had the chance (ie., deal more picks).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

Been saying it all along... Hughes could be the worse D at actual defending in the league.  Physically hes incapabable of playing the body, his intensity and wherewithal within his own end are non existent.  Tanev covered most of his defenciencies up last year.   This isnt something new, and the system has nothing to do with it.  This team needs to develop a true number one dman if its ever going to get anywhere.   

Same goes for Brock up front... you cant rely on one dimensional players to lead your team if you want to compete.  

 

He has his strengths defensively - his gap control is elite for example.

 

But as you mentioned, his physicality and focus are big problems. Another problem you haven't mentioned is his lack of speed. Quinn was very fast in college and in his first few games as a Canuck in 2018-2019, but it seems like the wear and tear of the league and maybe adding some weight has slowed him down, and he can't really keep up with the speed of attackers like he did last year and in college. I think coaches have been too focused with trying to get him stronger, which IMO is completely useless - however strong he gets, he still won't match up physically with 95% of NHL forwards. For that reason, it's I think it's so much more important to get him return to being the dynamic skater he once was, because having good footspeed is a key element to defending that isn't talked about enough.

 

He was definitely a true #1 defender last year when combining his elite offensive and defensive production, this year, not so much. 

Edited by Grape
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DefCon1 said:

what surprises me is that Virtanen could have been easily traded and Schmidt not signed if we wanted to sign Tanev and Toffoli plus Stecher. Would have given us more depth along with signing Hamonic. I mean we are playing Chatfield who at times struggles and we have Benn trying to play as a top pairing with Hughes. No wonder we are so weak defensively.

I suggested Schmidt was a bad move when it happened.  Now we are stuck with his contract for i believe 4 years. 

We let the heart and soul of our team go and replaced him with a guy that just smiles and woops on the ice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

I suggested Schmidt was a bad move when it happened.  Now we are stuck with his contract for i believe 4 years. 

We let the heart and soul of our team go and replaced him with a guy that just smiles and woops on the ice.

Tanev is 31. We would've been "stuck" with his contract eventually too. There's not much of a difference between the two impact wise, and I wouldn't go as far as to call him the "heart and soul" of our team.

 

Schmidt has always been an analytic darling and I think it's way too early to say that was a bad move. 

Edited by Grape
  • Upvote 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Gillis only dealt one first round pick; I believe Benning in charge of a rebuilding team team has actually dealt MORE picks.  The knock on Gillis I have is that he didn’t go ‘all in’ when he had the chance (ie., deal more picks).

Hmm.   Well over six drafts nobody had fewer picks then Vancouver (Mike Gillis reign), and no team had fewer players either make the NHL - Horvat and Hutton.   We weren't the only good-great team over that time span, CHI, Detroit and SJ equaled or did better then us as far as winning goes - out of all those teams we had the least picks available (net gain and losses trades etc) but for sure respectable 37 out of a possible 42...what wasn't good was our drafting.   It was awful.    Out of those picks only Hutton and Horvat worked out ... 6 drafts.   JB has had 7 so far, for sure he's also had two fifths, a sixth, a seventh and a tenth to work with ...  and don't forget - if we are going to complain we didn't have more picks to work with - what was the biggest reason for that?  NMC/NTC....

 

If it wasn't for Nonis having one of the best drafts in history - MG would of had virtually nothing to work with as far as injecting youth into the lineup - and for sure it was the right time to make a change to a GM who could actually draft.  

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

Jim has never been very good with the media. Sometimes you just don't say certain things. Saying that they ran out of time, does not come across well. I don't understand how he doesn't understand that. I get the sense that he may not survive the downward spiral this team is on. If he does survive, it's going to be at Green's expense. 

 

Lots of questions with this team. Didn't think we would be competing with Ottawa to be worse in the division. 

 

He is a terrible communicator which is why they hired Linden....PK. What an embarrassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Hmm.   Well over six drafts nobody had fewer picks then Vancouver (Mike Gillis reign), and no team had fewer players either make the NHL - Horvat and Hutton.   We weren't the only good-great team over that time span, CHI, Detroit and SJ equaled or did better then us as far as winning goes - out of all those teams we had the least picks available (net gain and losses trades etc) but for sure respectable 37 out of a possible 42...what wasn't good was our drafting.   It was awful.    Out of those picks only Hutton and Horvat worked out ... 6 drafts.   JB has had 7 so far, for sure he's also had two fifths, a sixth, a seventh and a tenth to work with ...  and don't forget - if we are going to complain we didn't have more picks to work with - what was the biggest reason for that?  NMC/NTC....

 

If it wasn't for Nonis having one of the best drafts in history - MG would of had virtually nothing to work with as far as injecting youth into the lineup - and for sure it was the right time to make a change to a GM who could actually draft.  

Most of those picks were from later rounds.  Even super scout Benning has generated how many NHLers from those later rounds?  Gaudette was only available to be drafted by Benning because Gillis gave him that extra pick to use on him in an earlier deal Gillis made.  Again my issue was Gillis should’ve actually dealt more 1st round picks during his time ‘to really go for it’.  What kind of barter material is a 2nd round pick going to be?

 

edit:  Hogs looks to be a good one.  
 

edit #2:  Kevin Connaughton...Gillis draft has quietly put up over 300 games at the NHL level.

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Gillis only dealt one first round pick; I believe Benning in charge of a rebuilding team team has actually dealt MORE picks.  The knock on Gillis I have is that he didn’t go ‘all in’ when he had the chance (ie., deal more picks).

Yeah, there should be nothing against certain teams dealing every single pick in a draft if they are a contending team. Drafts are a crapshoot, and usually will return one decent future player for per draft. Trading all of your picks will very likely guarantee you more than one decent player NOW, and so I'm not sure why trading picks isn't more popular in that sense.

 

Benning trading picks while the Canucks are in rebuild is a completely different story though. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

Been saying it all along... Hughes could be the worse D at actual defending in the league.  Physically hes incapabable of playing the body, his intensity and wherewithal within his own end are non existent.  Tanev covered most of his defenciencies up last year.   This isnt something new, and the system has nothing to do with it.  This team needs to develop a true number one dman if its ever going to get anywhere.   

Same goes for Brock up front... you cant rely on one dimensional players to lead your team if you want to compete.  

 

 

23 minutes ago, Grape said:

He has his strengths defensively - his gap control is elite for example.

 

The surprising thing about Hughes is just his missed coverage in the D zone. The size is a natural disadvantage but that was something he was good at. Like leaving Suzuki wide open infront a few games ago for example, that's just a lack of awareness which shouldn't be Quinn's problem.

 

I also disagree that Brock is 'one dimensional'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

I suggested Schmidt was a bad move when it happened.  Now we are stuck with his contract for i believe 4 years. 

We let the heart and soul of our team go and replaced him with a guy that just smiles and woops on the ice.

You must be one of a few that did.   Media and fans were marvelling at the cost of a 3rd rounder for Schmidt.   It's only 14 games - not 4 years ... maybe give it a chance?    Didn't like seeing Tanev go either - of the three he was the only one that made some sense to keep, and the one I will miss the most by far.   

 

That said those three were all involved in getting wiped around the ice on against Vegas.   Demko's three games are up there with some of the best playoff goalie Canucks or otherwise performances i've seen...5x 5 play was like they were on the PP, and when we took a penalty like we were defending a 5 x 3.

 

The team is struggling absolutely right now .... a lot of new faces and the brutalist schedule i've seen (and yes that goes for some teams as well)...digging a hole.    They still can flip the switch, and did this a lot last season too.   Hate losing, but would much rather win a cup - and we most definitely were not by keeping these guys.   At least now we have a chance.    Tanev is a warrior, was a rookie during our cup run, but was also part of one of the worst runs as a team we've had, and never played a full season... averaging 58 or so games a year,  much like Salo.   Not the same as watching Babych go - for me at least, but yes he's got a lot of heart and soul and looks weird in a Flames jersey for sure.   4 years would have been palatable for sure ... that said Schmidt deserves some time before we call him the next Jason Garrison or what not too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Gillis only dealt one first round pick; I believe Benning in charge of a rebuilding team team has actually dealt MORE picks.  The knock on Gillis I have is that he didn’t go ‘all in’ when he had the chance (ie., deal more picks).

 

Another thing is the asset management of this regime. 

 

Virtanen is the latest example of an asset just dying on the vine. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add...make no mistake (as I said before)...I do *NOT* want Gillis back (and certainly not to replace Benning).  But, if given a choice between Weisbrod & Gillis - it's like 'hold your nose' and choose the option that stinks less solution (in my view, that would be Gillis).:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IBatch said:

 

With Markstrom, Tanev and TT this team sucked against Vegas too....and their price tags went up collectively.  Pay to lose a depth player or 4th liner/third pairing guy to keep them, plus  throw a wrench into any plans mitigating the ED plus cap for EP and QHs gets even tougher.   Sure hope that's why JB did it anyways .... if that's not why then show me the line to the fire JB booth.   

 

The teams not there yet, and won't be until we can replace Edler with prime young Edler, add one more top four D to the existing group (Edler would be fine as a third pairing guy for now) one more top six blue chipper - that's not Pearson, but a Horvat/Miller level guy, and that includes Hogs working out,  a 3C that can play like prime Sutter, and get top ten goaltending.

 

Thats a big ask.   Maybe Podz and Motte can fill the forward requirements (Motte move to center) - maybe not.   Maybe OJ can become a top four D, maybe not - but he doesn't play prime Edlers game so still need that....

 

EP and QHs are both still babies ... not worried about them at all - both have shown they can do it against the best in the world as teenagers.   Rare.  Extremely rare.     Don't have a crystal ball, but do know that our fate would have been sealed signing those guys, and it would all be 100% on the hope that our core has a lot more to offer, aside from one more blue chip UFA possibility - we'd be stuck, in what i'm pretty sure, a mediocre cycle - still relying on Markstrom to bail us out.

 

At least this way there is still hope we can go a few steps past that - which includes some lumps we as fans will have to take on the chin.   Sure COL loves having Rantanen, Makar, Girard and Byram in their system.     If we could add two of those, Horvat playing Landeskog's role, EP McKinnon etc - maybe this team will contend with the current core.   We most definitely were not going to be anything but a dark horse by staying exactly the same. 

 

 

 

If we still struggle we could sell some assets. Maybe flip said assets in an effort to move Eriksson in the off-season. Pearson/Sutter/Benn/Edler(if he waives) are all assets that could net picks. Maybe Virtanen too but doubtful.

 

Need to reset with the draft and try to clear as much cap as we can. 

 

Overall most of our problems stem only to be solved via FA. It worries me a little since JB has had fewer victories than losses in FA. We need to be good in FA. We don't really have a considerable asset to trade that would warrant a considerable asset back besides Miller.

 

We have a lot of young players coming up and need to surround them with considerable talent.

 

IMO we need a top 4 D and a top 6 forward. Hall/Saad/RNH/Landeskog/Schwartz/Tartar.. really good forward FA pool as it stands. Savard/Hamilton and others make up a good D pool as well as it stands. Teams may look to move players they can't protect and perhaps we could step in and take advantage. Just need to clear some cap and hopefully Hughes/Pettersson aren't to pricey. Worst case scenario we have to wait another year when the rest of the contracts we need to end do.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Most of those picks were from later rounds.  Even super scout Benning has generated how many NHLers from those later rounds?  Gaudette was only available to be drafted by Benning because Gillis gave him that extra pick to use on him in an earlier deal Gillis made.  Again my issue was Gillis should’ve actually dealt more 1st round picks during his time ‘to really go for it’.  What kind of barter material is a 2nd round pick going to be?

 

edit:  Hogs looks to be a good one.  
 

edit #2:  Kevin Connaughton...Gillis draft has quietly put up over 300 games at the NHL level.

Yikes i missed him!  sorry.   I don't think MG could have done much more then he did.   He lowered our cap massively with the Luongo deal and handing out clauses everywhere, added Booth and Ballard (both regrettable for sure, both buy-out bait for later), Hamhuis, Erhoff...wasn't much more he could do cap wise to fit anything else in - so trading picks (was it for Booth?) wasn't required.   He really was in the cat bird seat as far as GMs go.   What he did do that was excellent, was being a level of professionalism into the organization that truly was top tier.   Sleep therapists, gave the players as many tools as they could to succeed.    He wasn't well liked by other GMs though - and that did make things tougher for himself ... and of course, was the worst drafter in the history of our franchise.    At the time i liked him, for Burrows to sign a massively team friendly deal to bridge the gap and did what was required to push us over the top....but it came at a high cost and don't forgive him for his knee jerk reaction after we lost the final.   That team should of had a few more reps, Hodgson was a perfect C for us under sheltered minutes - and helped out second PP unit keep that engine running.   We could of beat LA. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Yikes i missed him!  sorry.   I don't think MG could have done much more then he did.   He lowered our cap massively with the Luongo deal and handing out clauses everywhere, added Booth and Ballard (both regrettable for sure, both buy-out bait for later), Hamhuis, Erhoff...wasn't much more he could do cap wise to fit anything else in - so trading picks (was it for Booth?) wasn't required.   He really was in the cat bird seat as far as GMs go.   What he did do that was excellent, was being a level of professionalism into the organization that truly was top tier.   Sleep therapists, gave the players as many tools as they could to succeed.    He wasn't well liked by other GMs though - and that did make things tougher for himself ... and of course, was the worst drafter in the history of our franchise.    At the time i liked him, for Burrows to sign a massively team friendly deal to bridge the gap and did what was required to push us over the top....but it came at a high cost and don't forgive him for his knee jerk reaction after we lost the final.   That team should of had a few more reps, Hodgson was a perfect C for us under sheltered minutes - and helped out second PP unit keep that engine running.   We could of beat LA. 

Yeah part of the gig is being able to schmooze with other GM's.  Gillis gives off this sleazy politician vibe (at least that's *MY* impression; I'm not claiming it's a fact).  I get that same impression with Weisbrod.

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

If we still struggle we could sell some assets. Maybe flip said assets in an effort to move Eriksson in the off-season. Pearson/Sutter/Benn/Edler(if he waives) are all assets that could net picks. Maybe Virtanen too but doubtful.

 

Need to reset with the draft and try to clear as much cap as we can. 

 

Overall most of our problems stem only to be solved via FA. It worries me a little since JB has had fewer victories than losses in FA. We need to be good in FA. We don't really have a considerable asset to trade that would warrant a considerable asset back besides Miller.

 

We have a lot of young players coming up and need to surround them with considerable talent.

 

IMO we need a top 4 D and a top 6 forward. Hall/Saad/RNH/Landeskog/Schwartz/Tartar.. really good forward FA pool as it stands. Savard/Hamilton and others make up a good D pool as well as it stands. Teams may look to move players they can't protect and perhaps we could step in and take advantage. Just need to clear some cap and hopefully Hughes/Pettersson aren't to pricey. Worst case scenario we have to wait another year when the rest of the contracts we need to end do.

Yes - we can't solve all our issues via free agency for sure - still need some of our youth to come in and make an impact.   Feel with the extra dough we can fix two of the 4 or so roster issues at the moment.    That's it.    Could be five if goaltending doesn't work out with Demko, but i think he will be fine, miles ahead of where Markstrom was at the same time, but it is a fickle position so not really sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

I think Schmidt has been alright. It's hard to point to a defenseman that hasn't made their mistakes, but Schmidt isn't the first guy I'd be pointing the finger at.

 

Still think he's a good addition. 

If Tanev was still here and Markstrom was already injured, fans would be bemoaning his re-signing right now. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • SNuck unpinned and unfeatured this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...