[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs. Winnipeg Jets | February 19, 2021 | 7 p.m. PT | SNP NHLN

[-SN-]

[-Vintage Canuck-]

I notice a pattern for the Jets in their last six games.

 

Feb. 04 - Win

Feb. 09 - Loss

Feb. 11 - Win

Feb. 13 - Loss

Feb. 15 - Win

Feb. 17 - Loss

Feb. 19 - ???

[BertaNuck]

.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Filthy McNasty

[BertaNuck]

1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

I notice a pattern for the Jets in their last six games.

 

Feb. 04 - Win

Feb. 09 - Loss

Feb. 11 - Win

Feb. 13 - Loss

Feb. 15 - Win

Feb. 17 - Loss

Feb. 19 - ???

 

Feb.19 - Loss

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, Filthy McNasty said:

 

Feb.19 - Loss

Yes ... but for whom?   Patterns are made to be broken ... am a little concerned that IMO the best game we've had all season was against them last time, and they will for sure take us more seriously.   Their goalie made some great saves...and is that Conner looking for "Edlers Indentity" at the top? 

Edited February 18, 2021 by IBatch

[Devron]

1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

I notice a pattern for the Jets in their last six games.

 

Feb. 04 - Win

Feb. 09 - Loss

Feb. 11 - Win

Feb. 13 - Loss

Feb. 15 - Win

Feb. 17 - Loss

Feb. 19 - ???

We broke our winless streak against Peg last time. We will break this one too

[Smashian Kassian]

@aGENT Was responding as the last thread locked;

 

The player you described is like asking for a royal flush, nevermind the assets you'd have to give up to get him.

 

Theres no doubt it's a leap of faith, you could end up losing Myers, trades don't materialize & the UFAs you target don't come here. Resulting in short term pain.

 

But things can change fast. In 2018 Roussel made our team better, but in 2020 he prevented us from keeping a good player like Tanev or Toffoli.

 

Maybe you lose Myers, and the opportunity you described doesn't come for a year. Is it worth it?

 

On the flip side, what if you keep Myers & that great opportunity comes in a year but you can't make the player fit? (As Myers gets older)

 

In the big picture I just view it as a redo on the cap space as Myers gets further into his 30's, then do with it what you will.

 

But as I said he's a good player now too, so I don't view either scenario as a bad situation.

 

 

 

 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

The Canucks will be wearing their reverse retro jersey for this game.

 

[Coconuts]

Bottom line is that if we're going to track down some of the teams we're jockeying with for the playoffs Ottawa's gonna have to win some games. As much as I hate to say it we need Toronto and Montreal to keep winning too, we're not likely to reel them in at this point as we've played too many games. Hell, Montreal has five games in hand on us and they're going to either win against or lose to someone else we're competing with. 

 

Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto. Gross. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Coconuts

[IBatch]

Noticed a lot of noise the last few days about Horvats play before last nights game.   Then barely a whisper after.   Seems to happen often - so who should we pick on next?  I'm going with Pearson.    Time for a big game for him.   Got to up his trade value lol.   Honourable mention to Sutter - being awhile. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by IBatch

[BCNate]

4 of 6 against the Jets coming up.   Massive games for us.  The Jets are ahead of us, but----have only played 6 road games vs our 11, have played TOR/MTL once vs our 8 and have played OTT 5 times vs our 3.  Going 3-1 in these 4 would get us right back in line with them.

[4petesake]

2 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

The Canucks will be wearing their reverse retro jersey for this game.

 

Would love to have this one!

[Coconuts]

Also, just to respond to the last GDT/PGT.

 

@4petesake wouldn't the easiest solution just be to extend Benn or Hamonic? Benn you could probably do sooner than later, Hamonic we likely need to see more of first. But there's still time. 

 

Benn might accept a 1-2 year deal, at going on 34 he might not be opposed to retiring a Canuck as a Victoria guy. He wouldn't be a bad depth guy going forward, and he's a known quantity. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Coconuts

[IBatch]

17 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

@aGENT Was responding as the last thread locked;

 

The player you described is like asking for a royal flush, nevermind the assets you'd have to give up to get him.

 

Theres no doubt it's a leap of faith, you could end up losing Myers, trades don't materialize & the UFAs you target don't come here. Resulting in short term pain.

 

But things can change fast. In 2018 Roussel made our team better, but in 2020 he prevented us from keeping a good player like Tanev or Toffoli.

 

Maybe you lose Myers, and the opportunity you described doesn't come for a year. Is it worth it?

 

On the flip side, what if you keep Myers & that great opportunity comes in a year but you can't make the player fit? (As Myers gets older)

 

In the big picture I just view it as a redo on the cap space as Myers gets further into his 30's, then do with it what you will.

 

But as I said he's a good player now too, so I don't view either scenario as a bad situation.

 

 

 

 

Myers has three years left on his deal after this season.   Will be the same age or younger then a lot of potential RHDs coming up over the next two years, a lot of which won't make it to market.   As of now only Hamilton is left - and IF for some crazy reason he doesn't stay and actually wants to come to Vancouver - JB will figure it out (bye - bye Edler)... 

 

Muzzin and Trouba are somewhat recent deals teams have made.   Not much else.   32 teams ... even if ONE deal a year like this happens, even odds it would only happen once every 32 years right?   As far as the best d's that come to market - AP and Myers have been the best of the bunch pretty much since JB took over.   Have said this dozens of times - blue chip D's in their early 30's often have their best seasons.  Burns did it.  Petry is now ... Lidstrom didn't win a Norris in his 20's (also because his quality of competition went way down too, but still that's what happened)...  How old will Myers be in 3.5 years anyways? 

 

Edit:  Add EK but he didn't really go to market did he - and 30 other teams dodged a bullet on that one didn't they. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by IBatch

[4petesake]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Also, just to respond to the last GDT/PGT.

 

@4petesake wouldn't the easiest solution just be to extend Benn or Hamonic? Benn you could probably do sooner than later, Hamonic we likely need to see more of first. But there's still time. 

 

Benn might accept a 1-2 year deal, at going on 34 he might not be opposed to retiring a Canuck as a Victoria guy. He wouldn't be a bad depth guy going forward, and he's a known quantity. 

 

 

 

 

Yes that is one of the options I suggested in my first post on this. Someone mentioned that Benn/Ham probably wouldn’t agree. I think it’s a realistic option and well worth exploring.

[IBatch]

8 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Also, just to respond to the last GDT/PGT.

 

@4petesake wouldn't the easiest solution just be to extend Benn or Hamonic? Benn you could probably do sooner than later, Hamonic we likely need to see more of first. But there's still time. 

 

Benn might accept a 1-2 year deal, at going on 34 he might not be opposed to retiring a Canuck as a Victoria guy. He wouldn't be a bad depth guy going forward, and he's a known quantity. 

 

 

 

 

Think this is what will happen....no way they let Myers go without a solid contingency plan.   And that won't include rolling the dice in hopes they get an equivalent via free agency at the same or less money.   Odds are stacked against it, heavily. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by IBatch

[The Colt 45s]

Up for the challenge.  Game on!

[aGENT]

58 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

@aGENT Was responding as the last thread locked;

 

The player you described is like asking for a royal flush, nevermind the assets you'd have to give up to get him.

This is where the expansion draft potentially helps us. There's going to be a lot of teams with a very good 4th D they won't be able to protect. Do they move them at a discount or lose them to SEA for nothing?

 

Quote

Theres no doubt it's a leap of faith, you could end up losing Myers, trades don't materialize & the UFAs you target don't come here. Resulting in short term pain.

IMO, unless the above trade materializes, it's too large of a risk. You're simply not going to make much/any improvement on Myers for less money if another UFA is your only plan. You're turfing a guy that wants to be here and is proving to fit, for a Peter Griffin mystery box. And you'd just be tying the team in to another term contract on a guy approaching/in his 30's. And after this season, Myers only had a very manageable 3 years left.

 

Too much risk for an at best lateral move and possibly a major step back.

 

Quote

But things can change fast. In 2018 Roussel made our team better, but in 2020 he prevented us from keeping a good player like Tanev or Toffoli.

It's fair... and if we were talking about much more replaceable wingers (where we also have more organizational depth). I'd probably agree. But it isn't, it's right D where we're arguably thinnest.

 

Quote

Maybe you lose Myers, and the opportunity you described doesn't come for a year. Is it worth it?

Not IMO.

 

Quote

On the flip side, what if you keep Myers & that great opportunity comes in a year but you can't make the player fit? (As Myers gets older)

We have a LOT of cap coming off the next couple years. I think we'll have that opportunity anyway. And even if that cap coming off isn't quite enough, you trade Myers at THAT point and make the space (while gaining assets).

 

Quote

In the big picture I just view it as a redo on the cap space as Myers gets further into his 30's, then do with it what you will.

I simply don't agree Myers cap space is in need of redoing.

 

Quote

But as I said he's a good player now too, so I don't view either scenario as a bad situation.

Agreed. Hence why I'm ok exposing him if there's a trade/plan in place.

Edited February 18, 2021 by aGENT

[IBatch]

16 minutes ago, BCNate said:

4 of 6 against the Jets coming up.   Massive games for us.  The Jets are ahead of us, but----have only played 6 road games vs our 11, have played TOR/MTL once vs our 8 and have played OTT 5 times vs our 3.  Going 3-1 in these 4 would get us right back in line with them.

Yes that would sure make it a dog fight for the 3/4 spots wouldn't it?   Canucks manage to play like we have been the past 5 games we will make it.   Can't afford another losing streak. 

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

This is where the expansion draft potentially helps us. There's going to be a lot of teams with a very good 4th D they won't be able to protect. Do they move them at a discount or lose them to SEA for nothing?

 

IMO, unless the above trade materializes, it's too large of a risk. You're simply not going to make much/any improvement on Myers for less money if another UFA is your only plan. You're turfing a guy that wants to be here and it's proving to fit for a Peter Griffin mystery box. And you'd just be tying the team in to another term contract on a guy approaching/in his 30's. And after this season, Myers only had a very manageable 3 years left.

 

Too much risk for an at best lateral move and possibly a major step back.

 

It's fair... and if we were talking about much more replaceable wingers (where we also have more organizational depth). I'd probably agree. But it isn't, it's right D where were arguably thinnest.

 

Not IMO.

 

We have a LOT of cap coming off the next couple years. I think we'll have that opportunity anyway. And even if that cap coming off isn't quite enough, you trade Myers at THAT point and make the space (while gaining assets).

 

I simply don't agree Myers cap space is in need of redoing.

 

Agreed. Hence why I'm ok exposing him if there's a trade/plan in place.

Exact same thinking.   With the added exception that we really shouldn't be concerned about regression.  It's highly unlikely.  Seen too many blue chip ds have career years 31-33 to worry about that.