[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks @ Montreal Canadiens | March 19, 2021 | 4 p.m. PT | SNP, RDS

[Smashian Kassian]

So Vesey likely in the top 6 tonight?

 

Would be huge if he or Virtanen could go on a hot streak.

[gizmo2337]

Need more of this.

The habs are fast and their game is to take away time and space. This is where we cough up the puck more than we should (hopefully not this time). I hope we come out flying and shut them down early, make them take bad penalties and then make them pay for it. We need all engines going for this game.

 

[komodo0921]

28 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Wonder if Pearson injury opens up big opportunity for Vessey to slot in at #2 LW.

[24K PureCool]

If the team don't put in the effort for this game, than they won't don't for any other game and don't deserve a playoffs spot.

 

Time to show up and end those pathetic Ottawa efforts. 

[UKNuck96]

58 minutes ago, CrippledCanuck said:

Your reply makes no sense to the original question of why is there even a loser point or even my response to the query....a game can end with a winner either in reg, OT or skills competition and still not need a loser point....the loser point is a participation ribbon, it rewards failure. 

The fact is it’s not a loser point, the game ended in a regulation tie. OT is a reward to gain an extra point by winning. That 1 point isn’t there because they lost it’s there because they got a tie in regulation. (Which I don’t see what the issue is with ties) 

[EternalCanuckFan]

1 minute ago, komodo0921 said:

Wonder if Pearson injury opens up big opportunity for Vessey to slot in at #2 LW.

I think it certainly does.  There's no one else around who is healthy and who could legitimately have a shot at filling that role.  It sure will be something if Vesey can carve out a role on this team.  If Vesey is able to gel with the guys here, then perhaps there may be some justification to try and bring him back next year.

 

While I like Pearson, I agree with those who have advocated for trading him.  With the at least 4-week recovery expected from Pearson's injury, I guess the trade market will have closed for Pearson.  Factoring in quarantine helps shorten that window, but that's a long time for guy to be out of action altogether in the middle of the season (presumably can't even skate).

 

I am very curious what the trade market is like for other Canucks right now.  Sutter might still be useful to some teams.  His cap hit is quite high, but if the Canucks aren't moving out Pearson, then they have more room to just use retained salary on the max amount for Sutter.  Personally I think Sutter would be a good fit for a team like Carolina.  He's a versatile bottom 6 forward with good F/O ability.  Brindamour likes to move most of their forwards up and down the line up which I think Sutter would be good for.  They also have some decisions to make about the expansion draft which might make some players available that would not ordinarily be available.  Not sure if they would have any interest in Gaudette but perhaps some kind of package involving Sutter and Gaudette might be of interest to them?  Some targets for the Canucks could be a prospect like Morgan Geekie (likely middle 6 RH shooting C, still just 22-years old and has had productive AHL seasons) and/or Haydn Fleury. 

[UKNuck96]

10 minutes ago, komodo0921 said:

Wonder if Pearson injury opens up big opportunity for Vessey to slot in at #2 LW.

 Could do, or we might see Motte bumped up and Vessey slot in Motters spot 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

I am reassuming my ‘lose for the pick mantra’! Another strong JB draft picking at a #10 or higher outweighs a short playoff fling. This season has clearly shown how far the group still has to go. 

this is the worst year in a long time to tank on purpose. Wonky, or no, playing time for the kids and difficult to scout, it will be a crap shoot. Add to that its not a deep draft either. 

 

Rather see the boys go all out and make the effort no matter the outcome. 

[wloutet]

1 hour ago, CrippledCanuck said:

Your reply makes no sense to the original question of why is there even a loser point or even my response to the query....a game can end with a winner either in reg, OT or skills competition and still not need a loser point....the loser point is a participation ribbon, it rewards failure.

All games should be for three points: Outright win  (in regulation time) = 3 points, Win in overtime or shootout = 2 points, Lose in overtime or shootout = 1 point, outright loss (in regulation time) = 0 points.

[CrippledCanuck]

Just now, UKNuck96 said:

The fact is it’s not a loser point, the game ended in a regulation tie. OT is a reward to gain an extra point by winning. That 1 point isn’t there because they lost it’s there because they got a tie in regulation. (Which I don’t see what the issue is with ties) 

Fact is games can either end in a tie or there is a winner, can't be both. OT and shootout is part of the game because it contributes to a conclusion...= 1 point for losing is a loser point. If there were ties in the game, there would only be OT and no shootout for a guaranteed winner.

[UKNuck96]

Just now, wloutet said:

All games should be for three points: Outright win  (in regulation time) = 3 points, Win in overtime or shootout = 2 points, Lose in overtime or shootout = 1 point, outright loss (in regulation time) = 0 points.

Why does there need to be an equal amount of points per game? Works fine in soccer not having all games at 3 points 

 

tbh I would rather do away with OT/SO

[-Vintage Canuck-]

PREGAME | Travis Green

 

[JM_]

24 minutes ago, -Moose said:

IS Loui > Roussel

this debate needs to have its own thread 

[UKNuck96]

2 minutes ago, CrippledCanuck said:

Fact is games can either end in a tie or there is a winner, can't be both. OT and shootout is part of the game because it contributes to a conclusion...= 1 point for losing is a loser point. If there were ties in the game, there would only be OT and no shootout for a guaranteed winner.

What’s the criteria for OT/SO to happen? 

[CrippledCanuck]

2 minutes ago, wloutet said:

All games should be for three points: Outright win  (in regulation time) = 3 points, Win in overtime or shootout = 2 points, Lose in overtime or shootout = 1 point, outright loss (in regulation time) = 0 points.

I've never liked games ending in an individual skills competition, its a team game. I'd prefer be 2 for win 0 for any type of loss.

[CrippledCanuck]

5 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

What’s the criteria for OT/SO to happen? 

I know what you are trying to get me to say but the point is Irrelevant because OT and Shootout are part of the game, the game doesn't end until one team has more goals, hence no tie at* the end of the game. If you want ties in the game, eliminate shootouts. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by CrippledCanuck
Autocorrect correction

[Cromeslab]

Me watching Canucks hockey until we’re officially in or officially out of the playoffs

 

 

GO CANUCKS!!!!

[-Vintage Canuck-]

PREGAME | Tyler Motte

 

[CrippledCanuck]

10 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

What’s the criteria for OT/SO to happen? 

The NHL has chosen to structure their game where everyone game now has a winner and loser and their procedure implemented into their game format is OT and Shootout, then end of game. A game isn't over until one team gets more goals, and everyone has left the ice. Anyhow night shift finished, been up for 19hrs, bedtime. 4-3 Canucks in regulation time, Vesey gets a goal. 

[Smashian Kassian]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

I am reassuming my ‘lose for the pick mantra’! Another strong JB draft picking at a #10 or higher outweighs a short playoff fling. This season has clearly shown how far the group still has to go. 

 

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

this is the worst year in a long time to tank on purpose. Wonky, or no, playing time for the kids and difficult to scout, it will be a crap shoot. Add to that its not a deep draft either. 

 

Rather see the boys go all out and make the effort no matter the outcome. 

 

 

Especially if they can get a good defenseman. Jim makes a good point though. Not sure how this draft will shakeout.

 

On one hand less certainty might land you a top 10 level prospect between 15 & 20. On the hand it allows less time for prospects to jump up or down the rankings like we might see over the course of a year.

 

With alot of D slated to go high, my theory above^ may not help us get a defensemen. But I think I'm with Jim. Playoffs and pick 16-17 could be best of both worlds.