[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates

[Schmautzie 357]

3 hours ago, Elias_Pettersson said:

We have that point shot in Boeser. Still blows my mind that they can have Boeser and Pettersson on each side who can rip one timers better than 99% of the NHL, with an elite offensive/puck moving d man in Hughes and our pp struggles so much. I’d also have Hoglander on the first unit. Elite hands, can retrieve pucks and is more creative than anyone on our team besides Petey/Hughes. 

I’d like to see Hoglander on the first unit as well. It’s too bad that Green didn’t try him there at the end of last season but I guess without Pettersson it wouldn’t have really been the true first unit at that point.

 

But who comes off if Hoglander goes on? My choice would be Horvat. That would at least give us a legitimate PP centre on the second unit.

[aGENT 36,180]

30 minutes ago, KariyaSakicAnderson said:

Brad Shaw it seems will be running the Forwards 

Which is great because IMO a lot of our 'defensive problems' are actually poor forward support/not working as a 5 man unit.

[FaninMex 1,215]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The point is we could have had a goalie, ad, AND a top 6 winger. We didnt need a 4.6 million backup. Get rid of Virtanen and sign a veteran backup for 1.5 mil and there is the money for Toffoli while still being able to get Schmidt.

 

And who cares if people complained about getting rid of Virtanen? People complain about getting rid of Toffoli and it didnt impact anything. People complain about Benning and it didnt change anything. It was the right move for the team. 

 

And actually, by some accounts, like from Tanev and Toffoli, players are not treated well by Benning. 

 

If you think Arizona would be taking back a garbage contract or retaining a significant portion of OEL's contract you arent paying attention. The whole point for them was to get out from under it. They may have taken shorter term dead cap contracts back but how does that help the Canucks to take on an even longer, $&!#tier contract?

 

We could have had Schmidt, Tanev, AND Hamonic if he played his cards right. I think that would have been even better.

 

Hamonic was really only good because he was on a cheap contract. Not a guy you commit longer term money to. He was not as effective with Hughes as Tanev was.

How many times have you said the same thing over and over. You have argued this countless times with countless posters. Unless their name is Squamfan, we have all rebuffed what you have said and given various counter arguments but you still belch out the same same. 

Toffoli walked. He would not have changed our season so, who cares. Crying about spilled milk.

Tanev. We moved on. His body will not survive many more years in this league.

OEL. What is wrong with looking at options? 

How do you know what Arizona would or wouldn't do? 

You live in the land of If, Ands and Maybe's. Why not live in the present? But I think you just come on here to argue with someone like when you defended Drance of all people

[wallstreetamigo 9,593]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

That's nice too say but if Demko had faltered/struggled this year...?

 

Will that we agree on 

 

I'm going to go with the years of history of players who've talked about being treated well here, over a few guys during a one off, gong show pandemic year. 

 

They wanted to get out from under the dollars more so than the cap. Benning may have insisted they retain and taken back Eriksson. Who the hell knows. Clearly the terms Benning was insisting on, that made sense for the Canucks, weren't palatable to Arizona.

 

No loss. Get over it. You're vilifying him for something you don't know about, that didn't happen.

 

Unlikely, somebody isn't signing with that depth impeding their play time. And not with Toffoli.

 

Who said he was worth signing to a big term deal? He was getting a heck of a lot closer towards the middle-end of the year. Better short term fit than Tanev, who also brings more physicality for less cap.

If Demko struggles, you do what many other middling to terrible teams relying on young goalies do. You let the young goalie work through it with the support of an inexpensive backup/1B, take the write off year if you need to (which ironically ended up happening anyway WITH big money Holtby), and you revisit the goaltending options next offseason if you dont think Demko is your guy. A team willing to let Markstrom walk should have simply given Demko the net and seen what he did with it. 

 

There is an endless trail of players over the years treated like crap by the Canucks. Sorry to break it to you. 

 

They werent retaining for 5 or 6 years or whatever was left on OEL's deal. Few if any teams would. So they retain for lets say the 2 years of Eriksson's contract and take him on. Short term that helps, long term it &^@#s the team though. 

 

Well, he traded for Schmidt, so Schmidt had no choice. He would have likely played on the left side anyway if all 3 of those guys were brought in. Hamonic is a good depth D at a good price. But he will supposedly only agree to play for max 4 teams out of 31, maybe 5 of 32 next year. He had already played for 1 of the 4. He had no leverage in contract negotiations and if he wanted a job in the league Van might have been his only option. That he signed a PTO and waited until the season started to sign tells me he had no other good offers.

 

Chasing OEL may not have resulted in getting him (thank god) but it distracted Benning and had him allocating cap internally to the point he didnt even make offers to his own UFA players. So it ended up less $&!#ty than it could have but it was still a big reason Benning "ran out of time."

[PhillipBlunt 54,141]

44 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:

I hope you’re right. I’m not sure if the Canucks rope-a-dope system in their own end is Green’s or Baumgartner’s but I’ll be happy to see the last of it. And it would be nice to apply some pressure to the puck carrier when on the PK instead of letting the opposing team set up and fire away at will.

Did you listen to Shaw on 650? The detail he goes into is unreal. I’m happy to have him here. 

[aGENT 36,180]

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If Demko struggles, you do what many other middling to terrible teams relying on young goalies do. You let the young goalie work through it with the support of an inexpensive backup/1B, take the write off year if you need to (which ironically ended up happening anyway WITH big money Holtby), and you revisit the goaltending options next offseason if you dont think Demko is your guy. A team willing to let Markstrom walk should have simply given Demko the net and seen what he did with it. 

 

There is an endless trail of players over the years treated like crap by the Canucks. Sorry to break it to you. 

 

They werent retaining for 5 or 6 years or whatever was left on OEL's deal. Few if any teams would. So they retain for lets say the 2 years of Eriksson's contract and take him on. Short term that helps, long term it &^@#s the team though. 

 

Well, he traded for Schmidt, so Schmidt had no choice. He would have likely played on the left side anyway if all 3 of those guys were brought in. Hamonic is a good depth D at a good price. But he will supposedly only agree to play for max 4 teams out of 31, maybe 5 of 32 next year. He had already played for 1 of the 4. He had no leverage in contract negotiations and if he wanted a job in the league Van might have been his only option. That he signed a PTO and waited until the season started to sign tells me he had no other good offers.

 

Chasing OEL may not have resulted in getting him (thank god) but it distracted Benning and had him allocating cap internally to the point he didnt even make offers to his own UFA players. So it ended up less $&!#ty than it could have but it was still a big reason Benning "ran out of time."

Sigh....

 

Unrealistic, conjecture, hyperbole, opinions as facts... Playing all your greatest hits I see. 

 

You can play chase your own tail for your encore.

[Sean Monahan 6,192]

@wallstreetamigo your rebuttal? You did the same thing with your claim of Toffoli trade= Sergachev trade. I’d love to hear your thoughts 

[PhillipBlunt 54,141]

[lmm 2,570]

2 hours ago, Googlie said:

He has a great relationship with Lockwood - was cited by Will as one of the reasons he signed when he did.

 

https://www.facebook.com/Canucks/videos/277600053510984/

hey thanks for answering

I assume you meant Rathbone

[Schmautzie 357]

45 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Did you listen to Shaw on 650? The detail he goes into is unreal. I’m happy to have him here. 

No I didn’t hear the interview but I’m reading all sorts of good things about him. He sounds like just the guy we need.

[Sean Monahan 6,192]

15 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Haha well the guy goes on about being objective then hides when his hypocrisy is pointed out. I’m all for criticism of JB but stand behind your opinions. 

[Googlie 5,417]

32 minutes ago, lmm said:

hey thanks for answering

I assume you meant Rathbone

Duh - stupid me.  That's what comes of copying a link, then doing other things for an hour before pasting, during which time I forgot who the link was about !!!

[Elias Pettersson 8,726]

43 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

@wallstreetamigo your rebuttal? You did the same thing with your claim of Toffoli trade= Sergachev trade. I’d love to hear your thoughts 

Sergachev for Drouin is probably one of the worst trades in the history of the NHL.  A top pairing Dman who is still only 22 for a malcontent smallish forward who's career is seemingly going downhill real fast and who may be out of the league in 2-3 years.

 

On the flip side Benning traded a 2nd round pick and a 150 pound prospect who may never even make it to the NHL for a player, Toffoli, who helped fill the void left by Boeser's injury and helped us make the playoffs where we won a couple of rounds and took Vegas to 7 games.

 

Those two trades aren't even in the same stratosphere...

[N7Nucks 9,213]

2 hours ago, Schmautzie said:

I’d like to see Hoglander on the first unit as well. It’s too bad that Green didn’t try him there at the end of last season but I guess without Pettersson it wouldn’t have really been the true first unit at that point.

 

But who comes off if Hoglander goes on? My choice would be Horvat. That would at least give us a legitimate PP centre on the second unit.

I am taking Miller off the PP for Hogs. Guy's cross ice passes are atrocious and he attempts them way too often. He can fill that 2nd unit centre role just as much as Horvat.

[Googlie 5,417]

5 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Everything should revolve around either the Petey or Boeser one timer, a Huggy point shot, or a Horvat bumper play. You do those plays effectively enough and you’re gonna score a ton.

And we can add a Rathbone howitzer and a Gadjovich screen and tip to that repertoire as well

[Elias Pettersson 8,726]

2 hours ago, Schmautzie said:

I’d like to see Hoglander on the first unit as well. It’s too bad that Green didn’t try him there at the end of last season but I guess without Pettersson it wouldn’t have really been the true first unit at that point.

 

But who comes off if Hoglander goes on? My choice would be Horvat. That would at least give us a legitimate PP centre on the second unit.

PP #1:

 

Hoglander

 

Boeser   Horvat   Petterrson

 

Hughes

 

PP #2:

 

Pearson

 

Appleton   Miller   Podkolzin

 

Rathbone

[wallstreetamigo 9,593]

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

@wallstreetamigo your rebuttal? You did the same thing with your claim of Toffoli trade= Sergachev trade. I’d love to hear your thoughts 

Rebuttal to what?

[wallstreetamigo 9,593]

47 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Sergachev for Drouin is probably one of the worst trades in the history of the NHL.  A top pairing Dman who is still only 22 for a malcontent smallish forward who's career is seemingly going downhill real fast and who may be out of the league in 2-3 years.

 

On the flip side Benning traded a 2nd round pick and a 150 pound prospect who may never even make it to the NHL for a player, Toffoli, who helped fill the void left by Boeser's injury and helped us make the playoffs where we won a couple of rounds and took Vegas to 7 games.

 

Those two trades aren't even in the same stratosphere...

My point was the end result was that the Canucks ended up with nothing but a handful of games out of it. So how can wasting assets be considered a good thing for a still rebuilding team?

 

The Toffoli trade looked fine if he had actually kept Toffoli. It looks like garbage losing him for nothing after a handful of games. 

 

"Took Vegas to 7 games". Lets be fair. Demko is the ONLY reason that series went to 7. They dominated Vancouver in every aspect of the game that matters. That would have been over in 5 if Demko was even above average rather than god-like.

Edited June 11 by wallstreetamigo

[Schmautzie 357]

19 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

PP #1:

 

Hoglander

 

Boeser   Horvat   Petterrson

 

Hughes

 

PP #2:

 

Pearson

 

Appleton   Miller   Podkolzin

 

Rathbone

I’d like to see Appleton on the team as well although my first choice from the Jets would be Andrew Copp. Appleton would come cheaper though.

 

Hopefully Miller wouldn’t sulk if he was demoted to the second unit.

[wallstreetamigo 9,593]

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

@wallstreetamigo your rebuttal? You did the same thing with your claim of Toffoli trade= Sergachev trade. I’d love to hear your thoughts 

No I didnt claim that actually.

 

I said that the net result was Toffoli (let go after a handful of games), Madden, and a 2nd for literally no actual long term benefit to the team.

 

The Serchachev for Drouin trade was horrible. But at least the habs didnt have nothing at all after a handful of games.

 

Context matters.