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

[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

True that. My point still stands though. Leddy is in the top 4 LHD.  They have no one to replace him…

He is one year to free agency and earns 4M more than Mayfield.  NYI needs cap space with key RFAs up.  Leddy hardly plays on the PK while Mayfield is on their 1st unit.  

 

Maybe they make a deal with Seattle, but if they aren't it feels more likely that they protect Mayfield over Leddy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

What he should have said is what teams that scraped into the playoffs who werent actually a deep, talented team (rather than just underachieved in the regular season) have won cups.

 

That is not an accurate description of the Canucks after all. And the answer to that question is 0.

 

Winning the Stanley Cup is very hard. You need more than luck.


Well of course that’s true, but that doesn’t negate @debluvscanucks point. Whether you are the  ‘82 Canucks or the 2012 Kings you have the same chance of winning the Stanley Cup if you don’t make the playoffs. Zero.

Ergo step one - make the playoffs. Not a debatable point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 3:51 PM, Canuck Surfer said:

Just for giggles? Lets dig in to the vault...

 

Cody Hodgson was a high character guy, future captain. Killed penalties, took key face off's. Had boat loads of skill?

 

 

Things still go astray...

 

 

well having a back disease doesnt help and having to retire early.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 6:12 PM, Alflives said:

Is Kuznetsov the player who had the cocaine problems? 

not really, he was ina video where there was a line railed up though, im sure they tested him after seeing that, but i honestly wouldnt be surprised on how many nhl players do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mll said:

He is one year to free agency and earns 4M more than Mayfield.  NYI needs cap space with key RFAs up.  Leddy hardly plays on the PK while Mayfield is on their 1st unit.  

 

Maybe they make a deal with Seattle, but if they aren't it feels more likely that they protect Mayfield over Leddy. 

You could be right.  Leddy doesn't play on the PK but he plays on the PP.  Mayfield can't do that.  Exposing Leddy instead of Mayfield makes sense from a salary cap point of view and also given the fact that Leddy will be a UFA in a year.  But the question still stands.  Who replaces Leddy in the top 4?  They don't have anyone on the left side that can do that.  And if they go out and get someone in free agency it will cost them the same amount as Leddy anyways, so they won't be saving any cap space.  Mayfield is also a UFA in 2 years and will be looking for a huge payday from what he makes now, so the Islanders either have to pay Leddy next year or pay Mayfield the year after.

 

The Islanders look like they can win the Cup this year.  If not then next year they have a shot.  Their defence right now is one of the best in the league and will only get better with Dobson improving.  Their best bet is to pay off Seattle and try and keep both Leddy and Mayfield.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TNucks1 said:

well having a back disease doesnt help and having to retire early.

It wasn't his back that made him retire.  His back was fine.  He was diagnosed with a rare gene disorder which made him weak and couldn't allow him to play hockey...

 

Hodgson didn’t quit hockey because of a bad back, nor did he stop playing on his own volition. He left the NHL after his doctor told him he had a rare disorder.

Hodgson was forced to retire due to complications from a mutation on his ryanodine receptor 1 (RYR-1) gene.

“My final year of playing, I was having some severe symptoms, I was having trouble breathing,” he said. “I was blacking out. My muscles were extremely tight, my whole body was just shaking.

RYR-1 is a form of muscle disease, which affects people differently. Hodgson says he hopes to “shine light” on RYR-1 in the documentary.

 

Ex-Canucks Cody Hodgson explains reason he retired in documentary | Offside (dailyhive.com)

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It wasn't his back that made him retire.  His back was fine.  He was diagnosed with a rare gene disorder which made him weak and couldn't allow him to play hockey...

 

Hodgson didn’t quit hockey because of a bad back, nor did he stop playing on his own volition. He left the NHL after his doctor told him he had a rare disorder.

Hodgson was forced to retire due to complications from a mutation on his ryanodine receptor 1 (RYR-1) gene.

“My final year of playing, I was having some severe symptoms, I was having trouble breathing,” he said. “I was blacking out. My muscles were extremely tight, my whole body was just shaking.

RYR-1 is a form of muscle disease, which affects people differently. Hodgson says he hopes to “shine light” on RYR-1 in the documentary.

 

Ex-Canucks Cody Hodgson explains reason he retired in documentary | Offside (dailyhive.com)

oh i thought it was a back disease not a muscle, but still made him retire

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


Well of course that’s true, but that doesn’t negate @debluvscanucks point. Whether you are the  ‘82 Canucks or the 2012 Kings you have the same chance of winning the Stanley Cup if you don’t make the playoffs. Zero.

Ergo step one - make the playoffs. Not a debatable point.

Ya thats obvious. But its not that every team who makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning the cup either. You still have to be a deep, talented team. Luck with injuries, consistent top tier goaltending, defensive effectiveness, and consistent secondary scoring from your depth players all play important roles. 

 

The cost of trying to make the playoffs every year, which usually means reactionary moves in the short term and cap handcuffing at the expense of long term sustainability and cap flexibility, is the problem with the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" theory. Its simply not fact. Every team that has won the SC had more than just luck and hope.

 

Playoff experience is important. But so is building your team the right way. 

 

The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs, despite his constant reactionary moves to try to get there. And the few times they have they were not actually cup competitive. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 4petesake said:


Well of course that’s true, but that doesn’t negate @debluvscanucks point. Whether you are the  ‘82 Canucks or the 2012 Kings you have the same chance of winning the Stanley Cup if you don’t make the playoffs. Zero.

Ergo step one - make the playoffs. Not a debatable point.

Well tool boy will debate it with Benning being the culprit in the end. I've read this dimwitted short story before. They all end the same way. Cute but childish and simplistic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TNucks1 said:

not really, he was ina video where there was a line railed up though, im sure they tested him after seeing that, but i honestly wouldnt be surprised on how many nhl players do it. 

he's currently serving a 4 year suspension from the iihf for a positive cocaine test. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Ya thats obvious. But its not that every team who makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning the cup either. You still have to be a deep, talented team. Luck with injuries, consistent top tier goaltending, defensive effectiveness, and consistent secondary scoring from your depth players all play important roles. 

 

The cost of trying to make the playoffs every year, which usually means reactionary moves in the short term and cap handcuffing at the expense of long term sustainability and cap flexibility, is the problem with the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" theory. Its simply not fact. Every team that has won the SC had more than just luck and hope.

 

Playoff experience is important. But so is building your team the right way. 

 

The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs, despite his constant reactionary moves to try to get there. And the few times they have they were not actually cup competitive. 

There's another not often talked about way.  It's called having the Refs in your back pocket.  Just ask Boston (in 2011) and Vegas.

 

Lol.

:P

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

What he should have said is what teams that scraped into the playoffs who werent actually a deep, talented team (rather than just underachieved in the regular season) have won cups.

 

That is not an accurate description of the Canucks after all. And the answer to that question is 0.

 

Winning the Stanley Cup is very hard. You need more than luck.

Here's the issue for me:  the label

 

"deep, talented team"

 

On paper, many had Toronto and Edmonton in the mix.  On paper doesn't mean anything in the end.

 

To win a cup, everything has to line up at the same time:  goaltending, staying injury free, officiating/fair chance to succeed, scoring, and yes...luck.  Tenacity and desire drive the motor.  The team that wants to win the most and is willing to put it all out there has a chance.  

 

You've listed some of those things that NO team, despite how "deep or talented", can avoid or fully control.  (I hadn't read your last post when I typed this).  I feel like you've just adopted a fairly negative view of the team and aren't getting past that.  It's more about proving a theory ... something about a team that's so far off but all teams are "in progress".  Healthy Petey is a difference maker and I wonder if you watched Hoglander and how he plays the game?  With confidence and skill?  The team changes over time but your stance doesn't.  

 

Ignore what they did last year because:  ?  ("The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs") ,Ignore what happened this year with scheduling and COVID because:  ?

 

You think it can be mapped out with precision:   do x, y and z....but I feel it's you who misses the difficulty in actually getting there.  That it isn't THAT easy and a team that starts gathering momentum can go further than anticipated.

 

Paper isn't a guarantee....Vegas looked quite awful right after the series with us.  These are human beings....if they are "off", it matters.  The flipside...a team that's "on" can have results that can surprise you.

 

Your description of the Canucks isn't THE description...because you do disregard what they were able to do last year and some of the pieces that are in place.  They took Vegas to 7 games...doesn't matter HOW, just matters that they did.  That's not far away from where you need to be.

 

Mostly, I feel that everyone in synch and on the same page as a team is critical in playoffs....playing as a well oiled machine.  "Chemistry" matters a whole lot.   Generating momentum is huge.

 

You keep talking in definitives...like we couldn't possibly.  Some of us know how hard it is but also how, once you get "in" and get motoring with some momentum, anything can happen.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 4petesake said:


The Habs traded a 3rd, 2 5ths, a 7th and a prospect for Merrill, Gustafson and Staal  (3 UFAs) and just barely scraped into the playoffs after floundering most of the year and finishing only 3 games over .500. This after missing the playoffs in three of the last five years and losing in the first round the other two. They are at max cap and now have 15 pending UFA & RFAs at the end of the year.

 

Here they are starting a series against the team that the Canucks took to a seventh game last year, that if they win, will play for the Stanley Cup. Ask their fans if they think these short-term reactionary cap-handcuffing moves were worth the risk. I think they are pretty damn thrilled with this opportunity. Just as thrilled as we would have been after trading Schaller, Madden and a 2nd for Toffoli if we would have beaten Vegas in that seventh game.

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

last I checked goalies were part of the team. 

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

so?

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's the issue for me:  the label

 

"deep, talented team"

 

On paper, many had Toronto and Edmonton in the mix.  On paper doesn't mean anything in the end.

 

To win a cup, everything has to line up at the same time:  goaltending, staying injury free, officiating/fair chance to succeed, scoring, and yes...luck.  Tenacity and desire drive the motor.  The team that wants to win the most and is willing to put it all out there has a chance.  

 

You've listed some of those things that NO team, despite how "deep or talented", can avoid or fully control.  (I hadn't read your last post when I typed this).  I feel like you've just adopted a fairly negative view of the team and aren't getting past that.  It's more about proving a theory ... something about a team that's so far off but all teams are "in progress".  Healthy Petey is a difference maker and I wonder if you watched Hoglander and how he plays the game?  With confidence and skill?  The team changes over time but your stance doesn't.  

 

Ignore what they did last year because:  ?  ("The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs") ,Ignore what happened this year with scheduling and COVID because:  ?

 

You think it can be mapped out with precision:   do x, y and z....but I feel it's you who misses the difficulty in actually getting there.  That it isn't THAT easy and a team that starts gathering momentum can go further than anticipated.

 

Paper isn't a guarantee....Vegas looked quite awful right after the series with us.  These are human beings....if they are "off", it matters.  The flipside...a team that's "on" can have results that can surprise you.

 

Your description of the Canucks isn't THE description...because you do disregard what they were able to do last year and some of the pieces that are in place.  They took Vegas to 7 games...doesn't matter HOW, just matters that they did.  That's not far away from where you need to be.

 

Mostly, I feel that everyone in synch and on the same page as a team is critical in playoffs....playing as a well oiled machine.  "Chemistry" matters a whole lot.   Generating momentum is huge.

 

You keep talking in definitives...like we couldn't possibly.  Some of us know how hard it is but also how, once you get "in" and get motoring with some momentum, anything can happen.

You are clearly missing the point. I said literally very little of what you are claiming I did. 

 

I never said the Canucks dont have some good players. I said they dont - at this point - have enough to be considered a competitive cup team. Been true Benning's entire tenure actually. Not sure how thats some heinous negative view of the team. Its simply true.

 

They won one playoff round last year. It takes 4 to win a cup. You say they took Vegas to 7 games which shows how much of a cup conpetitor they are. Did you watch any games in that series? The Canucks were dominated start to finish. Goaltending was the only reason that wasnt over in 5 at best. If you think any goalie could play the way Demko did for those 3 games for 4 playoff rounds you are delusional. 

 

How many teams with a bottom 6 that cannot provide any offense at all or play shutdown defense has won a Stanley Cup? None. You need contributions from your whole lineup. 

 

How many teams without a true 2 way top pairing quality dman has won a cup? None. 

 

Teams win cups, not individual players. And there is certainly luck involved (as I actually previously said). No cup winner has relied only on luck with an inferior roster to win a cup. If you dont think the Canucks have an inferior roster most of the last 7 years, you clearly arent objective. And if you think someone pointing out the reality is some kind of "hate" its not. Its simply reality.

 

If you arent realistic about your weaknesses and your shortcomings as a team you are never going to be able to fix them. Actually, thats the reason the Canucks dont. Because they dont ever admit it even when they simply are not good enough. 

 

Anyone who thinks the current Canucks roster could luck its way through 4 rounds and win a cup is delusional and has clearly never watched playoff hockey. No scoring from the bottom 6 us no team toughness = EP, Boeser, and Hughes all probably injured by cheap shots because the team holds no one accountable.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4petesake said:


The Habs traded a 3rd, 2 5ths, a 7th and a prospect for Merrill, Gustafson and Staal  (3 UFAs) and just barely scraped into the playoffs after floundering most of the year and finishing only 3 games over .500. This after missing the playoffs in three of the last five years and losing in the first round the other two. They are at max cap and now have 15 pending UFA & RFAs at the end of the year.

 

Here they are starting a series against the team that the Canucks took to a seventh game last year, that if they win, will play for the Stanley Cup. Ask their fans if they think these short-term reactionary cap-handcuffing moves were worth the risk. I think they are pretty damn thrilled with this opportunity. Just as thrilled as we would have been after trading Schaller, Madden and a 2nd for Toffoli if we would have beaten Vegas in that seventh game.

Here's where you miss the point. The Canucks short term reactionary moves have not only sacrificed the future they have also not actually made the team more competitive in the short term. Hence it being a terrible plan.

 

Paying a 3rd, 2 5ths, and a 7th for 3 rentals is different than paying a 2nd and a good prospect for 1 rental. Especially when your team is not anywhere close to being built for a long playoff run like the Canucks.

 

The habs are also getting secondary scoring from their bottom 6 (which is much better than the Canucks bottom 6), solid defensive play from their entire D (which has been a train wreck for the Canucks under this coaching group), and getting consistent top flight goaltending. They have certainly had some luck as well. But they are a much better built team than the Canucks. 

 

Like you said though, their short term moves will cause significant cap concerns soon. If they dont win the cup this year it did sacrifice some of their future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...