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

[Proposal] Imagine Having a Defence Core with Size Like This


Recommended Posts

Unrealistic?  Yes.  Fun?  Yes.  Dare to dream lol...

 

UFA Signings and Extensions

-- Sign UFA Dougie Hamilton at $8.5M x 6 years

-- Sign UFA Erik Haula at $2M x 2 years

-- Petey extended on bridge deal at $6.5M x 3 years

 

TRADE #1

To Van:

Colton Parayko (with $1M retained for the 1 year remaining)

2021 17th OA Pick (1st Round)

 

To STL:

Quinn Hughes

Antoine Roussel

 

Signing Hamilton means Hughes is expendable. 

 

TRADE #2

To Van:

Ryan Graves

 

To COL:

Jack Rathbone

3rd Round Pick

 

COL sheds some cap space and acquires a great prospect in Rathbone and a 3rd round pick.

I don't feel the Canucks will be winning any cups with both Hughes and Rathbone as sub 6'0" defencemen in the D-core. 

 

2021 NHL Draft Picks

-- Canucks select Mason McTavish 9th overall

-- Canucks select Aatu Raty 17th overall

 

2021-22 assumptions:
-- Kraken is provided a sweetener in the form of Jonah Gadjovich and a 2nd round pick to take Holtby

-- Beagle traded with $1M retained

-- Goodbye Virtanen

 

Assumptions for Future Years:

-- Boeser signs a $7M AAV extension

-- Horvat signs a $6.5M AAV extension

-- Parayko signs a $6.5M AAV extension

-- Graves signs a $4.5M AAV extension

-- Miller walks at the end of his deal

-- Hogs and Podz get bridge deals at $4M AAV when ELCs are done

-- Top 6 in 2022-23 onwards could be someone like Max Domi, Nino Niederreiter, Reilly Smith, etc

 

The RHD side means every single pairing has a 6'6" or bigger defenceman on the ice at all times lol

 

CapWithDefence.jpg.48d490ad72478759fbd4f9a44ad6ccee.jpg

 

 

 

  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Twins are coming in to do something like this?  Benning just said the Twins played on really good teams, so they know what it takes to be a winner.  He said they would have important voices in all parts of the club, including building the team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the EA worthy ideas suggested in this thread, one thing that caught my eye in the OP is Hog and Podz’ contracts post ELC (3-4 million).  I think this is an accurate projection and is also one reason why I don’t want Sam Reinhart here.  Canucks will need to continue managing their cap even after this season once Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, etc. come off the books.

 

That’s why I’m hoping that we keep our 9OA in this coming draft as having said piece on an ELC will be important for us.  In the future, I don’t see Miller sticking with us once his contract expires.  Myers will be good as gone as well.
 

The point I’m making is this:  The Canucks will have to continue drafting well while keeping a mindful eye on their budget even beyond the end of this coming season once most of our bad contracts come off the books.

Edited by Patel Bure
  • Like 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patel Bure said:

Aside from the EA worthy ideas suggested in this thread, one thing that caught my eye in the OP is Hog and Podz’ contracts post ELC (3-4 million).  I think this is an accurate projection and is also one reason why I don’t want Sam Reinhart here.  Canucks will need to continue managing their cap even after this season once Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, etc. come off the books.

 

That’s why I’m hoping that we keep our 9OA in this coming draft as having said piece on an ELC will be important for us.  In the future, I don’t see Miller sticking with us once his contract expires.  Myers will be good as gone as well.
 

The point I’m making is this:  The Canucks will have to continue drafting well while keeping a mindful eye on their budget even beyond the end of this coming season once most of our bad contracts come off the books.

Draft well, and trade away players from a position of strength.  Lou Lam trades away Toews for two second rounders.  He still has a great D, and added two high picks.  That keeps the continued ELC guys coming into the lineup.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Draft well, and trade away players from a position of strength.  Lou Lam trades away Toews for two second rounders.  He still has a great D, and added two high picks.  That keeps the continued ELC guys coming into the lineup.  

Lou Lam was able to do that cause he has assets that teams wanted while still having depth. Thats been our biggest issue is not having assets that other teams want. JB has been good at drafting but needs to be even better. 

  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

We had a D with that kind of size.......didn't work out too well for us as we ended up last in the Western Conference.

 

#6 3.png Adrian Aucoin (D) 47 1973 Ottawa, ON, CAN 6'2" 216 R
  #23 3.png Murray Baron (D) 54 1967 Prince George, BC, CAN 6'3" 216 L
  #3 6.png Bret Hedican (D) 50 1970 St. Paul, MN, USA 6'2" 212 L
  #7 3.png Jamie Huscroft (D) 54 1967 Creston, BC, CAN 6'3" 209 R
  #55 3.png Ed Jovanovski (D) 44 1976 Windsor, ON, CAN 6'3" 220 L
  #36 3.png Chris McAllister (D) 46 1975 Saskatoon, SK, CAN 6'6" 238 L
  #4 3.png Bryan McCabe (D)   “A” 46 1975 St. Catharines, ON, CAN 6'2" 220 L
  #5 3.png Dana Murzyn (D) 54 1966 Calgary, AB, CAN 6'2" 201 L
  #18 1.png Bert Robertsson (D) 46 1974 Södertälje, SWE 6'3" 212 L
  #3 3.png Brent Sopel (D) 44 1977 Calgary, AB, CAN 6'2" 218 R
  #25
3.png
64.png
3.png
Steve Staios (D) 47 1973 Hamilton, ON, CAN 6'1" 203 R
  #34 3.png Jason Strudwick (D) 45 1975 Edmonton, AB, CAN 6'4" 225 L
  #2 1.png Mattias Öhlund (D)   “A” 44 1976 Piteå, SWE 6'4" 234 L

Who was the captain and head coach of that team? 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

We had a D with that kind of size.......didn't work out too well for us as we ended up last in the Western Conference.

 

#6 3.png Adrian Aucoin (D) 47 1973 Ottawa, ON, CAN 6'2" 216 R
  #23 3.png Murray Baron (D) 54 1967 Prince George, BC, CAN 6'3" 216 L
  #3 6.png Bret Hedican (D) 50 1970 St. Paul, MN, USA 6'2" 212 L
  #7 3.png Jamie Huscroft (D) 54 1967 Creston, BC, CAN 6'3" 209 R
  #55 3.png Ed Jovanovski (D) 44 1976 Windsor, ON, CAN 6'3" 220 L
  #36 3.png Chris McAllister (D) 46 1975 Saskatoon, SK, CAN 6'6" 238 L
  #4 3.png Bryan McCabe (D)   “A” 46 1975 St. Catharines, ON, CAN 6'2" 220 L
  #5 3.png Dana Murzyn (D) 54 1966 Calgary, AB, CAN 6'2" 201 L
  #18 1.png Bert Robertsson (D) 46 1974 Södertälje, SWE 6'3" 212 L
  #3 3.png Brent Sopel (D) 44 1977 Calgary, AB, CAN 6'2" 218 R
  #25
3.png
64.png
3.png
Steve Staios (D) 47 1973 Hamilton, ON, CAN 6'1" 203 R
  #34 3.png Jason Strudwick (D) 45 1975 Edmonton, AB, CAN 6'4" 225 L
  #2 1.png Mattias Öhlund (D)   “A” 44 1976 Piteå, SWE 6'4" 234 L

Exactly!  Bigger (like Gudbranson) doesn’t automatically mean better.  The players have to be smart, high compete, and actually have very good skills.  They need to be head up, puck on stick guys, who get to pucks early, and make the right play.  I do like the idea of Doogie Howser Hamilton though.  He’s exactly that type of big guy, who has elite skills, and is smart too.  

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Exactly!  Bigger (like Gudbranson) doesn’t automatically mean better.  The players have to be smart, high compete, and actually have very good skills.  They need to be head up, puck on stick guys, who get to pucks early, and make the right play.  I do like the idea of Doogie Howser Hamilton though.  He’s exactly that type of big guy, who has elite skills, and is smart too.  

I was just having fun with @HKSR as I didn't have to imagine a D with that size.....already lived through it. Maybe iif MM and Keenen weren't here the results would have been much better.

I certainly agree that more size on D with appropriate compete and skill would be a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My ideal defense over these next two seasons:

 

2021-2022:

 

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Schmidt (or Schmidt-Myers if Rathbone isn’t ready for top 4 duty)

Juolevi-Myers (or Rathbone and a cheap RD vet like Fantenberg if Rathbone plays on the bottom pairing).

 

2022-2023:

 

H.Lindholm-Schmidt

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Myers

 

That above projected defense does evolve into something fairly ”biggish” but is also quite fast and can move the puck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Exactly!  Bigger (like Gudbranson) doesn’t automatically mean better.  The players have to be smart, high compete, and actually have very good skills.  They need to be head up, puck on stick guys, who get to pucks early, and make the right play.  I do like the idea of Doogie Howser Hamilton though.  He’s exactly that type of big guy, who has elite skills, and is smart too.  

 

7 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

I was just having fun with @HKSR as I didn't have to imagine a D with that size.....already lived through it. Maybe iif MM and Keenen weren't here the results would have been much better.

I certainly agree that more size on D with appropriate compete and skill would be a good thing.

 

1 minute ago, Patel Bure said:

My ideal defense over these next two seasons:

 

2021-2022:

 

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Schmidt (or Schmidt-Myers if Rathbone isn’t ready for top 4 duty)

Juolevi-Myers (or Rathbone and a cheap RD vet like Fantenberg if Rathbone plays on the bottom pairing).

 

2022-2023:

 

H.Lindholm-Schmidt

Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Myers

 

That above projected defense does evolve into something fairly ”biggish” but is also quite fast and can move the puck.

I just really don't see the Canucks winning a cup with two sub 6' guys in the core... Hughes and Rathbone are good players, don't get me wrong, but when the playoffs roll around, these 2 are gonna get exposed defensively no matter how good they are.  Has any Stanley Cup winner in the past 20 years had two defencemen under 6' on their roster? (honest question)

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Aside from the EA worthy ideas suggested in this thread, one thing that caught my eye in the OP is Hog and Podz’ contracts post ELC (3-4 million).  I think this is an accurate projection and is also one reason why I don’t want Sam Reinhart here.  Canucks will need to continue managing their cap even after this season once Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, etc. come off the books.

 

That’s why I’m hoping that we keep our 9OA in this coming draft as having said piece on an ELC will be important for us.  In the future, I don’t see Miller sticking with us once his contract expires.  Myers will be good as gone as well.
 

The point I’m making is this:  The Canucks will have to continue drafting well while keeping a mindful eye on their budget even beyond the end of this coming season once most of our bad contracts come off the books.

You talk about EA worthy ideas? Does someone other than you make those ridiculous proposals using your account?

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

 

 

I just really don't see the Canucks winning a cup with two sub 6' guys in the core... Hughes and Rathbone are good players, don't get me wrong, but when the playoffs roll around, these 2 are gonna get exposed defensively no matter how good they are.  Has any Stanley Cup winner in the past 20 years had two defencemen under 6' on their roster? (honest question)

Likely not.  Which is why in a year or two, when Rathbone is established as a very good D (he’s looking great already) we trade him to fill in a hole on the roster, or for draft capital - much like Lou Lam did with Toews.  

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

Likely not.  Which is why in a year or two, when Rathbone is established as a very good D (he’s looking great already) we trade him to fill in a hole on the roster, or for draft capital - much like Lou Lam did with Toews.  

Yeah I did a quick check going back into the 1980s, and only 1 team appears to have won a cup with two defencemen in their 3 pairings that are sub 6'.  It was Detroit... Lebda and Rafalski, but Lidstrom played half the game all the time, so it didn't matter much lol

  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Yeah I did a quick check going back into the 1980s, and only 1 team appears to have won a cup with two defencemen in their 3 pairings that are sub 6'.  It was Detroit... Lebda and Rafalski, but Lidstrom played half the game all the time, so it didn't matter much lol

And if a team does have a second shorter D man (we have Hughes, who clearly is a phenom.) then get a guy like Tim Horton.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

You talk about EA worthy ideas? Does someone other than you make those ridiculous proposals using your account?

My comments towards the OP weren’t meant to be mean spirited (as your post toward mine appears to be).  The OP himself admitted that his ideas were unrealistic and I agreed.  
 

I actually think he was 100% correct with regards to what Hogs and Podz could cost after their ELC’s (which is also why I’m not interested in getting Reinhart, and is also why I’m starting to possibly see why Benning didn’t marry himself to the idea of signing Toffoli......although I could be wrong here).

 

As far as most of my proposals go, I agree that many of them are ridiculous and insane, but I also believe that you don’t know where I’m coming from when I post those ideas (not trolling).   Often times when I post those proposals, they are often “think outloud” in nature designed to not only facilitate discussion, but to also collect tangible reasons as to why said ideas wouldn’t work in reality to reaffirm an original hunch (ie my Petey and Hughes “take one for the team one year deals” = becomes an issue of long term security just in case they were to get severely injured + possible cap tampering issues that wouldn't be approved by the NHLPA etc.).  Turning my "hunches" into something that I'd be able to verbally rationalize to someone else (if that makes sense).

Edited by Patel Bure
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And if a team does have a second shorter D man (we have Hughes, who clearly is a phenom.) then get a guy like Tim Horton.  

 

And tell him to bring coffee! Alf, only us old guys on here ever seen Tim Horton play so I think you are losing a lot of folks. LOL

I should point out that Horton was only 5'10" and 180lbs. Harvard had Rathbone listed as bigger than Horton.By the way, I don't think we really have to worry about Rathbones size as he plays very physical and loves the gym. He is actually like a bigger version of Torey Krug to me.

Rathbone, Jack
Position:
Defenseman
Height:
5-11
Weight:
190
 
 
 
Edited by Rick Blight
  • Like 2
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

My comments towards the OP weren’t meant to be mean spirited (as your post toward mine appears to be).  The OP himself admitted that his ideas were unrealistic and I agreed.  
 

I actually think he was 100% correct with regards to what Hogs and Podz could cost after their ELC’s (which is also why I’m not interested in getting Reinhart, and is also why I’m starting to possibly see why Benning didn’t marry himself to the idea of signing Toffoli......although I could be wrong here).

 

As far as most of my proposals go, I agree that many of them are ridiculous and insane, but I also believe that you don’t know where I’m coming from when I post those ideas (not trolling).   Often times when I post those proposals, they are often “think outloud” in nature designed to not only facilitate discussion, but to also collect tangible reasons as to why said ideas wouldn’t work in reality to reaffirm an original hunch (ie my Petey and Hughes “take one for the team one year deals” = becomes an issue of long term security just in case they were to get severely injured + possible cap tampering issues that wouldn't be approved by the NHLPA etc.).  Turning my "hunches" into something that I'd be able to verbally rationalize to someone else (if that makes sense).

Nothing “mean-spirited” behind my post at all you said yourself the proposals you make are ridiculous, I am just pointing out the irony of you calling anything EA worthy as your petey and Hughes 1 million dollar contracts contemplation would not even work in EA’s NHL game. But as you say it’s all for generating discussion more than anything else as I think in my time on these forums I have seen one proposal that actually happened. So in my mind the vast majority of proposal are all fantasy anyways so may as well dream big.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Nothing “mean-spirited” behind my post at all you said yourself the proposals you make are ridiculous, I am just pointing out the irony of you calling anything EA worthy as your petey and Hughes 1 million dollar contracts contemplation would not even work in EA’s NHL game. But as you say it’s all for generating discussion more than anything else as I think in my time on these forums I have seen one proposal that actually happened. So in my mind the vast majority of proposal are all fantasy anyways so may as well dream big.

I had to Google the acronym EA, and really don’t get it.  Is it some kind of new texting thing meaning “Extremely Awful”?

  • Haha 1
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...