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

(Rumour) CBJ receiving calls on Zach Werenski


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

What a ridiculous statement to be saying about a player who has played two seasons.

 

Yes he was bad last season but so was our entire D core. We had veterans struggling yet we expect a sophomore player to excel.

 

Fans in this market need to realize how lucky we are to have an elite player like him and shut up with the damn trade proposals.

Agreed, Bobby D.

 

Actually he does defend and if anyone really watches him he’s very good at reading the incoming offense as they set up their attack/play. The only fault with him is that he’s smaller, doesn’t have the reach or size to forcibly knock a guy off the puck, but his hockey sense/IQ is top drawer.

 

I don’t know what people are watching but the kid is fantastic. He was exhausted last year. He’s been offense minded because that’s what we needed from him most and it’s his strength. I’m thankful the coaching staff has allowed him to develop and focus on that side of his game. Like I said in a post somewhere else a while ago, give him the right D partner and he will improve his two way game through osmosis.

It takes two to play D.

 

For such a young player he’s being asked a lot. So much responsibility already on him. Give him a chance to prove himself a bit more. Having Shaw will hopefully help angle his game a bit better but I’d lose my s#!t if the coaching staff suddenly tried to convert him into a stronger 2 way player. 
 

No one rails on Boeser for his lack of a serious back check. Why? It’s not what’s expected of him. What about effin McDavid?!?!

 

Gimme a break. Some ppl just can’t understand the gifts they get given and instead wanna pi$$ all over it. Makes no sense to me.

Edited by RWJC
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N4ZZY said:

So losing Schmidt and Podkolzin? Does that make us better? 

For Werenski? 100% it makes us better. Would make our Defence middle of the league at least. With our new offence additions we would challenge Vegas for the Pacific.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KyGuy123 said:

For Werenski? 100% it makes us better. Would make our Defence middle of the league at least. With our new offence additions we would challenge Vegas for the Pacific.

We'd be missing Pod, though. Who would replace him? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

We'd be missing Pod, though. Who would replace him? 

 

He hasn’t even played a professional game in North America yet. I don’t have the answer to that but if he ends the season with 10 points I’m sure you will be singing a different tune. Zach Mackewin would be my answer for now. 
Given equal minutes and opportunity Zach would have a better season than Podkolzin I’d  be confident in saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KyGuy123 said:

He hasn’t even played a professional game in North America yet. I don’t have the answer to that but if he ends the season with 10 points I’m sure you will be singing a different tune. Zach Mackewin would be my answer for now. 
Given equal minutes and opportunity Zach would have a better season than Podkolzin I’d  be confident in saying.

Oh for sure. It's just that Podkolzin is projected to be a top contributor to the Canucks. 

 

So if we're getting Werenski, it better be worth it, and it definitely has to be something that moves the needle for this team like right now

 

Yeah, I like Werenski. Just don't want this team to be gutted. 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It looks like they are tearing it down.  They will want high picks and prospects.  Vancouver shouldn't even be in the conversation...

I’m not sure if they really are tearing it down.  Voraceck for Atkinson is a lateral move while Boqvist for Jones isn’t as far off as a lateral move as one might think since Boqvist is pretty much ready now.   They might have more interest in Schmidt than we think?  Having said that, there’s no way they accept Schmidt for Werenski.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RWJC said:

For a little more context, and I’ll admit this is dated (2019), but for anyone counting QH out for the future in terms of defensive capabilities, I hope this opens your eyes a bit:

 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/news/you-should-watch-this-breakdown-of-quinn-hughes-defensive-play-video-3112580

.... you can literally pull up a scouting video from anyone drafted top 10 and hype about it. Even if Hughes does stand on his own defensively in the future, he is not a 6'6" Hedman who can anchor 2 Stanley Cups, I think that's the main point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way we get him is Quinn + next year's 1st round pick.

 

To be honest I'd do it. Hughes isn't showing much defensive promise whereas Werenski does it all, 50-60 point pace scorer and last year he was just about on pace for 25-30 goals which is mad.

 

If we do the trade now that 1st will hopefully be quite a late pick too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KyGuy123 said:

I’d do Hughes for him as well to be honest. They would probably add as well. 
I’d also offer Schmidt, Podkolzin and Juolevi/Rathbone. They will need Dmen and also hit a cap floor. 
 

.........Seriously? Losing Podz and Rathbone (two of our highest rated prospects) I don't think would be a great move. IF we were in a win now mode, and our window to compete was closing then it may be a different story. But let's be honest, we are still on the tail end of a rebuild, and we don't have anywhere near enough depth to make a cup push yet. 

Edited by CJ44
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KyGuy123 said:

For Werenski? 100% it makes us better. Would make our Defence middle of the league at least. With our new offence additions we would challenge Vegas for the Pacific.

I just don't think the Canucks are in a position to get getting rid of two of their highest rated prospects....makes no sense when we've spent the last 7 years rebuilding and growing our prospect pool. We aren't in a win now situation, so this wouldn't make any sense to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Drakrami said:

.... you can literally pull up a scouting video from anyone drafted top 10 and hype about it. Even if Hughes does stand on his own defensively in the future, he is not a 6'6" Hedman who can anchor 2 Stanley Cups, I think that's the main point. 

Yeah I understand that. What I am trying to illustrate is people complain like he’s clueless on the ice defensively. He’s not at all, he’s not a one dimensional Dman (like a Barrie) that he’s unfairly compared to.

 

Defensive anchor like Hedman? Never said he was that either. Never even came close to comparing him to that. Why are you? Do you think QH is redundant because he’s not in the Hedman mold?
 

Trying to make sense of what you’re saying, but if that’s the rub then I guess players like Makar and Krug and Heiskenen and oh yeah this years’ Norris trophy winner Adam Fox, are alllll unnecessary to their teams and will never win them a cup because although they are likely the most skilled Dman on their respective rosters, and vital to the play, they are undersized? It’s a nonsense argument. Not every team can draft or acquire a Chara or Weber. And although I would love for us to have that big reliable captain type franchise Dman,  and also believe them to be a pretty necessary piece, you don’t get there by blowing up the complimentary pieces which will enable that success when you do acquire him.

 

The real point in my ramble is QH doesn’t have to be a Hedman. 

I watched the playoffs. I never saw TB ice Hedman alone and win a series/cup.

The teams that do win have a championship caliber balance of size, skill and grit. Would I love for the Nux D corps to be bigger and meaner? Absolutely! But we are fortunate enough to be already blessed with some serious skill in QH. That should be respected.

 

 

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

I’m not sure if they really are tearing it down.  Voraceck for Atkinson is a lateral move while Boqvist for Jones isn’t as far off as a lateral move as one might think since Boqvist is pretty much ready now.   They might have more interest in Schmidt than we think?  Having said that, there’s no way they accept Schmidt for Werenski.

You do know that the reason Atkinson was moved on was because Laine has taken over the CBJ dressing room and that it is a toxic, swampy mess. 

For Atkinson, a heart and soul Blue Jacket, to say what he did shows that there might still be real problems there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CJ44 said:

I just don't think the Canucks are in a position to get getting rid of two of their highest rated prospects....makes no sense when we've spent the last 7 years rebuilding and growing our prospect pool. We aren't in a win now situation, so this wouldn't make any sense to do. 

For the next three years we won’t have as much problems with contracts. The bridge deals for Hughes/Petey, Millers Contact at 5.5, Demko at 5, Garland getting a bridge likely, Bo and Boeser in the mid 5’s. After those are up we will have to be selling players instead of adding! 
Believe it or not because of this move our window to compete is now and if we can add a Werenski type with Nate Schmidt being a main piece (5.9 million in cap too) we do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RWJC said:

You do know that the reason Atkinson was moved on was because Laine has taken over the CBJ dressing room and that it is a toxic, swampy mess. 

For Atkinson, a heart and soul Blue Jacket, to say what he did shows that there might still be real problems there.

Yikes.  No I was not aware of that at all.  Do you have a source or a link for where you heard this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Yikes.  No I was not aware of that at all.  Do you have a source or a link for where you heard this?

Sorry man, link I had was from a deep dive where I read an article in an Ohio newspaper that had recounted the history of Laine as a player from WPG to CBJ and the dynamics/changes that has occurred with the Blue Jackets.

 

Basically the summary of what I was referencing was that Laine basically came into WPG expecting to outshine the team and that he had eyes for Wheelers position on the top line and as a leader. This didn’t sit well with Wheeler or Schiefele. Similar to Evander Kane situation. Maurice let the boys try to figure it out themselves. It ended up with Laine claiming he was a victim of bullying, maybe he was, but essentially not taking any responsibility for his own actions in subverting the existing leadership. 
 

He’s eventually traded to CBJ and apparently attempted the same thing in the locker room. Torts responded by benching him for his play (and behind the scenes antics) and the existing leadership core tried to manage it but the same thing occurred again and split the room. The GM, Kekalainen has previous history with Laine and wanted him as an important piece to build around and as a voice of team leadership going forward. Guys like Atkinson, Foligno were aware of what happened in WPG, were offended by that, thought Laine should earn/prove it and not have it handed to him, but it was never addressed adequately. Some players, long serving, felt betrayed.

 

Kekalainen understood the fractures, took it as an opportunity to change everything up. Tossed Torts and decided it was time to reorganize the roster, with the new core being built around Laine. 
 

Atkinson, a hero to the CBJ community then traded without notice, and still with two years left on his deal, for Voracek. 

Atkinson, deeply hurt and feeling disrespected, comes out with his passionate comments on Twitter effectively calling out what has happened in CBJ without directly saying it. Indicates there is a lack of character in some new CBJ acquisitions (Laine).
 

That’s about it. Sorry, wish I could have found the link again for ya. It was interesting read.

Edited by RWJC
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KyGuy123 said:

For the next three years we won’t have as much problems with contracts. The bridge deals for Hughes/Petey, Millers Contact at 5.5, Demko at 5, Garland getting a bridge likely, Bo and Boeser in the mid 5’s. After those are up we will have to be selling players instead of adding! 
Believe it or not because of this move our window to compete is now and if we can add a Werenski type with Nate Schmidt being a main piece (5.9 million in cap too) we do it. 

How do you know they will be bridge contracts? Garland just signed for 5 years (not a bridge), I agree our rebuild is likely close to over - but getting rid of your two top prospects is awfully short sighted when you factor in we just went through the better part of 10 years of mediocrity to get them. Even if we added Werenski, we still aren't on the level of Boston, Tampa, Carolina, Vegas, Colorado etc. We aren't at that level yet, and getting rid of Podkolzin and Rathbone won't make us better losing depth - they will likely be part of our core for years to come....the good teams all have depth - we are short on 4th line and D depth right now so we can't really give anything up. We have to add free agents to do this.

 

We need to re-sign Hughes

We need to re-sign Petey

We need at least 2 more players to fill out 4th line

We need a backup goalie

We need at least 2 more defenseman assuming Schmidt get's traded

All this needs to be done with about $20 million in cap space

We will not be on the level of those teams above lol

Edited by CJ44
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...