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

[Report] Flyers claim Zack MacEwen off waivers


Recommended Posts

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

I totally agree. I wasn’t suggesting Mac is the answer to that need. It was more a general comment about a real glaring need.

actual tough guys that can play might be almost as hard to get as top 4 RHD. 

 

We don't have a fighter left, but we do still have guys that can play a harder game. So we'll see... 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

actual tough guys that can play might be almost as hard to get as top 4 RHD. 

 

We don't have a fighter left, but we do still have guys that can play a harder game. So we'll see... 

 

They are hard to find. That’s why having a team of players who will at least provide some semblance of pushback would help.

 

Horvat got the C and immediately turned into Henri Sedin on this front. Love me some Bo but man get that Linden vibe back ffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

They are hard to find. That’s why having a team of players who will at least provide some semblance of pushback would help.

 

Horvat got the C and immediately turned into Henri Sedin on this front. Love me some Bo but man get that Linden vibe back ffs.

Well, we might have Klimovich coming next year, he certainly brings some bite. Pushback has to come from a pack mentality from the guys themselves, so if they can find that we'll be OK. If they don't, there will be some long nights. 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

Well, we might have Klimovich coming next year, he certainly brings some bite. Pushback has to come from a pack mentality from the guys themselves, so if they can find that we'll be OK. If they don't, there will be some long nights. 

Exactly. I don’t care if we have a fighter on the roster. I just want to see more of the ‘94 vibe and less of the last 10 years vibe.

 

I am admittedly older and a bit old school but I think that team toughness factor still matters.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Exactly. I don’t care if we have a fighter on the roster. I just want to see more of the ‘94 vibe and less of the last 10 years vibe.

 

I am admittedly older and a bit old school but I think that team toughness factor still matters.

it does matter. We should have guys that can play with bite if they want to. 

 

Do you really think Green coaches this out of them though? 

  • Cheers 3
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JM_ said:

it does matter. We should have guys that can play with bite if they want to. 

 

Do you really think Green coaches this out of them though? 

To a certain degree I do. Not necessarily  100% intentionally but I do feel like there is an organizational piece to the lack of pushback style. It’s been far too consistent for far too long through a ton of different players coming and going to be completely coincidental.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BureBurrito said:

In Benning co fashion, another find for another team to utilize. Mac was useful, had a poor camp, but was depth and size the team lacks. You don't think players won't run Hughes or Petey?

 

With Juolevi, Gadj, MacEwen....what do all these prospects leaving say about player development? Is the system broken somehow? Are prospects that Benning signs not really that good as we think? Does the team have a problem turning somewhat value players into zero value players (which in turn other teams pick off for free when available)? 

 

Can't a guy like a Gadjovich or MacEwen get even a 7th round pick, an AHL prospect or futures in return? Going into year 8, I'm running out of what to say with this regime and overall asset management anymore.:blink:

 

 

In February of last year Benning said after trading Madden and a pick

 

"I feel we have seven players, young players, in our system that i think are going to be on our team here in the next two or three years  I count , like, seven on the CONSERVATIVE side, that's two-thirds of our team in the next three years that are going to be 25 years or younger. I don;t think it's a change in philosophy, i just felt like we have enough depth in the prospect pool that we can give up Madden"

 

He also stated in this interview that Zach MacEwen was ready to be an everyday NHL player

He never mentioned his super seven

I presume he was referring to Hoglander (on the team at the time), Podkolson, Lind, Juolevi, Rafferty, Rathbone DiPietro?

Gads had me changing in a positive way of how he would be a welcome addition at some point

 

To answer your question of are prospects we sign not as good as we think?

I wonder how long is it before the next prospects we hope for will be on waivers for nothing as well and our cupboards bare, without a Stanley Cup appearance even

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said:

Disagree. Gadj earned his chance imo. 

He played something like 4 minutes down the stretch last year and got in one game. He should have go a chance to be in every game but instead Green played every other random perimeter player he could instead all because Gadj made one give away.

 

That was all just Green saving Green's job for another year.

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

To a certain degree I do. Not necessarily  100% intentionally but I do feel like there is an organizational piece to the lack of pushback style. It’s been far too consistent for far too long through a ton of different players coming and going to be completely coincidental.

I do buy into the idea that it often tends to backfire on us with the ref's and league. I mean sending the league to watch us after Gudbranson's comments was a total joke.

 

I still think there's more control over this with the guys themselves, just don't know who's going to take the lead in the locker room. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I do buy into the idea that it often tends to backfire on us with the ref's and league. I mean sending the league to watch us after Gudbranson's comments was a total joke.

 

I still think there's more control over this with the guys themselves, just don't know who's going to take the lead in the locker room. 

I agree that someone needs to see it and step up. It’s not all on coaching. But teams do tend to take their lead on this stuff from coaches more than people might think.

  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...