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

[Speculation] Canucks exploring Tyler Myers trade


brian42

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

0.73PPG, quite the struggle!! :rolleyes:

 

He did struggle immensely on the defensive end during his 2nd year and his even-strength play overall took a significant hit that year as well. Good in O-zone that year but worst than his first year and a whole lot worse in the D-zone and on rush D. 

 

  • Cheers 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification.

 

Whenever Myers bonus is paid. If the Canucks trade him, does it only save the Canucks about $1 Million? Or does the cap hit from his bonus prorate on the cap hit?

If the club is only saving $1 million by trading him, wouldn't it make more sense just to keep him, since the team isn't really saving anything?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

He did struggle immensely on the defensive end during his 2nd year and his even-strength play overall took a significant hit that year as well. Good in O-zone that year but worst than his first year and a whole lot worse in the D-zone and on rush D. 

 

His first year he played for a playoff team, that 2nd year he was playing for a team that finished last in their division.

 

Did he struggle, yes, but what that really due to his partner or himself, or because the whole team sucked.  IMO it's much more because of the latter.

Edited by timberz21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol coz defenseman is all about points.. EK must be the greatest ever then since he doesn't need to play defence.. 40 goals for 58 against even strength -24

Well, he did win the Norris

 

The James Norris Memorial Trophy, or simply the Norris Trophy, is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position.

 

Like I'm not making stuff up here lol

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

14 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I need some clarification.

 

Whenever Myers bonus is paid. If the Canucks trade him, does it only save the Canucks about $1 Million? Or does the cap hit from his bonus prorate on the cap hit?

If the club is only saving $1 million by trading him, wouldn't it make more sense just to keep him, since the team isn't really saving anything?

 

If we trade him without any retention then his whole $6m cap hit is off our books. Doesn’t matter if that is before or after paying his signing bonus.

Edited by BigTramFan
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Well, he did win the Norris

 

The James Norris Memorial Trophy, or simply the Norris Trophy, is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position.

 

Like I'm not making stuff up here lol

It's not really about the best defensive player. Last year Karlsson won it for the 3rd time, with a -26.  Best defensive player? :lol:  Nope, it was that 101 points that won it for him.  

 

The award is actually for the best D player, who demonstrates the best all-around ability (offense and defense)

 

Still, Karlsson shouldn't have won last year, he was bad defensively. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Well, he did win the Norris

 

The James Norris Memorial Trophy, or simply the Norris Trophy, is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position.

 

Like I'm not making stuff up here lol

mhmm might as well put EP on defence too while we are at it coz defenceman dont need to play defence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timberz21 said:

Of course, take any players in the league when paired with the "ideal" partner or linemate will always play better.  That's just logic, but it also has it limits, you should still be able to stand your ground with anybody.  If you're a legit top 4, whoever you play with shouldn't really matter and your base level should still be good.   If you're reliant on that "fit" to play to the level expected from you, then maybe you're just not good enough and it's your partner making you look good.  

 

Anyways

Well, you're entitled to your opinion...you're wrong, but you're entitled to it :P

 

It's a TEAM sport. The entire premise is to get pieces that add to more than the total of their basic individual parts. There's WAY more to team building than simply collecting good players. Individual player quality doesn't matter a lot if the overall team is an un-cohesive, uncomplementary mess.

 

Look at having Burns AND Karlsson in SJS. Notice how Karlsson "miraculously" became a Norris winning D again once they moved Burns...almost like pairings/line mates, roles, cohesiveness etc actually matter!

 

How about the much maligned Gudbranson? Looked largely like trash here in a poor role/lacking a complementary partner. Went to CAL a couple years ago and looked great in the right role, with the right partner...turns around and signs a nice retirement deal in CBJ :lol:

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

It's not really about the best defensive player. Last year Karlsson won it for the 3rd time, with a -26.  Best defensive player? :lol:  Nope, it was that 101 points that won it for him.  

 

The award is actually for the best D player, who demonstrates the best all-around ability (offense and defense)

 

Still, Karlsson shouldn't have won last year, he was bad defensively. 

 

 

Karlsson wasn't bad defensively, the Sharks are just utter dog shit. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Karlsson wasn't bad defensively, the Sharks are just utter dog shit. 

So, the two teams Karlsson was the star on, just happened to be really terrible teams? 

 

Sure, give him an award for that

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

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Yeah we've got our puck mover in Hughes, and our secondary puck mover in Hronek. I don't think we need a 3rd small-ish guy on the bottom pairing, so Hirose and Rathbone are a bit redundant. Most good playoff teams have 1, maybe 2 puck movers at a stretch, and then 4-5 massive physical beasts.

 

Cole and Soucy are huge and help in a big way, and Hughes and Hronek aren't going anywhere any time soon. With Myers leaving, we've got 2 spots on defence to fill next season - it could be at the top, middle or bottom end of our defence. We could let Hirose or Rathbone try and play their way in, we could let youth like Pettersson and Johansson have a go, or we could try and beef up our defence more-so. I'd be all for acquiring another top-4 quality guy to push everyone down the pecking order next year.

Been sayng this for awhile now we over did it on the offensive, no physicality defenseman. No wonder we looked awful the last few years.

We had the same type of player in Hughes, Bear, OEL, Myers and we tried to throw in Rathbone when ever we could. Basically the same type of player which lacked the physical, defensive part of their game. 

When Hughes went down, OEL played better and I found we never really had the right partner for OEL or Myers, ever.

This Management group seems to know what needs to be done. Get 2 top 4 PMD's and build from there, as you said "4-5 massive physical beasts". ::D

The trouble being now is to move on from the  glutton of these type of guys so we can build the right combination. So far, I see them doing an excellent job at working towards that goal. 

If we can move on from these excess dmen and wingers, we are going to look more  like a team moving forward and eventually start making the playoffs. 

  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:

So, the two teams Karlsson was the star on, just happened to be really terrible teams? 

 

Sure, give him an award for that

Do you really think Karlsson’s - would be that high if he played for the Bruins or Vegas, or any team that was at least average defensively? +/- is the most flawed stat in hockey. Always has been always will be. 

Edited by Pears
added thought
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:

So, the two teams Karlsson was the star on, just happened to be really terrible teams? 

 

Sure, give him an award for that

Watch the Conference Finals run with Ottawa and try and be so smug. 

Edited by canuck73_3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pears said:

Do you really think Karlsson’s - would be that high if he played for the Bruins or Vegas, or any team that was at least average defensively? +/- is the most flawed stat in hockey. Always has been always will be. 

Teams that are a plus are better than those that are a minus. Minus players tend to be on losing teams. Plus players are on winning teams. It’s actually a very good stat. 

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Teams that are a plus are better than those that are a minus. Minus players tend to be on losing teams. Plus players are on winning teams. It’s actually a very good stat. 

No, it’s not. And that’s a flawed way of thinking about it like that too. 

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

40 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Teams that are a plus are better than those that are a minus. Minus players tend to be on losing teams. Plus players are on winning teams. It’s actually a very good stat. 

OK team stat… terrible stat to use for individual players.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

While I agree he was fine offensively he did still struggle defensively especially year 2 

And there was nothing wrong with that. Typical. Even defensive studs can struggle defensively in their second year. I hated the backlash Quinn got that year 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Teams that are a plus are better than those that are a minus. Minus players tend to be on losing teams. Plus players are on winning teams. It’s actually a very good stat. 

 

1 hour ago, Pears said:

No, it’s not. And that’s a flawed way of thinking about it like that too. 

 

31 minutes ago, Provost said:

OK team stat… terrible stat to use for individual players.

 

I agree. Plus Minus is not a very useful stat. However it does have some value. Just not the be all, end all type. Also it’s much sexier on paper to be a Plus player even if it means little individually 

  • Cheers 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...