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

[Speculation] Canucks exploring Tyler Myers trade


brian42

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, timberz21 said:

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.

 

I can't say for certain, nor do I want to put my name in either of your hats in your discussion. Don't want to invest my time do that research.

 

Simply wanted to elaborate on that year for Hughes for folks to see and understand. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+/- is useful in the correct context.

A player who does the most minutes, and plays against the toughest opposition, and say has 10 points and is plus +30 would be a very good defenceman. Not good offensively.

 

But a player with -40, on a lousy team, and plays 15 minutes a night against 2nd and 3rd line opposition and scores 30 points, is probably lousy as a defenceman.

(But might be decent on the power play.)

 

+/- without context doesn't tell you much.

 

Plus minus is an indicator. Not a stat.

 

  • Cheers 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

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:

 

I do feel that finding the right fits for our roster does go a long way. Like Kuz for Petey was a pretty nice fit.

 

If you can replicate finding those fits with our better players we elevate all parties. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I do feel that finding the right fits for our roster does go a long way. Like Kuz for Petey was a pretty nice fit.

 

If you can replicate finding those fits with our better players we elevate all parties. 

It was one of the main things I was hoping to see improve under new management. Benning had a knack for bringing in good-decent hockey players we had no need for, or partners/line mates to play with them/put them in position to succeed...and watching it turn to crap, sewering player value, only to have to pay/lose value to move them...and watch them rebound elsewhere, under better conditions.

 

Just as you'd expect to happen in that scenario.

 

Almost everyone they've brought in has actually fit a roster need and match up well with existing players. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It was one of the main things I was hoping to see improve under new management. Benning had a knack for bringing in good-decent hockey players we had no need for, or partners/line mates to play with them/put them in position to succeed...and watching it turn to crap, sewering player value, only to have to pay/lose value to move them...and watch them rebound elsewhere, under better conditions.

 

Just as you'd expect to happen in that scenario.

 

Almost everyone they've brought in has actually fit a roster need and match up well with existing players. 

One of the problems under old management was acquiring players with the expectation that they can be more than what they are and have ever proven. 

 

I'd say in a perfect world we get someone better than Soucy in the top 4. I don't think he's top 4 on a playoff-calibre team. He's better off to carry a 3rd pair. 

 

While it's still early on my expectations come next off-season is that they look to acquire a higher quality partner for Hronek. This would allow Soucy to carry a 3rd pairing(potentially help groom a young D) and give us solid depth when injuries happen. At the same time we'll need a stop gap partner for Hughes(maybe Tanev?) next year. 

 

Ultimately chemistry is determined by seeing the players actually play together. We definitely got players that fit team needs though.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EdgarM said:

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. 

I think the Irwin signing was interesting, shows that's what they want the D to look like and really they're just copying all the Cup finalists. Hirose and Rathbone are here now so we have to find a way to use them, especially Hirose, but I'd be all for trading Rathbone because of just this. Once Myers goes we'll need a real big physical guy on our bottom pairing - or better yet - acquire a solid top-4 guy and push Cole and Soucy down the rankings.

 

A top young LD (Hanifin?) could slot in next to Hronek and push Soucy down to the 3rd pairing, or a top young RD (Pesce?) moves Cole down to play with Hronek and Soucy on the bottom pairing. Right now we have a decent defence but that's what takes us over the top and what better a year to acquire one than now when two solid guys are available.

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

52 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Beauvillier, keep Garland

I think Garland is the better option to move. Beau is up after this year and I doubt he gets a raise (at least not in Van unless his season is amazing). Garland is locked in for a few more years, so it'll help to clear that cap space for the next couple years

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:

what about Brock for josh Anderson + 3rd 2024 - he may be more go a tochet guy and we save 1.63 million in cap space, could pop sig Pius suter as well with this space to a 1 year contract 

It's probably going to take a fair bit more than that to get Anderson out of Montreal.  Hughes says Anderson is in extremely high demand.  So much that he even called Anderson in his office to let him know that they aren't looking to trade him.  He didn't guarantee he wouldn't be traded if a team overpays but every indication is that he won't be cheap to acquire because Montreal is not looking to move him.


St Louis says he brings elements that are hard to find.  Talks of how he has size, speed and strength and does stuff that can't be taught.  

 

Edited by mll
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anderson is an interesting player. I've seen him dominate a shift or even most of a game before. But then I won't hear anything about him for months or I'll check his stats after a period of time passes and it is super average. 

 

Like his last 3 seasons:

                                                        gp   g    a   pts  pim +/-

2020-21 Montreal Canadiens NHL 52 17 7 24 38 -10 22 5 1 6 12
2021-22 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 19 13 32 65 -25 -- -- -- -- --
2022-23 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 21 11 32 72 -8 -- -- -- -- --

 

 

24 points, 32 and 32 isn't really that impressive. I have heard he is very physical, but at 5.5 million I sure hope so cause he doesn't bring enough offense for that price. 

 

So I don't think a trade like Garland for Anderson or Boeser for Anderson is that far off. Maybe we'd have to add, but it can't be that much based on what I'm seeing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mll said:

It's probably going to take a fair bit more than that to get Anderson out of Montreal.  Hughes says Anderson is in extremely high demand.  So much that he even called Anderson in his office to let him know that they aren't looking to trade him.  He didn't guarantee he wouldn't be traded if a team overpays but every indication is that he won't be cheap to acquire because Montreal is not looking to move him.


St Louis says he brings elements that are hard to find.  Talks of how he has size, speed and strength and does stuff that can't be taught.  

 

And what is the Habsroos GM supposed to say about a player he’s been trying to dumperoo since he got there? 
I like Anderson, but accept he’s got negative trade value. Garland or Boeser for Anderson is more than fair. In fact the Haberlosers would have to retain and add sugar. 
Now bow and kneel to Alf’s empties! :frantic:

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...