[Proposal] Dumping our junk in Arizona for Rathbone

[Harold Drunken]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Hence my insistence that the third pairing needs to be good defensively in order to put OEL in a position to succeed.

Yes and I agreed with you, but OEL likely needs a sound defensive D-man to play with - not just on the third pairing. If OEL is going to get more freedom to make offensive plays, pinch etc. he needs someone back there playing on his side they can rely on. More PP time as well. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Harold Drunken

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Yes and I agreed with you, but OEL likely needs a sound defensive D-man to play with - not just on the third pairing. If OEL is going to get more freedom to make offensive plays, pinch etc. he needs someone back there playing on his side they can rely on. 

Agreed.  We really need to bring in two defensive guys: a partner for OEL and a cheaper lefty for the third pairing.  Rathbone would be useful to make a trade to meet that need.

Edited June 23, 2022 by King Heffy

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, Angry Goose said:

Barely got to see the guy play under Boudreau, and he wasnt terrible under Green’s breakout inept system. Im not writing him off yet. 

I agree

He hasnt stood out in a good way or bad way

Sample size has been too small.  His numbers were decent under Green when our team was playing horribly . If we got rid of him now, we'd be dumping him at his lowest value without even giving him a chance

[CanucksJay]

Also I would rather keep Rathbone and let him compete in camp.

I dont think we need to follow the stereotypical lineup with 5th and 6th d-men being 10-12 min guys with no skill who try to keep their heads above water

We are creating something special here.

If we have the luxury of a 3rd offensive d-men with lots of upside, why would we trade him to play a bigger, slower, less skilled guy because that's what is typically done?

 

If Rathbone takes 3rd pairing and is paired with a guy like Poolman, maybe we see even the 3rd pairing push the pace with good breakouts etc.

Keep in mind that we have a pretty fast and skilled roster.  We have Petey, Miller Horvat down the middle. We have Boeser, Podz, Pearson, Hogz, Garland, Kuz

 

Dont you want a guy like Rathbone to continue to push the pace so that our guys attack relentlessly? No point having a 3rd line that can put up points if they get paired with a d-pairing that can't even get them the puck. Also having a 3rd puckmover will allow BB to keep his systems similar if there are injuries to the top 4 and he can plug them in if Hughes or OEL ever needs a maintenance day.

 

Boy am I excited for this season.  This wont be the lines but who I am hoping is on the team...

 

Garland Petey Podz

Kuz Miller Hogz

Pearson Horvat Boeser

Dickinson Lammikko Highmore

 

OEL Myers

Hughes Schenn

Rathbone Poolman

Burroughs

Dermott

 

Demko

 

That's a pretty fast skilled team.

Playoff team for sure 

I would love it if we could somehow get Deslauriers and Manson.  We would probably then have to trade Myers

 

Miller and Myers may get traded but if that happens, I would think we'd get a nice return (at least for Miller)

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by CanucksJay

[King Heffy]

4 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

Also I would rather keep Rathbone and let him compete in camp.

I dont think we need to follow the stereotypical lineup with 5th and 6th d-men being 10-12 min guys with no skill who try to keep their heads above water

We are creating something special here.

If we have the luxury of a 3rd offensive d-men with lots of upside, why would we trade him to play a bigger, slower, less skilled guy because that's what is typically done?

 

If Rathbone takes 3rd pairing and is paired with a guy like Poolman, maybe we see even the 3rd pairing push the pace with good breakouts etc.

Keep in mind that we have a pretty fast and skilled roster.  We have Petey, Miller Horvat down the middle. We have Boeser, Podz, Pearson, Hogz, Garland, Kuz

 

Dont you want a guy like Rathbone to continue to push the pace so that our guys attack relentlessly? No point having a 3rd line that can put up points if they get paired with a d-pairing that can't even get them the puck. Also having a 3rd puckmover will allow BB to keep his systems similar if there are injuries to the top 4 and he can plug them in if Hughes or OEL ever needs a maintenance day.

 

Boy am I excited for this season.  This wont be the lines but who I am hoping is on the team...

 

Garland Petey Podz

Kuz Miller Hogz

Pearson Horvat Boeser

Dickinson Lammikko Highmore

 

OEL Myers

Hughes Schenn

Rathbone Poolman

Burroughs

Dermott

 

Demko

 

That's a pretty fast skilled team.

Playoff team for sure 

I would love it if we could somehow get Deslauriers and Manson.  We would probably then have to trade Myers

 

Miller and Myers may get traded but if that happens, I would think we'd get a nice return (at least for Miller)

 

If he figures things out in his own zone, sure.  I just don't want another Hunt/Pouliot/Larsen who simply can't play acceptable defence.

[Angry Goose]

26 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

I agree

He hasnt stood out in a good way or bad way

Sample size has been too small.  His numbers were decent under Green when our team was playing horribly . If we got rid of him now, we'd be dumping him at his lowest value without even giving him a chance

Yeah Im hoping he can (a) get healthy and (b) find a fit w/ someone on the back end. I think he moves well and gives 100% (at least that’s what I noticed).  Really want to see what he can (or cant do) once he settles in.  

[CanucksJay]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

If he figures things out in his own zone, sure.  I just don't want another Hunt/Pouliot/Larsen who simply can't play acceptable defence.

he is definitely not a Hunt, Pouliot or Larsen.  He stood out to me last preseason.  

I have full confidence kid will be a top 4 D-man in a couple of years

 

His defense wasn't as bad as people say it was.

Look how ppl were dumping on Hughes last year compared to this year.  Yes Hughes worked hard on his defense and it has improved but you cant jsut flip the switch like that.Hughes wasnt as bad as ppl said he was either. I have the same confidence that if you put Rathbone in a position to succeed, he will do well. I mean he fits so well with BB's system.  BB wants us to push the pace and attack rather than sit back and defend.  THat alone puts Rathbone in a position to suceed over Green's gameplan.

 

I think Rathbone can aactually thrive under BB

[Bobby James]

4 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

To Arizona

 

Rathbone

Poolman and/or Dickinson

 

To Vancouver

 

Future considerations

Too much in my opinion. Even if Arizona agreed to take both I would still hesitate. 

 

Poolman had a injury filled year, so we don't really know what he's like under Bodreau. Dickinson struggled a lot, but Dallas fans loved him for a reason, so instead of dumping them for nothing I think it would be easier at the moment to see how they do next year and give Rathbone the 3rd LHD spot with Schenn as his partner. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Bobby James

[CanucksJay]

LOL I just looked at Rathbone's stats.

Are you guys nutssss?

Trade a D prospect who's putting up a pt per game in the AHL??? 

 

Lol he's 11th in defensemen scoring and has played 14-35 games less than every one ahead of him (except Jordan Spence) . That's as a ROOKIE!

 

Most of the guys above him are much older and putting up lesser pts per game.

 

 

 

He and Jordan Spence are the only young D putting up those type of numbers

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by CanucksJay

[Curmudgeon]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

But it seems a bit much to refer to guys like Dickinson and Poolman as "junk". They are good enough to be NHL players after all. Many people on CDC have played hockey at various levels but I am pretty sure that Dickinson and Poolman would outclass any of us by an embarrassingly large margin if we were on the ice together. 

Amen. I get angry when thoughtless keyboard jockeys refer to this player or that player as "useless" or "junk" or (my most hated term) "garbage". Tens of thousands of kids play hockey, most of whom dream of an NHL career. A small percentage of those kids have the talent, the size, the skill and the opportunity to play at the NHL level. There is not a single player on an NHL roster who is a bad player; all of those have been filtered out the system by the end of Junior. Not every NHL player is equally skilled, but every one of them has put in the time, the effort and the dedication to be the best they can be. That dedication demands respect and not the disparaging comments made by critics who have never played a single minute of organized hockey. 

[bigbadcanucks]

5 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

Why are people so inclined to dumping Dickinson and Poolman if it costs assets?  If we trade a big contract like Myers to free cap space and there's demand for him, I'd rather just try to repurpose Dickinson into a defensive role (e.g. if we can poach Nic Roy from VGK then they can be a defensive pairing).  Burying Poolman only costs $916k.

I'd rather try to sign a physical 3rd LHD, then trade Rathbone for Ethan Bear who wants out of Carolina. 

Because Dickison is the $h!t$ at hockey.  Canucks have two more years of the useless tool.  I say get rid of him, whatever it costs.

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 hours ago, Bobby James said:

Too much in my opinion. Even if Arizona agreed to take both I would still hesitate. 

 

Poolman had a injury filled year, so we don't really know what he's like under Bodreau. Dickinson struggled a lot, but Dallas fans loved him for a reason, so instead of dumping them for nothing I think it would be easier at the moment to see how they do next year and give Rathbone the 3rd LHD spot with Schenn as his partner. 

Poolman's Migraine issues are extremely worrying to me, and to be frank, even if they weren't an issue, he's overpaid for what he brings. Unless Dickinson suddenly learns how to take draws, which seems unlikely, I don't see where him and his salary fit, especially Karlsson likely pushing for spot this year or next while making entry level money.

 

I was high on Rathbone at this point last season and coming out of training camp, but he's never going to have a chance at anything more than third pairing minutes here, unless God forbid Hughes or OEL take significant injuries. That's why I'd like to use him to shed the dead weight contracts and free up necessary cap space.

[dm_ranger]

What about Chychrun?

 

Would Meyer + (Hogs or Rathbone) get close?

[vancan2233]

Not likely! Rathbone has been praised by Rutherford as the defenseman he would like in the line up. Third pairing does not mean he is not going to get ice time. If his play is good he will get extra shifts, plus PP time. Besides he is only 23 by the time he is 26 ,if all goes well, he will had moved pass OEL on the depth chart. 

[Odd.]

The outrage if we were to trade an AHL PPG 22 year old Offensive defenseman for future considerations… lol

[Curmudgeon]

1 hour ago, vancan2233 said:

Not likely! Rathbone has been praised by Rutherford as the defenseman he would like in the line up. Third pairing does not mean he is not going to get ice time. If his play is good he will get extra shifts, plus PP time. Besides he is only 23 by the time he is 26 ,if all goes well, he will had moved pass OEL on the depth chart. 

Rathbone is also one of Ryan Johnson's favourite prospects, and Johnson is an influential member of the Rutherford Empire. Rathbone is a loyal, smart, coachable guy who will spend the offseason working on his defensive game. If he is successful, he will make the season opening roster. To those eager to give Rathbone away for a lottery ticket, just go watch this kid play three or four games, then tell me you want to trade him. You won't.

[Hairy Kneel]

Rathbone had flashes of brilliance offensively when he was up with us, but it was his defensive game that showed flaws. He wasn't very dominant on the boards. He was caught in a few tire fires in our zone. And lacks the physical play to fight and win puck battles with big savvy opposition forwards. Flashy as hell though when he has room. PP potential is definitely there too. He needs some more Biega in him and could use some of that sweet, quick  leverage D that saves Hughes a lot.

Another year of development and dominance in the A will be great for his confidence. 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Hairy Kneel

[hammertime]

8 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

he is definitely not a Hunt, Pouliot or Larsen.  He stood out to me last preseason.  

I have full confidence kid will be a top 4 D-man in a couple of years

 

His defense wasn't as bad as people say it was.

Look how ppl were dumping on Hughes last year compared to this year.  Yes Hughes worked hard on his defense and it has improved but you cant jsut flip the switch like that.Hughes wasnt as bad as ppl said he was either. I have the same confidence that if you put Rathbone in a position to succeed, he will do well. I mean he fits so well with BB's system.  BB wants us to push the pace and attack rather than sit back and defend.  THat alone puts Rathbone in a position to suceed over Green's gameplan.

 

I think Rathbone can aactually thrive under BB

Who is putting him in the position to succeed? Someone has to play the hard shut down mins. Should OEL Hughes have to play those mins to prop up Rathbone or should we be shopping for a player that can play those mins so OEL and Hughes are in a position to succeed? 

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, hammertime said:

Who is putting him in the position to succeed? Someone has to play the hard shut down mins. Should OEL Hughes have to play those mins to prop up Rathbone or should we be shopping for a player that can play those mins so OEL and Hughes are in a position to succeed? 

I mean position to succeed in terms of team strategy

Green's plan was to concede the blue line and sit back and keep the play to the outside and block shots. That works for bigger physical unskilled guys that can push and pin ppl along the boards etc. 

BB's strategy is to step up and attack their zone and put the pressure up ice. 

Why does anyone have to play the hard shutdown minutes if all 3 D Pairings play the same way and step up at their blue line to keep the puck in and make it a skating game where you force turnovers rather than retreating and giving up our zone? 

We are turning into a fast transition team so if Rathbone is paired with a guy like Poolman, Rathbone can be the guy that makes the quick outlet / transition pass to get the puck up the ice in a hurry

[Guest]

13 hours ago, JamesB said:

5. One final point. Normally I am last person to complain about being "disrespectful" to players. That kind of complaint is too politically correct for me. And they are getting paid millions of dollars and getting criticized is part of the package. It is not like the Canuck players read CDC anyway. But it seems a bit much to refer to guys like Dickinson and Poolman as "junk". They are good enough to be NHL players after all. Many people on CDC have played hockey at various levels but I am pretty sure that Dickinson and Poolman would outclass any of us by an embarrassingly large margin if we were on the ice together. 

Not only that, but in Poolman's case people formed their opinion last summer after reading a tweet that told them that they like Poolman. 

Then the season started and Poolman had 25 average games under Green, followed by 10 bad ones under Boudreau and 5 good ones to close out the year before he got hurt.  Meanwhile whispers came out of Winnipeg saying that Josh Morrissey wasn't playing as well without Poolman on his right side.  

 

My opinion of Poolman is incomplete.  He joined a new team, played for two different head coaches, two different defense coaches, and had his season cut short due to injuries.  

 

Either way, not sure when it became okay to call players "garbage", "junk", etc.  It's even more disrespectful when you consider that the guy suffered concussions while wearing our jersey and has been dealing with migraines all season long.