Does anyone have any good guesses as to how they will change the look of our defense?

[Nucker 67]

Could Rathbone and Hoglander be used as sweeteners in trades?

 

D still needs help

 

OEL - Myers

Hughes - Schenn

Rathbone - Dermott

Wolanin - Poolman

Kulynuk - Burroughs

Juulsen

[VanCan2023]

7 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Q:  Does anyone have any good guesses as to how they will change the look of our defense?

 

A: Two options:   OR 

 

Dumba for Boeser.... Kidding sorry for starting/mentioning that. Id say kick philly's tires. They have D galore and missing out on the Goudreau sweepstakes they want forwards. Give Vegas a look, always thought Theodore would wear a nucks jersey someday, and/or one of there others. Nasty Bruins have D to spare, but were probably still not on speaking terms. (2011 finals, then giving us Benning is to soon for speaking terms). Phi, NYI, Veg, Dal, are IMO on the retool mod with D to spare. Your turn Alvine... 

[JamesB]

I am going to join the group suggesting not much change to the personnel. The Canucks have been trying to get a good young RD who doesn't cost too much. They are also looking for unicorns which are about as easy to find. 

 

But the pairings and the style of play could change quite a lot. 

 

One factor is  that the Canucks have upgraded the forwards a lot, which will help the D.

 

Also, JR said at one point that the guys playing on D would be better players in a more structured defence. The Canucks have two guys whose skill level is high enough to play well in an unstructured defence (Hughes and OEL). The other guys will benefit a lot from knowing where the forward will be on a consistent basis, allowing them to make cleaner zone exits. This cuts down on the ability of forwards to improvise with quick breakouts but they have added enough speed and skill so that I do not see that reducing scoring much if at all. 

 

And, as for pairings, I think the Canucks are planning to try Hughes and OEL. You would rather have OEL playing his natural side, but he can still be very effective playing the right side. That pairing could generate a lot of offence and also play excellent defence.  They would obviously be the top pairing and play a lot of shutdown.

 

I think the second pairing would be Dermott and Myers and the third would be Rathbone and Schenn. WIth those pairing it would be important to use a consistent defensive structure, but they could be pretty good.

 

Poolman will of course get a look if he is healthy but his health situation is uncertain. If he is healthy, then the Canucks could keep OEL on the left side. . 

 

The Canucks will keep looking for an upgrade on the right side but I am not optimistic and don't want the Canuck to force a value-reducing trade. (We had enough of that with Benning)

 

 

[kanucks25]

7 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Could Rathbone and Hoglander be used as sweeteners in trades?

 

D still needs help

 

OEL - Myers

Hughes - Schenn

Rathbone - Dermott

Wolanin - Poolman

Kulynuk - Burroughs

Juulsen

We are not in a position to be tossing away young cost-controlled assets.

 

Nor will either of these assets move the needle for the type of players we need to actually fix the defense.

[IBatch]

On 7/11/2022 at 1:23 AM, Alflives said:

Hughes is paid right.  Myers will be gone in two years.  OEL is overpaid by 2 mil per.  So in two years, when Myers is gone, we need to have new two top four who play great and are on value contracts under 2 mil to cover for OEL’s 2 over.  And OEL needs to continue to play like a 5 mil D man.  

This is true.   Klingberg is still on the market and wonder if they are going to make a push to get him.    Dallas did make him offers ... i'd be surprised if he gets what he's asking,  but his position and stats kind of make him as valuable as a top 15 C becoming available.    No i don't want him and prefer we stick with  Myers, that said every team has holes, ours happens to be RHD.    My pipe dream to sign Manson to a 5 x 5 deal floated away lol ... COL ... well they got a good deal but that deal here would have cost us over 5 so i was close, and figured the extra year would be enough.

 

OEL - Klingberg is an intriguing option.  But wow that's expensive for what you get.   The flip side is at least we have a top four RHD for five years.   Possibly 7,  but doubt that the same way OEL likely doesn't keep it up forever too.    Going to the free agency well to fill a massive void is ok though - it's something we'd have to do with Miller and or Horvat.   I'm leaning towards re-signing those guys right now.   At least we'd have excellent center depth, and our forward group as a whole is very decent anyways.    Demko.   Well man i sure hope that this TO addition can make his life easier on the PK.     If somehow we can move one of these guys to the right side and they can do it (Dermott?), maybe things will be ok. 

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

We are not in a position to be tossing away young cost-controlled assets.

 

Nor will either of these assets move the needle for the type of players we need to actually fix the defense.

Hogs and Rathbone are sweeteners for a bigger deal and that's about it.   I'm not a fan of moving Rathbone - but Hoglander has had enough NHL time that it's sink or swim now.   He doesn't really work as a bottom six guy (yet) and definitely hasn't moved the needle in the top six much either.    Rathbone ... well not to suggest this is going to happen, but look what happened with Adam Fox.  Sure CAL regrets that a ton.   Too bad he doesn't play the right side.    Has proven himself at every level now, and deserves a shot in the NHL.    Maybe we get a second rounder for him too....but if i had to bet, that second rounder won't become another Rathbone.   Hogs has already surpassed his draft spot as well.

 

Agree we need cheap depth.    Lammy, Highmore...a bunch of other guys - Leivo - they've shown it's not that hard to acquire them either.   Tweeners get passed around all the time.    Rarely, but it does happen,  they break out.  Mostly it's all about cheap cap to balance things out though.    Which i do agree we need.   Also agree these guys aren't getting what we want for a one on one trade unless we pull some sort of Quin magic ... Stajonov for Naslund, a second rounder for Lumme etc. 

[DrJockitch]

8 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Hogs and Rathbone are sweeteners for a bigger deal and that's about it.   I'm not a fan of moving Rathbone - but Hoglander has had enough NHL time that it's sink or swim now.   He doesn't really work as a bottom six guy (yet) and definitely hasn't moved the needle in the top six much either.    Rathbone ... well not to suggest this is going to happen, but look what happened with Adam Fox.  Sure CAL regrets that a ton.   Too bad he doesn't play the right side.    Has proven himself at every level now, and deserves a shot in the NHL.    Maybe we get a second rounder for him too....but if i had to bet, that second rounder won't become another Rathbone.   Hogs has already surpassed his draft spot as well.

 

Agree we need cheap depth.    Lammy, Highmore...a bunch of other guys - Leivo - they've shown it's not that hard to acquire them either.   Tweeners get passed around all the time.    Rarely, but it does happen,  they break out.  Mostly it's all about cheap cap to balance things out though.    Which i do agree we need.   Also agree these guys aren't getting what we want for a one on one trade unless we pull some sort of Quin magic ... Stajonov for Naslund, a second rounder for Lumme etc. 

I tend to agree we will probably see Hoglander moved but we are all excited about the progress of Podz, but are ready to give up on Hogz?  He is turning what 21, went through an awful year last year with a terrible team to start and had major injury. Seems awfully early to pass judgement on him as a player. 
 

separate point, Quinn and Makar were rookies in the league at the same time, since then Sakic has found a perfect right hand D partner for him in Toews AND has found a perfect right hand partner for Byram in Manson.  So while we contemplate the seemingly impossible acquisition of a RHD partner for Quinn, Sakic has done it twice. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by DrJockitch

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, JamesB said:

I am going to join the group suggesting not much change to the personnel. The Canucks have been trying to get a good young RD who doesn't cost too much. They are also looking for unicorns which are about as easy to find. 

 

But the pairings and the style of play could change quite a lot. 

 

One factor is  that the Canucks have upgraded the forwards a lot, which will help the D.

 

Also, JR said at one point that the guys playing on D would be better players in a more structured defence. The Canucks have two guys whose skill level is high enough to play well in an unstructured defence (Hughes and OEL). The other guys will benefit a lot from knowing where the forward will be on a consistent basis, allowing them to make cleaner zone exits. This cuts down on the ability of forwards to improvise with quick breakouts but they have added enough speed and skill so that I do not see that reducing scoring much if at all. 

 

And, as for pairings, I think the Canucks are planning to try Hughes and OEL. You would rather have OEL playing his natural side, but he can still be very effective playing the right side. That pairing could generate a lot of offence and also play excellent defence.  They would obviously be the top pairing and play a lot of shutdown.

 

I think the second pairing would be Dermott and Myers and the third would be Rathbone and Schenn. WIth those pairing it would be important to use a consistent defensive structure, but they could be pretty good.

 

Poolman will of course get a look if he is healthy but his health situation is uncertain. If he is healthy, then the Canucks could keep OEL on the left side. . 

 

The Canucks will keep looking for an upgrade on the right side but I am not optimistic and don't want the Canuck to force a value-reducing trade. (We had enough of that with Benning)

 

 

Well said.   I'm also leaning towards letting this season just play itself out with whom we've got.   Our PK should be better next season with the forward additions alone.    I'm also not in favour of a massive roster change.   We saw first hand how that worked out last season for us, and even the mighty Bruce isn't going to make lemonade out of 5/7 new lemons lol.    The team was playing well down the stretch - and don't see any reasons why they can't start the season that way, and keep it up.   They aren't kids anymore either - the core that is.   I'd also like to give them the chance to make the playoffs.    The bubble was great and all, but that was also a very different team then the one we have now.   The core is older and all in or entering their primes (guys like EP/QHs primes start earlier)...  That's the sample size that actually matters and it's awfully tough to assess without actual games. 

 

 Not saying we will win a cup this year.   But will also say ... why not?   COL fans didn't want us to squeak into the playoffs, and rightly so.   We had a top PP down the stretch,  and posed a threat to their fans (they were actually scared ... imagine that - the mighty AVs!!, think we beat them 3-1 and were the better team that night).    Have suggested trade Miller too.    But have also said i'd rather we just let him walk, then make a dumb trade.    It happens.   Cap coming back, the "key" tweener flops, after getting a deal etc, and the pick(s) go nowhere.      

 

Also not as horny as some about getting the coveted RHD - because that most certainly means - we lose a coveted first line C.   If it's Brock or Garland then sure that might be ok.   Enough has been said about that - i personally don't want Garland traded.   Does his job even strength well enough, and draws as many penalties as EP does.   He's a crucial cog in the team machine - we win more games because he's in the lineup. 

 

As for the D.   OEL- Myers was decent enough.   QHs-Schenn provides two parings .,. i'd be concerned about loading one line up - but not opposed to trying it out.    That second pairing looks pretty lame, but you never know maybe it could work.   QHs for sure needs his Methot, that is a stable long standing partner, Schenn ... well a patch job.  

 

We will see what happens next soon.   Horvat and Miller can be re-signed ... one thing i will say,  if and when this stuff happens it will be a relief.   I'm sure for the team too.   Trade rumours can be a distraction.   And for the fan base as well. 

 

[IBatch]

13 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I tend to agree we will probably see Hoglander moved but we are all excited about the progress of Podz, but are ready to give up on Hogz?  He is turning what 21, went through an awful year last year with a terrible team to start and had major injury. Seems awfully early to pass judgement on him as a player. 
 

separate point, Quinn and Makar were rookies in the league at the same time, since then Sakic has found a perfect right hand D partner for him in Toews AND has found a perfect right hand partner for Byram in Manson.  So while we contemplate the seemingly impossible acquisition of a RHD partner for Quinn, Sakic has done it twice. 

Sure is nice to be that team.   We were that team soon after MG took over too.   Yes Sakic has done an incredible job.   Toews was a major coupe, from a cash/cap strapped team at the time - Manson of course he'd want to stay.    Wanted Manson for years.     Expecting us to do the same thing ... well in that case we need to start where he did - which means trading two majors players, and doing an tank job.   For us with Demko, that's not going to happen.   Hoglander yes, this is his year to prove he belongs. 

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

We are not in a position to be tossing away young cost-controlled assets.

 

Nor will either of these assets move the needle for the type of players we need to actually fix the defense.

Funny you say this - both those players were drafted by the previous regime - not in the first round, but the 2nd round and below. It's interesting that these "young controlled assets", especially these types of players that you mentioned, were never found in the other regime that you struggled to find fault in. Suddenly, assets matter now for you?

 

It's a little ironic that when we need to "fix the defense" that we had Edler for a very, very long time because a certain GM wasn't able to draft any 'needle moving' players beyond the first round. It's beyond inexplicable that you had defended that same awfully run management with regards to drafting/development that you were unable to see just how bad the situation was for the Canucks, with respect to the futures.

 

I'm saying that Gillis' poor drafting/development has to be re-examined here. Sure, Benning could've fixed the defense (and he didn't, until it was too late), but now that so many years has gone by, that prospect during Gillis' time period would now be a veteran D man. But not a single 'needle moving' player is in the NHL today, minus Horvat. Truly, the Canucks are still paying for that massive void in draft development from  many, many years ago. This is about admitting the consequences from not drafting any good young players, minus Horvat and Hodgson.

 

It takes previous GMs to do something to help the current regime. Sakic had a ton of help with the previous tanking, for example, but he really did it himself in the later years. Obviously, Benning didn't have the same kind of impact.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Sure is nice to be that team.   We were that team soon after MG took over too.   Yes Sakic has done an incredible job.   Toews was a major coupe, from a cash/cap strapped team at the time - Manson of course he'd want to stay.    Wanted Manson for years.     Expecting us to do the same thing ... well in that case we need to start where he did - which means trading two majors players, and doing an tank job.   For us with Demko, that's not going to happen.   Hoglander yes, this is his year to prove he belongs. 

When we were winning, MG seemed like he turned things around. And he did, but lots of people won't admit the price that he made the team pay for winning was far too high. The lack of young prospects during that regime really set the team back many, many years. It would require the next incoming GM to nail every single draft pick in order to recoup the losses. 2016, obviously, was a mediocre year, at best, for that incoming GM.

[DeltaSwede]

I really believe the Canucks should push very hard and even overpay for John Marino if they have to. 
 

Exactly the type of RHD we need. He’s 25 and signed for 5 more years at 4,4 aav. Perfect is a strong word but it’s close to it.

 

This off-season is likely the only time Marino could be available as well and I’m worried the Pens make the wise choice of moving Dumoulin or Pettersson before Marino. 

[AV.]

1 hour ago, DeltaSwede said:

I really believe the Canucks should push very hard and even overpay for John Marino if they have to. 
 

Exactly the type of RHD we need. He’s 25 and signed for 5 more years at 4,4 aav. Perfect is a strong word but it’s close to it.

 

This off-season is likely the only time Marino could be available as well and I’m worried the Pens make the wise choice of moving Dumoulin or Pettersson before Marino. 

He would be a good target, but I can't see how this type of deal gets done without shifting out some of the bigger salaries on our end.  Even if we're operating in a perfect world where the Penguins take back Garland, it's tough to determine what a reasonable middle-ground in a deal looks like.

[kanucks25]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Agree we need cheap depth.    Lammy, Highmore...a bunch of other guys - Leivo - they've shown it's not that hard to acquire them either. 

These guys are nothing fillers that will tread water on the 4th line no matter where they go.

 

Hoglander actually has middle-6 potential.

 

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

but Hoglander has had enough NHL time that it's sink or swim now.   He doesn't really work as a bottom six guy (yet) and definitely hasn't moved the needle in the top six much either.  

What...

 

He's 21 with 116 NHL games played, with no other games played anywhere in North America. That's less than 1.5 seasons, that's enough to write off a player despite him putting up ~3rd line production throughout those games?

 

Y'all say some dumb things for real.

 

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

When we were winning, MG seemed like he turned things around. And he did, but lots of people won't admit the price that he made the team pay for winning was far too high. The lack of young prospects during that regime really set the team back many, many years. It would require the next incoming GM to nail every single draft pick in order to recoup the losses. 2016, obviously, was a mediocre year, at best, for that incoming GM.

Nah didn't have to hit on every pick, just couldn't be completely incompetent which is what happened.

 

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Funny you say this - both those players were drafted by the previous regime - not in the first round, but the 2nd round and below. It's interesting that these "young controlled assets", especially these types of players that you mentioned, were never found in the other regime that you struggled to find fault in. Suddenly, assets matter now for you?

Okay? I've never said that every decision Benning made was bad. I have no problem calling a good move a good move or a good pick a good pick.

 

Doesn't change the fact that he was a terrible GM, but it wasn't all bad.

 

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

It's a little ironic that when we need to "fix the defense" that we had Edler for a very, very long time because a certain GM wasn't able to draft any 'needle moving' players beyond the first round. It's beyond inexplicable that you had defended that same awfully run management with regards to drafting/development that you were unable to see just how bad the situation was for the Canucks, with respect to the futures.

 

I'm saying that Gillis' poor drafting/development has to be re-examined here. Sure, Benning could've fixed the defense (and he didn't, until it was too late), but now that so many years has gone by, that prospect during Gillis' time period would now be a veteran D man. But not a single 'needle moving' player is in the NHL today, minus Horvat. Truly, the Canucks are still paying for that massive void in draft development from  many, many years ago. This is about admitting the consequences from not drafting any good young players, minus Horvat and Hodgson.

You're blaming Gillis for the defence 8 years after he's gone?

 

Don't make me list the D-men Benning targeted and drafted during his tenure. It's enough to make you want to scratch your eyes out.

 

For a guy who was an NHL D-man himself and a scout for many years, it's mind-boggling how little he knew about what makes a good NHL D-man. Astonishing, really.

 

 

And I've never argued that Gillis was good at drafting. I know you have some weird grudge against Gillis and we've gone over it many teams over the years. This is will be the last time I address it, we've done it enough and it's tiresome. I have nothing left to prove when it comes to Benning or Benning vs Gillis or whatever, proof is in the pudding. 

 

Hold the L and move on, my guy. "But Gillis!111!!" was embarrassing when Benning was still here, and now it's just pathetic.

[Fred65]

Ref drafting Benning primarily had top end picks, due to the fact we finished so low we "earned the right to draft high" despite that we wasted two top end draft picks on Virtanen and Juolevi. Thats no positive endoresement of Bennings scouting skills.

[JM_]

maybe we can add some RHD depth by more of a lower level deal. 

 

To TO: Pearson

To VAN: Holl

 

IF Holl could be used in a purely defensive roll with Hughes e.g., maybe he wouldn't be the give-away machine he's been in TO. Take away the offensive expectations, simplify his game, maybe he could be a fit? If not is an easy dumperoo. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

What about a Miller for Pulock straight across

[AV.]

The notion that Gillis was somehow responsible for "replacing" a ... 26 year old Edler? so that one day the 2022 Canucks could be a good team is simply ridiculous.  As far as I'm concerned, he isn't responsible for anything that happened past of March 2014.  Same way that anything that's happened since December 2021 isn't on Benning and Weisbrod.

In July of 2022, I don't want to hear about past regimes impacting the present.  The focus is on Allvin and Rutherford, and while it's not entirely possible to ignore past decisions, it's best to focus on what can currently be controlled.

It is the responsibility of Allvin, Rutherford, and the rest of the front office, to address the defence and make the team better, and if they can't do that, they will get blamed, no matter what anchors they're dealing with that prevents them from getting this stuff done.  

I know this is a concept lost on Benning supporters because deflection was their number one strategy rather than simply admitting their favourite GM was failing in the throughout his tenure, but it's the truth.  It was never the fault of Gillis, or Bettman, or the pandemic, etc.  And sitting here now, not surprised the biggest supporter of them all is in this thread today, trying to make futile comparisons between two former regimes, like as if it has any barring or meaning on anything to do with the new regime.  Something about terrible opinions, something about dumbfounded allegiances, something about sunk cost fallacy - they all tie in.

As always, I hope this helps.

[kanucks25]

21 minutes ago, JM_ said:

maybe we can add some RHD depth by more of a lower level deal. 

 

To TO: Pearson

To VAN: Holl

 

IF Holl could be used in a purely defensive roll with Hughes e.g., maybe he wouldn't be the give-away machine he's been in TO. Take away the offensive expectations, simplify his game, maybe he could be a fit? If not is an easy dumperoo. 

Cannot have both Holl and Poolman on the team.

 

It is... we cannot.

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Cannot have both Holl and Poolman on the team.

 

It is... we cannot.

I'd be hoping for a turn-around in Holl's defensive game. He did have some good moments in TO but I think they tried to do too much with him. Maybe if he can be simplified to a stay at home partner with Hughes there's something there? 

 

Its a long shot I know.