[Signing] Canucks sign Ilya Mikheyev

[EddieVedder]

8 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I mean, if you moved Dermott, what is he worth that another team couldn’t fill in with their own depth or defenseman? Dermott’s not a high end defenseman. He’s a dime a dozen kind of player. 

 

I’m assuming that JT’s going to be moved. I know what management has said publicly, but i cannot help but think they don’t want to get to the trade deadline or even start the season with Miller either traded or has a new contract. JT’s emotions are so volatile. Good when he’s on point, but he can be emotionally destructive if things don’t go his way (i.e. pouting, not back checking, etc). That could very well be a distraction to the rest of the team. 

 

Petey’s got to be better on the draws for him to be playing first line minutes. I see the line up shaping up this way. But in another way, he is our best player so makes sense that he would be first line centre. 

 

Mikheyev - Petey - Brock

Kuzmenko - Miller - Podkolzin 

Pearson - Horvat - Höglander

 

I know Mikheyev is the shiny new signing, but I wouldn’t automatically put him on the top line. Could be interchangeable with Kuzmenko, assuming he shows well at training camp and can produce at the NHL level. If Kuzmenko does not produce at the NHL level, then Pearson goes back to the top six which means our depth isn’t that great.

 

 

Petey and Brock are way too soft a pair and got owned last yr.  Petey and Podz showed unreal chemistry together.  They should be paired together.

[flickyoursedin]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Rodriguez would be great but word is he's asking for a lot and it kind of makes sense with how he's emerged and we just don't have the cap space for him. 

I wonder if in a day or two his ask comes down a bit. If we could find a taker for Pearson maybe we use that money for Rodriguez. They’d probably produce about the same but at least with Rodriguez he plays the Center position.

[NHL97OneTimer]

11 hours ago, VanCan2023 said:

Salo, Edler, Tanev, would do wonders on the blue line. OEL was/is supposed to be that guy. Remember it wasn't that long ago Rasmus Dahlin was projected to be the generational defenceman talent we haven't seen in decades? Nick Lidstrom one of the best defenceman ever was a 3rd rounder. Don't just spend on upper management, invest a crap ton on scouts so they can find them. 

and don't give away picks in later rounds.....use them on defensemen.  My hope is that the 2023-4 draft and beyond has the Canucks drafting mostly defensemen unless there's clearly a better option than what we have on the ice right now.  Aside from adding more sandpaper which should be the easiest thing to add to a team, this forward group and goalie tandem is definitely good enough to do some damage.....especially if the defense can get them the puck on the rush and is capable of bailing them out at times.

Edited July 15, 2022 by NHL97OneTimer

[Baggins]

On 7/13/2022 at 5:41 PM, N7Nucks said:

This is only true if last seasons Boeser is the best he has to offer. Which it isn't. Neither player is good defensively, neither are physical, and neither are centers. Boeser in a down year with mental issues from personal stuff scored 4 more goals than Garland did. We kill Boeser for a bad season but statistically he was right with Garland. And again, Garland doesn't really bring anything that Boeser doesn't.

 

If we wanna shed cap, move lesser players. Even if it costs us picks. Would you rather lose a 2nd or 3rd rounder or trade a 20 goal scorer for lottery picks that likely never sniff the NHL let alone drop 20 goals. I am a broken record at this point, but y'all realize in a year y'all consider bad. BOESER DROPPED 20 GOALS. So how bad can he be?

Garland is actually quite good defensively. He's relentless both directions. Pettersson isn't physical either, but he's also very good defensively. Boeser has size and isn't physical. He isn't as good as either defensively. I'll take an angry elf that is good at both ends, a decent goal scorer, good playmaker, and draws opposition into penalties (Garland led the team) over a passive goal scorer anyday. Last season Garland was +15 (best on the team and 12th in the league among all forwards). Boeser was -6 (only ahead of Lammiko and Hogs). That means even strength Boeser was on the ice for 21 more goals against than Garland was. The only other forward with 30+ games in the minus was Dickinson (-1). So who were the weakest links? Of top 9 forwards Hogs and Boeser were defensive handicaps to their lines. Sure Boeser is a goal scorer, but "in the bigger picture" I believe Garland is the better player to keep. He simply does more. Preventing goals is every bit as important as scoring them.

[NHL97OneTimer]

1 minute ago, Baggins said:

Garland is actually quite good defensively. He's relentless both directions. Pettersson isn't physical either, but he's also very good defensively. Boeser has size and isn't physical. He isn't as good as either defensively. I'll take an angry elf that is good at both ends, a decent goal scorer, good playmaker, and draws opposition into penalties (Garland led the team) over a passive goal scorer anyday. Last season Garland was +15 (best on the team and 12th in the league among all forwards). Boeser was -6 (only ahead of Lammiko and Hogs). That means even strength Boeser was on the ice for 21 more goals against than Garland was. The only other forward with 30+ games in the minus was Dickinson (-1). So who were the weakest links? Of top 9 forwards Hogs and Boeser were defensive handicaps to their lines. Sure Boeser is a goal scorer, but "in the bigger picture" I believe Garland is the better player to keep. He simply does more. Preventing goals is every bit as important as scoring them.

This is so overlooked by the Boeser love and one of the reasons I would have been fine trading him if the return was decent.  With that said, I applaud him for not dragging out the contract talks and for putting something reasonable in writing.  We'll see what he does this season.  Last season was a tough one for him.  Boeser's ceiling could be so much higher than it shows if he were to get quicker and add more versatility to his game.  Fingers crossed....

[kloubek]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

I've said many times Im giving him a mulligan on last season. But, what does he bring when not scoring? That's where Boeser really drops in my eye. Meaning, even scoring 40 goals, what does he add the other 42 games? He's not physical despite his size, he's only ok along the boards, he's ok at best defensively, he doesn't pk. What does he really add when not scoring? Even when not scoring Garland gives the opposition fits and draws penalties. Top on the team in penalties drawn. No, he's not particularly physical either. But he's surprisingly good along the boards and solid defensively. Not the pure goal scorer Boeser is, but he's also a much better playmaker. Playmakers make those around them better. I'm from the school of Scotty Bowman - you need to do more than just score to be of real value to team success.

Yeah, I agree, Boeser has been pretty one-dimensional. I would argue, however, that his game is a bit more rounded than it once was - at least defensively. Even with that said though, I agree with you on most of your points - you'd expect more physicality from a relatively big guy, and he doesn't excel in many areas outside simply scoring. I still feel he is young enough to continue to improve his game though. I think we're going to see a better Boeser than last season.

[Baggins]

10 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

This is so overlooked by the Boeser love and one of the reasons I would have been fine trading him if the return was decent.  With that said, I applaud him for not dragging out the contract talks and for putting something reasonable in writing.  We'll see what he does this season.  Last season was a tough one for him.  Boeser's ceiling could be so much higher than it shows if he were to get quicker and add more versatility to his game.  Fingers crossed....

I absolutely agree it would have been easy for him to take one year at 7.5m and even do the same thing next year were he all about the money. It does show some character. But he still has a pretty high contract that needs to be lived up to. But it's not just points he needs to improve. I'm a real believer in the Scotty Bowman ideology of just scoring isn't good enough. Yzerman was a 140 point player when Bowman threatened to trade him. He was even cut from team Canada twice at that point. Yzerman changed his "I'm an offensive player" attitude and went on to be one of the most respected players in the NHL So respected players that wore his number declined to wear it for team Canada after he retired out of respect. They essentially retired his team Canada number themselves. I'm not saying Boeser needs to be Yzerman level to be valuable. But he does need to improve his overall game aside from scoring to be of real value to the team.

[JeremyCuddles]

42 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Garland is actually quite good defensively. He's relentless both directions. Pettersson isn't physical either, but he's also very good defensively. Boeser has size and isn't physical. He isn't as good as either defensively. I'll take an angry elf that is good at both ends, a decent goal scorer, good playmaker, and draws opposition into penalties (Garland led the team) over a passive goal scorer anyday. Last season Garland was +15 (best on the team and 12th in the league among all forwards). Boeser was -6 (only ahead of Lammiko and Hogs). That means even strength Boeser was on the ice for 21 more goals against than Garland was. The only other forward with 30+ games in the minus was Dickinson (-1). So who were the weakest links? Of top 9 forwards Hogs and Boeser were defensive handicaps to their lines. Sure Boeser is a goal scorer, but "in the bigger picture" I believe Garland is the better player to keep. He simply does more. Preventing goals is every bit as important as scoring them.

Garland isn't very good defensively. You give Boeser a mulligan for last season then bring up his +/- of all things? Lol. Yeah he had a rough year, I won't deny it. But even with his bad year statistically he was better than if not equal to Garland who had a great year by his standards. Their underlying defensive numbers last season were borderline identical. I will give the defensive edge to Garland, but lets not pretend he's head and shoulders above Boeser in the defensive zone. Neither are PK options and neither are liabilities. Offensively a bad year for Boeser is a good year for Garland.

[Baggins]

39 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

This is so overlooked by the Boeser love and one of the reasons I would have been fine trading him if the return was decent.  With that said, I applaud him for not dragging out the contract talks and for putting something reasonable in writing.  We'll see what he does this season.  Last season was a tough one for him.  Boeser's ceiling could be so much higher than it shows if he were to get quicker and add more versatility to his game.  Fingers crossed....

He has improved his defensive game. But I said the same of Virtanen. Improved is not the same as effective. At 25 the defensive side of his game should be further along. A knock I have on Horvat is, for his size, he's not as physical as he should be. Particularly for a Canadian kid. But Boeser makes Horvat look like a beast. Boeser has size and just doesn't seem to use it much. Garland on the other hand isn't a hit machine but plays a very aggressive game at both ends. He's good defensively and his aggressive play causes frustration and forces opponents to rush passes and make mistakes. it's part of the reason he draws so many penalties along with his agility and puck handling. He's just frustrating to play against at both ends and there's real value in that.

[MikeyD]

1 hour ago, flickyoursedin said:

I wonder if in a day or two his ask comes down a bit. If we could find a taker for Pearson maybe we use that money for Rodriguez. They’d probably produce about the same but at least with Rodriguez he plays the Center position.

I'd be pretty ecstatic if we were able to pull that off. He's been somebody I've wanted for a couple years now and his last playoff series cemented that. Guy can turn it up another notch. 

[MikeyD]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Garland is actually quite good defensively. He's relentless both directions. Pettersson isn't physical either, but he's also very good defensively. Boeser has size and isn't physical. He isn't as good as either defensively. I'll take an angry elf that is good at both ends, a decent goal scorer, good playmaker, and draws opposition into penalties (Garland led the team) over a passive goal scorer anyday. Last season Garland was +15 (best on the team and 12th in the league among all forwards). Boeser was -6 (only ahead of Lammiko and Hogs). That means even strength Boeser was on the ice for 21 more goals against than Garland was. The only other forward with 30+ games in the minus was Dickinson (-1). So who were the weakest links? Of top 9 forwards Hogs and Boeser were defensive handicaps to their lines. Sure Boeser is a goal scorer, but "in the bigger picture" I believe Garland is the better player to keep. He simply does more. Preventing goals is every bit as important as scoring them.

Not to mention earlier in the year he was one of like 3 players we had that actually did one of those forechecking things the team forgot how to do because the only thing we knew were line changes for the first part of the year lol. 

[MikeyD]

36 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Garland isn't very good defensively. You give Boeser a mulligan for last season then bring up his +/- of all things? Lol. Yeah he had a rough year, I won't deny it. But even with his bad year statistically he was better than if not equal to Garland who had a great year by his standards. Their underlying defensive numbers last season were borderline identical. I will give the defensive edge to Garland, but lets not pretend he's head and shoulders above Boeser in the defensive zone. Neither are PK options and neither are liabilities. Offensively a bad year for Boeser is a good year for Garland.

Honest question, what do you think it takes to be good defensively if you don't think Garland was good defensively? I'm confused as to how you wouldn't think he was good defensively. 

[MikeyD]

12 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

And it’s curious to me as well how and why Kadri signing is taking longer than I thought it would. I thought Kadri would be one of the first dominoes to fall in terms of the higher end players, but going onto day 3 of free agency, and he’s still not signed. What’s going on there? Is he waiting for Colorado or something? Calgary, after losing their best player, should be all in for Kadri, if not, could be they be in for Miller? I’m not certain that JT would resign with the Flames (would be strike two with Gaudreau leaving, and then if they acquired Miller, he leaves as well, oof). I can only see Calgary trying to acquire JT if he agrees to a long term contract. 

 

And I wonder if New Jersey does something after the Rangers had signed Trocheck. I can’t really see the Rangers being in on Miller after signing Trocheck, but hey, stranger things have happened (like the Gaudreau situation). And then what about the Islanders? If Jersey makes a move, and the Rangers make a move, they would be under pressure to try to keep up, no? 

 

Kadri is apparently talking and doing zoom calls with A LOT of teams. I'm guessing within a week he will have a location for where he wants to go. There's a lot of interest in him and it seems like he's hearing everybody out. 

[Nucker 67]

Apparently TOR really wanted to keep Mikheyev, but...money. That's what they get for throwing all of their cap at 5 guys. In fact, with TB, FLA and BOS already being tough division opponents, OTT, BUF and DET will have better teams this year as well. 

 

With the state of their goaltending and losing key players, the Leafs are going to miss the playoffs next year.

 

 

Canucks are in, is my guess. They got faster and grittier, and have world class goaltending. Bruce will get them there.

[DrJockitch]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Rodriguez would be great but word is he's asking for a lot and it kind of makes sense with how he's emerged and we just don't have the cap space for him. 

Would be really nice to add another NHL Centre. I still feel like JT is best at wing. Kind of feel same way about EP but would really like to see him develop into a number one C. 

[Baggins]

50 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Would be really nice to add another NHL Centre. I still feel like JT is best at wing. Kind of feel same way about EP but would really like to see him develop into a number one C. 

Although JT is good on wing his playmaking ability is more effective playing in the middle. Petey might prefer playing C but he really needs to improve his faceoff ability if he wants to be 1C. Last season he showed no improvement from the first half to the second half..

[Harold Drunken]

2 hours ago, kloubek said:

Yeah, I agree, Boeser has been pretty one-dimensional. I would argue, however, that his game is a bit more rounded than it once was - at least defensively. Even with that said though, I agree with you on most of your points - you'd expect more physicality from a relatively big guy, and he doesn't excel in many areas outside simply scoring. I still feel he is young enough to continue to improve his game though. I think we're going to see a better Boeser than last season.

I agree with this for sure. Before he was re-signed I felt he wasn't worth his QO unless he scores goals fairly consistently as he's not "great" defensively and doesn't kill penalties etc. He's a goal scorer with a great shot, if he's not scoring he's not exactly contributing much else. I'm glad he re-signed, the deal is fair and if he finds his consistency again could be a bargain...him making that deal and making it quickly shows he knows he had more to prove, I love it.

[Harold Drunken]

1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:

Apparently TOR really wanted to keep Mikheyev, but...money. That's what they get for throwing all of their cap at 5 guys. In fact, with TB, FLA and BOS already being tough division opponents, OTT, BUF and DET will have better teams this year as well. 

 

With the state of their goaltending and losing key players, the Leafs are going to miss the playoffs next year.

 

 

Canucks are in, is my guess. They got faster and grittier, and have world class goaltending. Bruce will get them there.

They haven't gotten any better, that's for sure. They are in tough against a stacked east....with two shaky goalies I don't see how they can be confident.

[Harold Drunken]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Honest question, what do you think it takes to be good defensively if you don't think Garland was good defensively? I'm confused as to how you wouldn't think he was good defensively. 

Garland is good defensively, he's been a minus player once in his NHL career, on a bad Coyotes team to boot. There isn't much evidence to suggest he isn't, he works hard and is relentless on the puck.  @N7Nucks

[cripplereh]

I think Ilya will work out great for us but we really should have traded Pearson first who is slow