[Rumour] John Klingberg waiting on Canucks to make a move

[MadSkillz]

4 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

Let’s just ignore the fact they beaten a team that made the playoff a grand total of 13 times in 5 months in the 32 games against playoff teams since Bruce took over. 
 

sure the canucks will probably end up being a playoff team if they continue to beat up on the non playoff teams. But doesn’t mean much if u get bounced in the 1st. 

I believe many would be more happy to see them lose in the 1st round then not make the playoffs at all.  You’ll be surprise how much 1 round of playoff experience will do for the future of this franchise.

Edited July 27, 2022 by MadSkillz

[RWJC]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

He had what - ten more even strength points the Myers?  If Allvin picks him up

im not going to be impressed.   You guys pick on Myers D coverage, can't wait to see what you do once this guy comes in. 

Yup. Putting up points from the back end is great when you have a well balanced group who can be relied upon in your own end.
We don’t have that (yet).
 

Last thing we need is an older, one dimensional “specialist” who will chew up some major salary (and term) that could be better spent on younger players/cap flexibility.

 

We already have Boner at 850K!!!

let’s give that a chance first, shall we?

 

 

[kloubek]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

Playing defence by forcing the other team to defend.  That's how Pittsburgh won under Sullivan in 2016.

 

Rutherford had fired Johnston to replace him with Sullivan that season.  He also blamed himself for not having brought in enough puck moving Ds - he went on to trade for Daley and Schultz.  Pittsburgh won vs SJS in the finals that year.  They defended as high as possible with SJS hardly able to get out of their own zone.  

 

Boudreau wants to defend as high as possible - he says why spend time in your own zone when you don't have to.  He also said that at the top of his wish list was a puck moving D.

Yeah, I get the concept of defense through superior offense. And it's entirely a thing. If your team is in transition or the o-zone the whole time, you don't have to worry about how good your D is. However, that isn't reality. Though a team can tip the scales in their favour depending on their offensive skill/depth (and we have more of it than last year)  the other team will *always* get quality entry and scoring chances. I don't think I've ever seen a team so overwhelming on offense that they don't allow any chances at all. And if you have not one defenseman who can successfully defend an opposing rush, then you're going to get scored on a lot more than you'd like. Schenn would become our best defensive defenseman, I suppose, and that's just a scary thought given his lack of foot speed.

 

But again, it isn't really ONLY the fact we would be getting rid of our best defensive defenseman, but also all the other elements I mentioned of length of contract, age, etc. I just don't personally see it as a good fit. If we had a defensive defenseman already in place then I probably wouldn't be scrutinizing this quite as much.

[Sharpshooter]

47 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Yup. Putting up points from the back end is great when you have a well balanced group who can be relied upon in your own end.
We don’t have that (yet).
 

Last thing we need is an older, one dimensional “specialist” who will chew up some major salary (and term) that could be better spent on younger players/cap flexibility.

 

We already have Boner at 850K!!!

let’s give that a chance first, shall we?

 

 

[Mustard Tiger]

So we actually did ourselves a favor by not moving cap out or we would have went after him. Sounds like we took the W there.

 

Also sounds like his agent advised JK to not take the big Dallas deal as he can make more in UFA... Ended up being big time wrong apparently 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said:

So we actually did ourselves a favor by not moving cap out or we would have went after him. Sounds like we took the W there.

 

Also sounds like his agent advised JK to not take the big Dallas deal as he can make more in UFA... Ended up being big time wrong apparently 

Haha..exactly! See @HKSR an example of when it's better to have NOT made a move.

[Mustard Tiger]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Haha..exactly! See @HKSR an example of when it's better to have NOT made a move.

JR called it man! He preaches patience while everyone else is acting like a wacky inflatable tube man. Turns out JR knew what the play was all along. In 2 / 3 years we aquire the klingbergs / Miller's of that time as we ascend with our young core 

[HKSR]

44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Haha..exactly! See @HKSR an example of when it's better to have NOT made a move.

So... better that we hang onto Miller? 

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I'd be fine trading with the player return but if management retains any salary the entire group needs to be fired on the spot.

So what your saying is CAL should trade Myers straight across for Tanev?   I'd be cool with them retaining on Myers to make this work.   But get that would bug people. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

So what your saying is CAL should trade Myers straight across for Tanev?   I'd be cool with them retaining on Myers to make this work.   But get that would bug people. 

Who retains?  “Them”?  Them, as in Calgary?  We are us, no?  Them would be the Cowpies, right?

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, HKSR said:

So... better that we hang onto Miller? 

No, the better "not' move there is not signing him to a $9x7 extension. You not see the latest tweet today? 

[TmanVan]

2 hours ago, RWJC said:

Yup. Putting up points from the back end is great when you have a well balanced group who can be relied upon in your own end.
We don’t have that (yet).
 

Last thing we need is an older, one dimensional “specialist” who will chew up some major salary (and term) that could be better spent on younger players/cap flexibility.

 

We already have Boner at 850K!!!

let’s give that a chance first, shall we?

 

 

Cant wait to see How Jackoff RathBoner rises to the occasion. 

[King Heffy]

14 minutes ago, IBatch said:

So what your saying is CAL should trade Myers straight across for Tanev?   I'd be cool with them retaining on Myers to make this work.   But get that would bug people. 

I'd be fine with adding a sweetener on our end.  Retaining salary of any kind longer than one season is completely unacceptable under any circumstances though.

[HKSR]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

No, the better "not' move there is not signing him to a $9x7 extension. You not see the latest tweet today? 

Nah haven't been on here regularly enough lately.  Too busy at work.  What was the tweet?

[wai_lai416]

4 hours ago, MadSkillz said:

I believe many would be more happy to see them lose in the 1st round then not make the playoffs at all.  You’ll be surprise how much 1 round of playoff experience will do for the future of this franchise.

If it was a competitive 1st round sure. But if it’s a sweep? Not sure what that does. In terms of playoff experience they have 3 rounds worth with the playin. They need competitive experience not go in and get blown out by the likes of Colorado with a burned out goalie. Demko ran out of steam at the start of march last season his goals against was like over 3 and barely .900 in sv percentage the rest of the way

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Nah haven't been on here regularly enough lately.  Too busy at work.  What was the tweet?

 

 

 

[JM_]

5 hours ago, mll said:

 

Playing defence by forcing the other team to defend.  That's how Pittsburgh won under Sullivan in 2016.

 

Rutherford had fired Johnston to replace him with Sullivan that season.  He also blamed himself for not having brought in enough puck moving Ds - he went on to trade for Daley and Schultz.  Pittsburgh won vs SJS in the finals that year.  They defended as high as possible with SJS hardly able to get out of their own zone.  

 

Boudreau wants to defend as high as possible - he says why spend time in your own zone when you don't have to.  He also said that at the top of his wish list was a puck moving D.

 

Klingberg is also solid in transition.

 

 

I wonder if he'd come down a bit to something like 5.5 x 6? If he did that we should be able to move Garland, even if its for future considerations to make the cap space. 

 

 

 

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, Alflives said:

Who retains?  “Them”?  Them, as in Calgary?  We are us, no?  Them would be the Cowpies, right?

No them as in Allvin ...

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, mll said:

Rutherford was just on the McCown/Shannon podcast.  

 

Admits that they've done less than they had hoped but need partners to make a trade.   Says it's going to take longer to address the defence than they would have liked.  

 

He was specifically asked about Klingberg with McCown saying 'he looks to be a perfect fit for what you need'.  Rutherford answers that they were not in position to go after a player like that.  Says adding a right shot D would be ideal right now.  Says their D is good enough to win but there are question marks there.  Rathbone deserves an opportunity but is a young player.  

 

The big question mark is Poolman.  Says when he's playing he is a good solid D who can actually play in their top-4 but there are question marks around his health.  Says if everyone is healthy, the team is good enough to be a playoff team, but if something goes wrong on the D, which they know could happen, that's going to be an issue.  Says they have to rebuild that right side and get younger over time. 

 

All of those things seem perfectly reasonable.    Nice to read things like that. thanks for posting. 

[The Colt 45s]

Want to change D dynamics: too bad Tryamkin cannot come back, then we move Myers and add Klingberg.  Our D would have some serious bite to it and maybe make better decisions with and without the puck.