[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Montreal Canadiens | Nov. 09, 2022

[Taphouse Canuck]

Well that's the two easy games over with on this road trip, now it gets harder.

 

I believe we can live with the Leaves as they have weaknesses too, and I hope the guys don't embarrass themselves on HNIC. However the second part of the back-to-back on Sunday could become a goalfest (not for us) if we don't start to string together some simple passes and stop giving the puck away. 

 

So far the only W's we've got are against loser teams, so I'm not hopeful of coming back from the trip with more than 4 points 

[Gawdzukes]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't think boeser is as unrealistic ad we think.  He's only got two more years after this and he still puts up points.  

I hope so. I think that's one guy management would be willing to trade anyway. If there is a buyer great.

[vancan2233]

20 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol there were plenty before hughes signed were saying to trade hughes.. rathbone can replace him

Not completely that simple! Some where stating that Rathbone was a similar player, and the Canucks could not have two small players on defence. Some where stating there had to be a trade of one of them. Some chose Huges, because the return would be huge. 

[wai_lai416]

4 minutes ago, vancan2233 said:

Not completely that simple! Some where stating that Rathbone was a similar player, and the Canucks could not have two small players on defence. Some where stating there had to be a trade of one of them. Some chose Huges, because the return would be huge. 

lol no man they were calling rathbone going to be just good as hughes.. so you trade ur 1st pairing defenceman and replace him with a 3rd/4th pairing defenceman just because they are similar player?

[Alflives]

18 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

I hope so. I think that's one guy management would be willing to trade anyway. If there is a buyer great.

Boeser for Dumbo?  

[Jaimito]

As poor as they have played so far, all is forgiven if they beat the Leafs In Toronto on HNIC.

 

 

[Coconuts]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/whats-the-canucks-biggest-problem-maybe-its-the-players/

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Jaimito said:

As poor as they have played so far, all is forgiven if they beat the Leafs In Toronto on HNIC.

 

 

Sadly we have zero chance of beating the LOSER LEAFS with Demko not being Double Bubble Boy good.

[Nucker 67]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Sadly we have zero chance of beating the LOSER LEAFS with Demko not being Double Bubble Boy good.

The tough, but IMO right, decision would be to start Martin, but I'm not sure Boudreau would do that against the Leafs on prime time. The Leafs media would eat that up "Demko Gets Benched!"

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, vancan2233 said:

Garland is in his prime at a very good cap hit. He will be helping this team win for another 6 years. You bulid around that. He is not redundant, that is a nonsense. 

Precisely why he has trade value.

 

He is redundant. He's a more developed version of what Hoglander is. Precisely why they keep rotating in and out of the press box. They're very similar players, of similar statures, with similar roles. Sounds pretty redundant.

 

6 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

Garlands not old. He hasnt even hit his prime.  

You need experience and veterans on your team even if you are trying to rebuild.  

No rebuild team went through he process without veteran guys. 

I didn't say he was old, I said he was older (than Hoglander). And again, nobody is suggesting no vets.

 

6 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

We tried the old method of bringing in vets to insulate the youth and it failed miserably (beagle, roussel, Sutter etc) 

I would rather keep Garland and make the rest of the team (the young guys) accountable to play as hard as Garland every night and if they don't, they either sit or get traded. 

 

Look at Podz. He regressed this year. The stink of the vets have rubbed off on him. We need to get the old hungry Podz back. 

 

Just throwing in vets isn't the answer. We need vets that play the right way. That's guys like Schenn and Garland. 

 

Hate to break it to you but Garland is a "vet" we brought in. He's a heck of a lot closer to Sutter et al than what I'm talking about doing. And we quite frankly could use a "Sutter" right now. Far more than we need Hoglander AND Garland.

[D-Money]

12 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

We dont have a centre pool deep enough to trade horvat.   Miller isnt a centre.  You want Aman thrown into your 2 spot? 

Conversely, do you want to be paying Miller and Horvat over $15M combined well into their late 30s?

 

Especially considering, at their absolute peak, the team around isn't good enough to win anything? And that's not going to get better with age.

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by D-Money

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Conversely, do you want to be paying Miller and Horvat $15M combined well into their late 30s?

 

Especially considering, at their absolute peak, the team around isn't good enough to win anything? And that's not going to get better with age.

 

 

I wonder if JR expresses this exact question to our owner?  

Edited November 11, 2022 by Alflives

[stawns]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Precisely why he has trade value.

 

He is redundant. He's a more developed version of what Hoglander is. Precisely why they keep rotating in and out of the press box. They're very similar players, of similar statures, with similar roles. Sounds pretty redundant.

 

I didn't say he was old, I said he was older (than Hoglander). And again, nobody is suggesting no vets.

 

Hate to break it to you but Garland is a "vet" we brought in. He's a heck of a lot closer to Sutter et al than what I'm talking about doing. And we quite frankly could use a "Sutter" right now. Far more than we need Hoglander AND Garland.

To me, Garland is a guy you keep because he drives the play and makes players around him better.  He and Hoglander might play a similar game, bit Hogz will likely never get close to Garlands level.  He's fairly paid, cost controlled and to replace him would cost more than they're paying him now, imo.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

To me, Garland is a guy you keep because he drives the play and makes players around him better.  He and Hoglander might play a similar game, bit Hogz will likely never get close to Garlands level.  He's fairly paid, cost controlled and to replace him would cost more than they're paying him now, imo.

Garland is a good little player, but he is for sure a guy to go.  

[ilduce39]

Boy I had my chuckles and thought it was funny that we brought back Miller.  
 

I was on the “trade him” train though and it sure looks like that was the right call. 

 

If he can figure out how to play C without being a train wreck again I’ll change my tune but geez not sure we needed Winger Miller over Horvat or whatever else we could spend that money on. 

[wai_lai416]

9 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Conversely, do you want to be paying Miller and Horvat over $15M combined well into their late 30s?

 

Especially considering, at their absolute peak, the team around isn't good enough to win anything? And that's not going to get better with age.

 

horvat will be mid 30s.. hardly late 30s

[Jaimito]

23 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sadly we have zero chance of beating the LOSER LEAFS with Demko not being Double Bubble Boy good.

Martin is starting.  He's from ON. Guaranteed pt night. 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Jaimito]

21 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

The tough, but IMO right, decision would be to start Martin, but I'm not sure Boudreau would do that against the Leafs on prime time. The Leafs media would eat that up "Demko Gets Benched!"

Demko played in Boston College days. He would want to play v Bruins. 

 

Bruce doesn't care anymore. He's already thown under bus and won't be here next season. He's coaching to win.  Maybe he will last a few more games or just this season.  I doubt he cares about anything other than to win. So he will put in who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win. 

Martin is 7/8 pts. Demko is 4/20 or something that bad. 

[vancan2233]

24 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol no man they were calling rathbone going to be just good as hughes.. so you trade ur 1st pairing defenceman and replace him with a 3rd/4th pairing defenceman just because they are similar player?

How many where saying that two? The main agruement was having two small defenders with similar traits and if Rathbone did show will (not better than Huges) one had to be traded. Some chose Huges not because they saw Rathbone being just as good or better. They were stating if Rathbone could produce and move the puck then having him at a lower cap hit and trading Huges would give us a huge return of assets.  The idea was getting a high first round draft pick plus good propects for Huges. With the draft pick the thought was picking a defenceman like Seider. I was never for this line of reasoning but there was not many saying Rathbone was going to be as good as Huge. It just seemed like that because the few argued it as much as they could.