Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Playoffs Approaching

[Canucker]

Our size/toughness on defense is great. In the bottom 6 it's pretty good.

Our size/toughness in our top-6 is ... not so much.

Last night it was Mikheyev-Miller-Boeser, Hoglander-Pettersson-Suter.

1 guy out of the 6 has both size and grit. Mikheyev is big but passive. Hoglander agitates but is tiny.

It isn't hits and fighting or whatever so much as much as they could just really use another strong, gritty two-way puck retrieval guy in either the Mikheyev or Suter spot in the lineup.

Early on in the season PDG was that guy on the Miller line...until his lack of offense began to stifle them. He might be worthy of another shot considering the lack of options, he does meet the gritty, puck retrieval criteria.

 

[theguardianII]

This makes no difference between the 2
Expecting a raise? I think Boston has balked at it and he may elect to put himself into a good situation closer to home vs the home run contract on a loser. You don't know this yet
same draft....i disagree this is a thing.

Crouse might be slightly better but when you consider that Crouse will cost a 1st plus roster player or B prospect vs a contract that should be decent if done properly then im just not seeing the benefit at all. Both are 3rd wheel top 6 players who provide the net presence grit and wall components not high skill IQ players who are production drivers

Signing DeBrusk to a 6 million dollar contract will cost the Canucks WHO? Off the Roster right now? They don't have enough cap space to keep the players on the team now for next year.

Can Vancouver out bid Calgary? They aren't done yet either but will have loads of cap space and now, draft assets to improve.

Crouse for Willander?. The team would still have a full roster of defencemen for the next 4 years to find another to fill in.

Crouse for a #20 to #28 pick in the draft, bring it on!!!! Crouse could be around for an other 5 years helping the team NOW.

One other aspect often over looked is the player's environment.
DeBrusk could be the result of playing with the best team in the league for most of his career whereas Crouse has had to carry more of the load an a really bad set of circumstances and team.

IMO way more upside for Crouse than Debrusk just in that he has had to play with less skilled players forcing him to become better.

 

[Bgav]

Trading a potential 30 goal scorer in Lekk on an elc is insane

 

[arttk]

you have to ask the question is Guentzel at X x Xyrs vs Boeser 1 x 6.65 or even Boeser at whatever he's asking is worth the small upgrade of an older player

You don’t plan for just 1 year though. That’s why I prefaced that convo with “if Boeser asks for like 7+ with term”. If we have to give term to either Guentzel or Boeser, who would be the better bet to not decline? I would think Guentzel even though he is older just because we know Boeser’s skating is not good and when he loses a step around age 30 that contract is going to suck.

Yeah I know Guentzel will cost more but if we can get him, then getting asset for Boeser will even things out.

 

[Nucker101]

This team only has like 3 or 4 players that I think you could even argue as soft I have no idea why toughness has been such a big talking point.

Pretty much every team's hfboard complains about their team being too soft. The game has just changed so a lot of fans think their favourite team is soft because they're all hitting/fighting less and getting into less scrums than they did 10 years ago. Also portion of this fanbase is probably terrified of a repeat of 2011, but even the more physicals series these days aren't as intense as that one was, plus thankfully Colin Campbell's son has now retired from the NHL.

 

[Wisp]

theguardianii would have traded Hoglander yesterday for, like, Ethan Bear.

 

[arttk]

I literally never compared the two. You called Guentzel a play driver which I disputed saying we don’t really have a ton evidence to say that is the case because he has played with Crosby his whole career. I also stated that he was a bad defensive player which watch him for 10 minutes and it’s pretty obvious. This whole discussion might be a moot point because I think he resigns in Carolina but who knows.

I don’t watch enough Guentzel so I honestly don’t know what his defense is like. But if he can put up like PPG in the playoffs and score 40 playing with Petey and we can use the asset we get from Boeser to get a linemate for Miller, then I think the extra offensive depth makes it worth it.

 

[HairyKneel]

On planet Ork maybe. Where players are immortal and never age.

What year did they draft these non players, Lettermaki, Willander, Podkolzin, Pettersson? Any of them helping now? Which are so good they can displace Soucy, Miller or Demko?

Here are other odd questions. What will YOU be doing in 5 to 7 years? How many funerals? Visits to hospitals? New jobs? Mates?
A lot of variables.

But in hockey there can be a plan to take into account variables.

You're right they will need youth but they won't have time to replace ALL the needs that way.

Pettersson is 26 yrs old, Miller 31 yrs old, Demko 28 yrs old, Boeser 29 yrs old, the majority of the team will be over 26 yr old next year. Seven years from now that makes them 33+ yrs old.

And then there is the matching contracts with teams that have more cap space especially over the next 4 years.

This IS a win now team. Age dictates that. They can't wait for 5 or 6 players to develop into stars or even NHL players as is happening now. Just who would Bains replace? Woo, Hirose or McWard? These players already have a few years of development going on. Which replaces Soucy, Cole or even Juulsen?

Boeser is not 29. Pettersson is not 26. So you clearly don’t watch the games given your takes in the GDT and feel the need to fudge the ages of players to back up your agenda. The rest of your post is a bunch of drivel.

 

[sting101]

Replace Suter with a 20 goal guy that is fast hard on pucks and strong enough to get to the net and knock a few D through the boards when on the forecheck and were looking really balanced.

With a hard cap teams almost always are balancing the 5-8 spots up front and need to make sure the balance they provide meets the balance and flexibility they need for the cap. The minute someone gets a top6 year with EP40 or Miller they are gonna be looking for a pay raise from their inflated stats. Something we have to keep contingency plans for and why Allvin didnt take the bait for 20-30 games of ok top6 guys past their primes

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Boeser is not 29. Pettersson is not 26. So you clearly don’t watch the games given your takes in the GDT and feel the need to fudge the ages of players to back up your agenda. The rest of your post is a bunch of drivel.

It's bizarre when posters get the age of the players wrong, in argument where they're using the age of the players to make their point.
Anyhow, I think your timeline of 5-7 years is a little too long, but we're still not a must win now or it's all over team.
I'd go with 3-5 years, or more precisely 4 years (including this year). Why? That's how long Hughes is on this sweetheart deal we have him on currently.
Demmer's deal is actually up a year earlier, Miller will be 33/34.
4 years is an eternity in the nhl anyway.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Not needed to temper unfocused fanaticism. Pretty much, "it's just one game" I don't point fingers at ONE particular player.

Next year bucko, I knew that was beyond your ability to grasp. This year's team is done. The year almost over but then thinking beyond the the next week is expecting alot from some fanatics. That or original thoughts as well. Highlight guys that really don't watch games so they just stamp their feet in denial.

You are right Boeser is 28 yrs old next season. I can admit an error, can you? Even one I baited just for you.

And I guess the other correction you missed was that Miller will be 32 yrs old next season.

Miller is the only important player whose age is even worth thinking about when planning the future of this team. Nobody's actually planning for anything 7 years out in the nhl are they? Cause that would be nuts.

 

[iceburg]

Mikheyev (4.75) Miller (8) Boeser (6.6)
Garland (4.95) Pettersson (11.6) Hoglander (1.1)
Joshua (2.7) Lindholm (6) Podkolzin (1.1)
PDG (.8) Suter (1.6) Bains (1.1)
Aman (.8)
(F total 50.8)

Hughes (7.7) Hronek (7)
Soucy (3.2) Tanev (3)
Zadorov (4) Juulsen (.8)
Brisebois (.8) Friedman (.8)
(D total 27.3)

Demko (5)
Silovs (1)
...

Deadcap: OEL (2.4)

Total 86.5M

LTIR: Poolman (2.5)

I'm hoping they can sign Joshua for under $3M. His injury kinda did the team a favour in that, if he had gotten to 20 goals, he would have been priced out. I'm a little hesitant about signing Lindholm but centre depth is so important and he is a very smart player even if his offense has dried up a bit. Ideally they could sign him for 5.5x3. But I'm guessing he will want $6M or north of that. They may have to use his money on a top 6 winger and plug one of the kids into the 3C or re-sign Blueger. That said, Blueger isn't an ideal 3C and he is too expensive for 4C. The above is a baseline as I see it.

I would be happy if they could use Suter's and Mikheyev's cap space to find a top 6 scoring winger. A 3C cheaper than Lindholm would then be ideal. I would also be thrilled if one of Raty or Sasson showed they were absolutely ready.

Then it would look like:

Guentzel (7) Miller (8) Boeser (6.6)
Garland/Podkolzin (4.95) Pettersson (11.6) Hoglander (1.1)
Joshua (2.7) New 3C (4) Podkolzin/Garland (1.1)
PDG (.8) Raty (.8) Bains (1.1)
Aman (.8)
(F total 50.6)

Hughes (7.7) Hronek (7)
Soucy (3.2) Tanev (3)
Zadorov (4) Juulsen (.8)
Brisebois (.8) Friedman (.8)
(D total 27.3)

Demko (5)
Silovs (1)
...

Deadcap: OEL (2.4)

Total 86.3M

LTIR: Poolman (2.5)

 

[David71]

Our size/toughness on defense is great. In the bottom 6 it's pretty good.

Our size/toughness in our top-6 is ... not so much.

Last night it was Mikheyev-Miller-Boeser, Hoglander-Pettersson-Suter.

1 guy out of the 6 has both size and grit. Mikheyev is big but passive. Hoglander agitates but is tiny.

It isn't hits and fighting or whatever so much as much as they could just really use another strong, gritty two-way puck retrieval guy in either the Mikheyev or Suter spot in the lineup.

sometimes you need those type of a gritty foward to come bang and crash the oppositions defense to make room and space. it could be the difference maker in a series or a complexion of a game. how many times do you see those types of hits resulted in those? could joshua be that guy when healthy to turn it up a notch or pdg? we dont know. but it would have been nice to have one.

 

[HairyKneel]

It's bizarre when posters get the age of the players wrong, in argument where there using the age of the players to make their point.
Anyhow, I think your timeline of 5-7 years is a little too long, but we're still not a must win now or it's all over team.
I'd go with 3-5 years, or more precisely 4 years (including this year). Why? That's how long Hughes is on this sweetheart deal we have him on currently.
Demmer's deal is actually up a year earlier, Miller will be 33/34.
4 years is an eternity in the nhl anyway.

Yeah 3 to 5 years works for me too. This notion that’s it’s a win now team is asinine. And the main point behind the diaper crew trying to ram this one year window down people’s throats is the increase in the OEL penalty. Like no other teams have ever had bad contracts or dead cap space.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is just debate-lord stuff though.

And leaning entirely too hard on 'advanced stats'.

Like this would be a credible argument on the hockey history board if we were using stats to figure out which of these players was better in 1932 without much or any video evidence.

But if you know hockey, just watch both players.

Now, Stone's injuries probably mean that on the whole Guentzel will be better moving forward. But based on the time of the Stone trade versus now?

It's not remotely close. I would wager that there isn't a person who gets a paycheque from an NHL team who thinks that Guentzel now is in the same class as Stone was when he was traded.

I like Guentzel and he's a really nice piece, but Stone impacts the game in all three zones in a way that Guentzel just doesn't.

I sort of think of Guentzel a bit like a Kyle Connor without the dynamic speed. A guy who is fantastic at putting the biscuit in the basket and has great hockey sense, but isn't remotely above average on his own side of center.

It's hard to combat belief based posting with logic/rationality.

If they're both elite, they're in the same class. And Guentzel doesn't need to be better than Stone specifically to be within that same class.

The impact of adding an elite winger to this team is well over and above adding two mid-tier players. It's not close. This is why scoffing at adding Guentzel is preposterous. The comparison to Stone is besides the point.

Anyway, I'm almost certain they'll go after him this offseason. It's the obvious move.

 

[sting101]

Signing DeBrusk to a 6 million dollar contract will cost the Canucks WHO? Off the Roster right now? They don't have enough cap space to keep the players on the team now for next year.

Can Vancouver out bid Calgary? They aren't done yet either but will have loads of cap space and now, draft assets to improve.

Crouse for Willander?. The team would still have a full roster of defencemen for the next 4 years to find another to fill in.

Crouse for a #20 to #28 pick in the draft, bring it on!!!! Crouse could be around for an other 5 years helping the team NOW.

One other aspect often over looked is the player's environment.
DeBrusk could be the result of playing with the best team in the league for most of his career whereas Crouse has had to carry more of the load an a really bad set of circumstances and team.

IMO way more upside for Crouse than Debrusk just in that he has had to play with less skilled players forcing him to become better.

Not paying DeBrusk 6 million so the assumption would be your getting him on a fair contract. The Barbashev deal is what i would be giving him

 

[theguardianII]

Miller is the only important player whose age is even worth thinking about when planning the future of this team. Nobody's actually planning for anything 7 years out in the nhl are they? Cause that would be nuts.

I think you may be wrong, maybe.
When GM's start trading away the future, picks or prospects I am pretty sure they evaluate their team not only in skill but age and when some players will need to be replaced.

Every 8 year contract is a form of thinking 7 years out.

There are many who do just that. Think back to Benning when he would be saying "we thought the cap ...." od "who planned on a flat cap.."

Teams like Detroit 20+ years of playoffs, StLouis ditto, the old Canadiens 25+ cups Pittsburgh lots of teams do it but they don't want fans thinking that far out.

Did fans in Vancouver not scream about trying to retool way back in 2012/2013?
Knowing full well there were no replacements for the Sedins.

Right now might be a little premature but who are the replacements for Pettersson, Demko, Miller or Hughes? Where are they?

Building a "win now" team is all about what will be here in 4 to 5 years. Use those year's future to bolster the current roster.

Vegas is a team that will simply buy it's was to winning. They operate it seems outside of the good old boys network.

They created a core and then just keep adding to it.
They are pretty much set for the next 5 years rotating around certain positions.

 

[Jerry the great]

Our size/toughness on defense is great. In the bottom 6 it's pretty good.

Our size/toughness in our top-6 is ... not so much.

Last night it was Mikheyev-Miller-Boeser, Hoglander-Pettersson-Suter.

1 guy out of the 6 has both size and grit. Mikheyev is big but passive. Hoglander agitates but is tiny.

It isn't hits and fighting or whatever so much as much as they could just really use another strong, gritty two-way puck retrieval guy in either the Mikheyev or Suter spot in the lineup.

Makes the re-signing of Joshua a top priority IMO, because he's a guy that can potentially play up and down the lineup. Not sure I'd want to try this before he was extended, but Pettersson between Garland and Joshua might be interesting. Only guy in the UFA crop would be deBrusk and i'd be surprised in Boston didn't re-sign him.

Re Hoglander, he plays bigger than his size and wins a lot more 1v1s than he loses because he's built like a tank and has kind of freakish balance.

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

I feel Suter is relatively gritty. But not overly imposing.

Has there been any news on Demko today?

 

[mriswith]

The window is the Hughes contract, for now.

It's a cap league. The current roster would cost ~13-15 mil more next season just for the exact same players. Dump the right ones and you don't lose 13-15 mil of cap efficiency, sign the right ones too and maybe you don't miss a step but there's no question that it's a lot harder to stay this good next year. That's why I was happy to see mgmt trade a good chunk of futures to compete this year, you have to take advantage of good years like this while they're here.

Some posters act like it's a given that we're always going to improve. Maybe we will because our mgmt is actually good now and there's still some waste (Myers) on the roster, but it won't be easy.

 

[Diversification]

Our size/toughness on defense is great. In the bottom 6 it's pretty good.

Our size/toughness in our top-6 is ... not so much.

Last night it was Mikheyev-Miller-Boeser, Hoglander-Pettersson-Suter.

1 guy out of the 6 has both size and grit. Mikheyev is big but passive. Hoglander agitates but is tiny.

It isn't hits and fighting or whatever so much as much as they could just really use another strong, gritty two-way puck retrieval guy in either the Mikheyev or Suter spot in the lineup.

This describes the toughness distribution of just about every team in the league. Top 6 forwards (those that can produce offense with consistency) with snarl are the exception, not the rule. I would also add that among top 6 forwards, JT Miller would be considered ‘tough’.

 

[sting101]

You don’t plan for just 1 year though. That’s why I prefaced that convo with “if Boeser asks for like 7+ with term”. If we have to give term to either Guentzel or Boeser, who would be the better bet to not decline? I would think Guentzel even though he is older just because we know Boeser’s skating is not good and when he loses a step around age 30 that contract is going to suck.

Yeah I know Guentzel will cost more but if we can get him, then getting asset for Boeser will even things out.

Guentzel easily could get a deal over 10 million for up to 7-8yrs. have to be cognizant of the fact he's been blessed with playing along side of Crosby Malkin Letang all these yrs.

He is a top line talent but what impact does he provide over and above Boeser and he would start his tenure as a Canuck at 30......your giving him the horrendous Huberdeau legacy contract. He might be better for awhile but your aging your team 3yrs for a limited uptick and pushing the window into a shorter one. Will be interesting to see how they both do going into his free agency.

BB6 has been really good in some of these heavier games he gets so disrespected here

Guentzel. 50 22 30 52
Boeser.... 66 35 29 64

 

[Jerry the great]

I feel Suter is relatively gritty. But not overly imposing.

Has there been any news on Demko today?

blueger too. they don't shy away from anything.

 

[mriswith]

I wouldn't sign Boeser or Guentzel to UFA deals. Guentzel because he's 30 to start next season and he's getting a max term deal. Boeser because his fatal flaw is conditioning and giving a fat UFA contract with term to someone who struggles with their personal fitness is a potential disaster.

I'd trade Boeser this summer to free up room and assets for other moves. He's good value right now but I already know I wouldn't extend him and that makes him too much of a luxury with all of our other priorities.

 

[Hodgy]

Your base statement that Stone is a "way better player" remains undefined. And I didn't define "Mark Stone level event"... I think we'll talk past each other again without resolution, but let's give it a go:

So there are two issues at play.

1. You stated that “Getting him [Guentzel] would be a Mark Stone level event.”

2. I said Mark Stone was a way better player than Guentzel when acquired.

On the first issue, you should simply concede. There is no world where acquiring Guentzel, who would play his first game as a Canuck at 30, is on the same level of Vegas acquiring Stone, at the age of 26, even if one thought Stone and Guentzel were equal in terms of quality. And the two aren’t equal. Stone is very obviously the better player, and the debate is really by how much. But anyway, we don’t need to talk past each other on this. You just need to concede you are wrong and we can move on.

On the second issue, I agree there is ambiguity in what it means to be “way better”. In my mind, if one player is in a different tier than the other, than that player is “way better”. Stone is most certainly in a different tier, and none of what you have said has challenged this. You can’t claim, with any credibility, that one winger that scores as much as the other, but drives his own line and is a multiple Selke nominee winner, is in the same tier as the other winger. It’s ridiculous. And again, we are ignoring the relatively significant age difference.

1. While Stone has garnered Selke consideration, his actual SAT% Rel counts vary year to year. Sometimes they dip into the negatives. He is a better play driver than Guentzel overall, but not by the degree his reputation would suggest. For instance, Guentzel is way better this year (5.4 to 0.8).

Stone is 31. Why are you comparing this year? Are you really going to argue Guentzel is in the same tier defensively? Or that he is a primary play driver on his line while usually playing with Crosby?

2. Guentzel has also been the better scorer and producer over his career. If we account for pace, Stone is at three 30 goal seasons (though he has never hit the mark) and Guentzel is a five time 30 goal scorer (hitting that mark 3 times (40 goals twice)). Guentzel's 5 year running PPG is also better at 1.03 to 0.96.

They basically score at the same rate, and the ppg difference is negligible. Guentzel definitely has the edge in goal scoring, but that’s more than likely explained by the fact that he’s played with a generational talent and a player that will go down in nhl history as one of the all time greats.

Mark Stone would score more with Crosby and would probably score a similar number of goals and a much higher ppg. Sure, it’s speculation, but it’s grounded in reason.

3. Stone has never played with a generational talent on his line. Moot point.

I don’t know why it’s moot. It’s anything but moot and a huge part of this argument.

4. There is a difference in acquiring a 2-3 year older elite winger via FA than there is in trading for a 2-3 younger elite winger with assets, yes. Both are elite though, which is the point of the statement. Would you have batted an eye if I had said "Panarin level event"?

if you can pay a first and a good prospect for a Stone like player, at age 26, with a contract in place that is very reasonable, that is way better than signing an inferior and much older player to a higher cap hit contract. It’s not even close.

I know you will continue to try to “win” this debate, but I really do think you should concede, because Guentzel just isn’t a comparable player to Stone, and their acquisitions wouldn’t be comparable level events.