I love Stecher but there's a reason why he's been on four different teams in two years.
I'd easily take Bear at $2.5M over Stecher at $1M... no doubt about it.
Younger, heavier, and simply better.
Canucks News, Rumours, & Fantasy GM | Part 2
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
I'd easily take Bear at $2.5M over Stecher at $1M... no doubt about it.
Younger, heavier, and simply better.
Baby Pettersson
Moderator
I'd rather sign Schenn with the Bear money but that's just me.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,560
- 16,517
You would have to wonder how much more he has left in the tank..
I’d take him back as a 3rd pairing D man…I wouldn’t be penciling him playing top 4 minutes moving forward though.
- Jun 25, 2007
- 2,543
- 2,828
I'd be very disturbed if the Canucks are even rumoured to be interested in bringing Schenn back let alone actually signing him for more than league minimum. Character guy but clearly on his last legs.
I think we have better options currently for the Schenn role (3rd pairing RD). I'm not certain we have better options for the Bear role (flexible RD, with limited top 4 potential). I'm unconvinced that either is our best bet going forward, but Bear seems like a more important signing, with the proviso that he gets a reasonable contract. If not, I don't think Schenn is the next one up. And I really liked Schenn.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 22,551
- 19,201
I don't like the Hughes-Bear pairing, to me Bear isn't a great complement for Hughes since he's prone to gaffes with giveaways or misreads in the d-zone. Since the team doesn't have a stud to pair with Hughes, you just want someone steady next to Hughes since that's the next best fit.
If Bear gets re-signed, it needs to be in line with a #5 d-man salary. I don't think he's a solution in the top 4.
I do think Bear is a solid 3rd pairing dman.
If Bear gets re-signed, it needs to be in line with a #5 d-man salary. I don't think he's a solution in the top 4.
I do think Bear is a solid 3rd pairing dman.
Last edited:
Getting Schenn's slow ass off the team is part of why the team went on a run post trade deadline.
m9
m9
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,230
Yup. Hughes and Bear obviously aren't the same player but they do make the same mistakes in the neutral/defensive zones.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 19,384
- 20,423
Schenn can't be an option here if we're serious about becoming a competitive team and neither can Bear be an option as Hughes partner on the 1st pairing. *IF* we get rid of Myers and add Gavrikov that gives us a very solid 2nd pairing with Gavrikov and Hronek. I would rather trade a Garland and use his salary and the money saved on Bear to bring in someone that is actually complementary for Hughes. He doesn't have to be a #2 so to speak, but someone that is the right fit for a Hughes... solid defensively, etc. Doesn't need to put up 60 points.... needs to allow Hughes to focus on driving the play. If we can keep Bear at 2.5m I would be ok with that.
I've been satisfied with Rathbone and Juulsen that I think at least one of them could make the team next year and we could add another bottom pairing guy to round out the core.
Hughes -
Gavrikov - Hronek
Rathbone - Beare
Wolanin - Juulsen
I've been satisfied with Rathbone and Juulsen that I think at least one of them could make the team next year and we could add another bottom pairing guy to round out the core.
Hughes -
Gavrikov - Hronek
Rathbone - Beare
Wolanin - Juulsen
SelltheTeamFrancesco
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2015
- 4,951
- 5,445
Baby Pettersson
Moderator
Know who would be the perfect partner for Hughes?
Tanev.
Can only imagine how good that pairing would be.
Tanev.
Can only imagine how good that pairing would be.
SelltheTeamFrancesco
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2015
- 4,951
- 5,445
Radko Gudas and Scott Mayfield on reasonable contracts would be good short-term fits. Especially if they don't resign Bear.
Peter Griffin
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2003
- 35,781
- 8,718
Nashville is a team I’d look at for a potential young center. They’ve got Cody Glass, Jusso Parssinen and Tommy Novak, who’s been on absolute tear this year, as 25 or younger centers the would be huge upgrades over Dries. Nashville also have Johansen and Sissons signed longterm so I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of this group moved this offseason.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 18,226
- 24,461
Maybe Calgary will implode and we can bring him home. But I really wonder if Vancouver is on his no trade list, maybe not after the management change.
Can't see them moving any of those guys.
Johansen sucks and is going to expire soon.
Sissons is a bottom six C so he's not really blocking anyone.
Why would they trade any of Glass, Parssinen or Novak? They literally just acquired Glass last year and he's been developing well. Parssinen and Novak are young cheap centers and we have nothing to really offer.
Diamonddog01
Diamond in the rough
Mayfield sure (like 2 or 3 years) but not Gudas. Mayfield coming here on a reasonable short-term deal is extremely unrealistic though. Still like Carlo and perhaps he could be pried loose with the upcoming Bruins cap crunch?
In regards to Bear, I’d be ok with him returning at 2.5 max. Another factor to this is that if OEL is on the third pairing next season do we really want a 10m bottom pairing?
All of those guys play about a 1:30 mins a game more than Bear.
I don't know what Bear is worth in Arb, but if you are using mins/game he is definitely not on their level.
I know it does depend on what age a contract is signed for as well, not sure who of those guys matches there.
I don't know Arb well enough at all to say where he should end up.
me2
Go ahead foot
credulous
Registered User
- Nov 18, 2021
- 4,419
- 6,005
walman is 27, cernak is 26, anderson is 23, siegenthaler is 24, ristolainen is 28
if you don't like those comparables there's also zub (26, 4.6m, less minutes and points than bear), fabbro (24, 2.5m, less minutes and points than bear), samuelsson (23, ~4.3m, more minutes but less points than bear), nic hague (23, ~2.2m, less minutes and points than bear), jacob middleton (26, 2.45m, more minutes but less points than bear)
all those deals were signed post trade deadline 2022 so they're all recent
the only "good" comparables for bear from a canucks perspective are middleton and hague and neither have nearly the nhl track record bear has. middleton only had a single nhl season under his belt and hague was a 6th/7th dman when he signed his contract
apparently dhaliwall reported today bear is looking for high 3s for anything other than a one year deal. i think that's right in line with what he can expect in arb
Peter Griffin
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2003
- 35,781
- 8,718
To improve in other areas? It’s not like I’m saying they’d dump any of them. I also included Sissons and Johansen as players they could move although those two, especially Johansen, aren’t very interesting.
I would simply walk away from Bear. That is a bad contract waiting to happen.
I'm not content with him as a bottom pairing guy by his playstyle and how loose he is with the puck and he's flat not good enough as a top 4.
He makes a lot of slick plays but we don't need defensemen with peaks and valleys in their game. Hughes and Hronek will provide more than enough firepower from the back end - there is no reason to accept poor inconsistent defense from the other players.
I'm not content with him as a bottom pairing guy by his playstyle and how loose he is with the puck and he's flat not good enough as a top 4.
He makes a lot of slick plays but we don't need defensemen with peaks and valleys in their game. Hughes and Hronek will provide more than enough firepower from the back end - there is no reason to accept poor inconsistent defense from the other players.
- Status
