HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Trade Confirmed: Ryan Shannon to Ottawa for Lawrence Nycholat [confirmed]

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2008, 11:32 PM
  #101
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Or he wants to shore up the Moose, clear out space for his young forwards on the Moose, and he also understands that the Canucks' defense group is likely to have injuries again this season.
Could be a possibility as well. Is Ellington expected to play for the Moose next season? It just seems like the Moose have A LOT of defensive depth at the moment, combined with the depth the Canucks have.

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2008, 11:36 PM
  #102
SedinFan*
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SedinFan*
Could this be a precurser for a bigger move? The Canucks now have, off the top of my head;

Ohlund
Bieksa
Salo
Krajicek
Mitchell
Edler
Baumgartner
Davison
McIver
Nycholat

Defensemen in their system.

That's 10 deep in my opinion of guys who can log NHL minutes. Clearly Gillis is covering his (insert word here) if Sundin doesn't come to Vancouver. A solid move simply because of that. In my opinion, Rob Davison is a top 6 dman and shouldn't be on the outside looking in, so whomever goes from the Canucks, they have the depth in order to recover.

SedinFan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2008, 11:43 PM
  #103
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker View Post
In my opinion, Rob Davison is a top 6 dman and shouldn't be on the outside looking in, so whomever goes from the Canucks, they have the depth in order to recover.
This is a good point and I think he's often overlooked. Dowm the stretch he was consistently playing 20 min/game for the Isles and by most accounts, didn't look too out of place. Now I don't expect him to log that type of ice-time for the Canucks but I could see him being a solid 5th/6th guy that can play 14/15 min/game and provide a tough, physical presence while being a reliable stay-at-home guy. Could make a Bieksa move more palatable.

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2008, 11:59 PM
  #104
Knucklez
Registered User
 
Knucklez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Behind the bench!
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
No more shootout spin-o-rama's.

Knucklez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 12:15 AM
  #105
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,493
vCash: 500
So let's see; on the farm, we now have...

Ohlund
Salo
Mitchell
Bieksa
Krajicek
Edler
Davison
Baumgartner
Nycholat
Fortunus
McIver
Heshka
FitzGerald
Rahimi
Sharrow
Ellington

That's a huge amount of defensive depth. Not that I'm complaining given how badly injured our D was at most times this season, but wow. Ellington will probably be back in the Dub for another year, and guys like Rahimi/FitzGerald/Sharrow could be in a dogfight not to be in the ECHL barring any further trades...

~Canucklehead~

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 12:22 AM
  #106
eklunds source
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 7,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker View Post
In my opinion, Rob Davison is a top 6 dman and shouldn't be on the outside looking in....

He's averaged 39 games a year for the last 5 seasons. It's not because he was injured. I think he was a good acquisition but a solid spot on the top 6? Maybe if Hordichuk isn't dressed.

eklunds source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 12:31 AM
  #107
KDizzle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Japan
Posts: 8,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
He's averaged 39 games a year for the last 5 seasons. It's not because he was injured. I think he was a good acquisition but a solid spot on the top 6? Maybe if Hordichuk isn't dressed.
Hordichuk? I'm confused.

Unless you're referring to the fact that Davison can play both on the D and as a bottom 6 forward?

KDizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 12:42 AM
  #108
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDizzle View Post
Unless you're referring to the fact that Davison can play both on the D and as a bottom 6 forward?
I'd dress an extra defenseman (Davison) if Hordichuk's "skills" aren't required against a particular team. Even if he only play 5 to 10 minutes - it gives some of our injury-prone vets some important shifts off (keeping them "fresher" for the "home stretch").

Barney Gumble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 12:56 AM
  #109
SedinFan*
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SedinFan*
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
He's averaged 39 games a year for the last 5 seasons. It's not because he was injured. I think he was a good acquisition but a solid spot on the top 6? Maybe if Hordichuk isn't dressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
He's averaged 39 games a year for the last 5 seasons. It's not because he was injured. I think he was a good acquisition but a solid spot on the top 6? Maybe if Hordichuk isn't dressed.
In 2006-2007 when he only played 22 games, the dmen on that Sharks team included Carle, Vlasic, Ehrhoff, McLaren, Hannan, Gorges (47 games) Murray (played 33 games), Rivet (dealt for Gorges: 17 games) and Davison (22 games).

Log jam. With the physical emergence of Doug Murray that season, he took away minutes, and I think everyone would agree here that they'd rather have Murray than Davison. His minutes slipped because of the log jam on defense.

In 2007-2008 he was limited to 15 games with SJ before being dealt to NYI where he played the remaining 19 games of the season. SJ defense that year included Rivet, Ozolinsh, Vlasic, Murray, Erhoff, Semenov, Carle, McLaren, Campbell and Davison.

He missed at least 22 games last season with injury.

SedinFan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 02:40 AM
  #110
Tripwyre
Registered User
 
Tripwyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,076
vCash: 500
For a second I thought we'd picked up the bad guy from Splinter Cell.

Tripwyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 02:44 AM
  #111
David Booth Fan
Registered User
 
David Booth Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,607
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David Booth Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meganuck View Post
it's a depth move for the moose to have a competitive team. i think the history of injuries from last year also left the moose depleted on D when players were called up so that's why they're shoring up the D-men.
It may be a moose move but do you know what a winning team does for confidence?

if the moose win the calder cup wouldnt that be something promising

And on our injury front, maybe we are signing so many dman because Gillis expects one of our big dmen to go down and instead of holding out for them to come back maybe we are hoping for another player to emerge like Edler? That than gives us trade bait.

Everyone wanted Edler at the deadline, good thing we didnt bite, we were ****ed last year no matter what, Luongo didnt have his game face on.

David Booth Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 03:01 AM
  #112
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 11,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker View Post
Could this be a precurser for a bigger move? The Canucks now have, off the top of my head;

Ohlund
Bieksa
Salo
Krajicek
Mitchell
Edler
Baumgartner
Davison
McIver
Nycholat

Defensemen in their system.

That's 10 deep in my opinion of guys who can log NHL minutes. Clearly Gillis is covering his (insert word here) if Sundin doesn't come to Vancouver. A solid move simply because of that. In my opinion, Rob Davison is a top 6 dman and shouldn't be on the outside looking in, so whomever goes from the Canucks, they have the depth in order to recover.
Keep in mind that the #8 defender last year, Mike Weaver, got into 55 games. Luc Bourdon was #9 on the depth chart and played nearly 30 games. McIver was #10 and played almost 20.

Any decent NHL club should have 2-3 quality options to recall on the farm if needed. Especially this one, given the injury history of some of our blueliners. 10 deep is hardly overkill at this point.

MS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 03:02 AM
  #113
AlbertaNucksFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 478
vCash: 500
I liked Shannon good fit or not. he was someone i always pulled for... I freaking hate the sens so this will be a tough one for me.

AlbertaNucksFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 03:45 AM
  #114
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Keep in mind that the #8 defender last year, Mike Weaver, got into 55 games. Luc Bourdon was #9 on the depth chart and played nearly 30 games. McIver was #10 and played almost 20.

Any decent NHL club should have 2-3 quality options to recall on the farm if needed. Especially this one, given the injury history of some of our blueliners. 10 deep is hardly overkill at this point.
100% agreement.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 04:25 AM
  #115
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,605
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Keep in mind that the #8 defender last year, Mike Weaver, got into 55 games. Luc Bourdon was #9 on the depth chart and played nearly 30 games. McIver was #10 and played almost 20.

Any decent NHL club should have 2-3 quality options to recall on the farm if needed. Especially this one, given the injury history of some of our blueliners. 10 deep is hardly overkill at this point.
He also brings a little offensive to our generally defensive D depth, which is good to have.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 08:53 AM
  #116
Ajackalit
Registered User
 
Ajackalit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Vancouver Canucks general manager Mike Gillis said he was keeping his word when he traded speedy forward Ryan Shannon to Ottawa for minor-league all-star defenceman Lawrence Nycholat...........
"We had him rated as one of the top three or four defencemen in the AHL, pushing for the No. 1 spot," Gillis said. "We're looking at him as a guy who can play games for us.

"Right now, as it sits, we need depth, particularly with our travel schedule. He will come in here and compete for our seventh defenceman's job. We thought he would be the perfect depth guy for us for a variety of reasons."

The blueline is undeniably the Canucks' strongest, deepest position. The team now has seven defencemen with one-way contracts and an eighth, Rob Davison, with extensive NHL experience.

It raises questions about a possible deal down the road. Many have speculated the Canucks are willing to trade a defenceman -- say Kevin Bieksa -- to get some help up front, especially with Mats Sundin unlikely to sign in Vancouver any time soon.

"We are going to be in search of the best players we can find but unless you have depth, it is awfully difficult to make that sort of transaction," Gillis said. "You just don't have depth players to fill in."
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...7-c13b8307faf4

Ajackalit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 09:22 AM
  #117
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartnonis View Post
Gillis really does make it sound like this is a "replace" Bourdon type of move. i.e. replace the depth that was lost with the Bourdon situation.

It was that depth that he was likely counting on to make a deal when the summer began. I've never seen this Nycolat guy play so I'm not sure, but we do know Gillis expects him to compete for the #7 spot. The fact he's a puck moving D-man also shouldn't be lost on anyone. We also know Gillis thinks Davison can play in the top 6 and certainly be a #7. We also know that top 6 positions on the blueline are essentially spoken for (Mitchell, Ohlund, Bieksa, Salo, Edler, Krajicek). And when you add his quote that you need depth to make a deal it certainly seems he has something brewing.

So the question is how comfortable are people moving a D-man, let's say Bieksa, Edler or maybe even Salo (if he waives the NTC), for a good, young second line center and having Davison and Nycolat as the 6/7 guys going into the season?

Personally that is preferable to me than having the hole on the second line as a depth D-man or two are likely easier to pick up during the course of the season and the deadline.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 09:22 AM
  #118
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
This is a good point and I think he's often overlooked. Dowm the stretch he was consistently playing 20 min/game for the Isles and by most accounts, didn't look too out of place. Now I don't expect him to log that type of ice-time for the Canucks but I could see him being a solid 5th/6th guy that can play 14/15 min/game and provide a tough, physical presence while being a reliable stay-at-home guy. Could make a Bieksa move more palatable.
Davison is also a 28 YO dman that has *never* been a regular in the NHL... last season down the stretch when he was getting big minutes, it was on a team that had more serious injuries on their defense than the canucks did - on a defense that was weaker to begin with! It was also a team that was out of the playoffs, and giving more icetime to other players when the team didn't have playoff hope.

Down the stretch last year, they were missing 4 dmen that were higher on their depth chart - Campoli, Gervais, Sutton and Witt... the remaining guys - Freddy Meyer and Martinek - hardly quality players, where getting insane icetime as well, while Berard was still playing hurt down the stretch. Davison was the #8 dman on *that* defense, and only got a lot of icetime when 4 of those guys were out, and another one was playing hurt, while the team's season was done.

IMO Davison's icetime last year was because of the situation he was in - on a team with a weak defense to begin with that were missing 4 of their top 6 guys down the stretch, giving guys like Davison (and Meyer for that matter) much more icetime, during a time of year when the team was already out of the playoffs.

Davison has never been a regular NHLer before this.... and now at 28, expecting him to go from being a #7/8 guy to a regular guy, is a stretch IMO... just because he did it on a team that lost 4 of their top 6 guys down the stretch, doesn't mean much IMO.

I think we'd be a weaker team overall inserting Davison into a regular spot on this team... especially considering just how injury-prone this defense is - you put Davison as a #6 guy, and he'll be forced to play top 4 minutes for stretches this year due to injuries, and that doesn't help this team much. Davison is a solid #7 guy (although IMO not exactly what we needed, as McIver is ready IMO to be that #7 guy and brings similar intangibles to what Davison brings).

I also don't see how he - in any way really - makes moving Bieksa more palatable. Bieska is not only a physical presence on the backend (which is the only intangible that Davison brings), he's also a 20+ min a night defender, who can play on your PP, one of the best puck rushers on the team, and one of only 2 right handed shots on the team, along with the injury-prone Salo, unless you count the #8/9 guy like Baumer who's sure to start the year in Manitoba.

Davison doesn't come close to replacing Bieksa.... given his skill set, and his previous experience, Davison will likely force McIver out of the #7/8 spot and see him spend most of the season on the farm. Personally, I think McIver is much closer to replacing someone like Davison, than Davison would be replacing someone like Bieksa.

NFITO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 09:33 AM
  #119
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
NFITO post
As I put in my post above I can't help but wonder that IF this is indeed a precursor to a bigger move, than perhaps Gillis is thinking that having a less than ideal #6/7 D-men is a preferable hole to have than the second line center hole. That's it'll be easier to pick up that #6 guy as the season goes along.

If so, I think it's a pretty reasonable thought. Even given the likely injury troubles on the blueline.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 10:37 AM
  #120
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
As I put in my post above I can't help but wonder that IF this is indeed a precursor to a bigger move, than perhaps Gillis is thinking that having a less than ideal #6/7 D-men is a preferable hole to have than the second line center hole. That's it'll be easier to pick up that #6 guy as the season goes along.

If so, I think it's a pretty reasonable thought. Even given the likely injury troubles on the blueline.
sure it's a reasonable thought, if you're looking to move Krajicek... it makes sense that you put in a #7/8 dman like Davison temporarily to fill that hole till you get a proper bottom pairing guy to take over during the season (hopefully before injuries hit).

To me though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to move Bieksa for that spot... again, we have no one that can really take that role properly... with Edler moving into the top 4, you've still got one less right handed shot, and a lot less toughness with guys that actually will play meaningful minutes (which IMO Davison can't).

But moving Krajicek, who's a #6 guy on this team anyways, and injecting some more toughness in that position as a #6 guy that plays 10-12 mins a night, that could make more sense IMO.

I'm just not sure what Krajicek's value would be at this point, after missing so much of last season.

NFITO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 01:42 PM
  #121
tmg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,461
vCash: 500
A lot of people seem to be saying Nycholat will be in Manitoba and can be called up if there's a run of injuries.

But Nycholat, on a one way contract, is subject to re-entry waivers, no? Wouldn't the Canucks trying to recall him to shore up for injuries just fall victim to the same thing Montreal fell victim to when they tried to recall Ron Hainsey to cover for injuries?

This just doesn't make sense to me as an AHL move. At $600,000 (as far as I know that's his actual salary, $550,000 is his cap hit) he's an incredibly expensive minor leaguer, especially when he's not even suitable for callup (he'd just become a $300,000 non-player on the waiver claim). IMHO sending him to the Manitoba doesn't make sense at all.

tmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 01:45 PM
  #122
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmg View Post
A lot of people seem to be saying Nycholat will be in Manitoba and can be called up if there's a run of injuries.

But Nycholat, on a one way contract, is subject to re-entry waivers, no? Wouldn't the Canucks trying to recall him to shore up for injuries just fall victim to the same thing Montreal fell victim to when they tried to recall Ron Hainsey to cover for injuries?
Nope, Nycholat falls under the AHL veteran exemption:

Quote:
#2 above does not apply to a player who

1. If a goalie, the goalie has played in 180 or more professional games [NHL, AHL, or ECHL; regular season and playoffs] or, if a skater, 320 or more professional games; AND
2. Has not spent more than 80 games on an NHL roster in the prior 2 seasons or 40 or more games on an NHL roster in the immediately prior season.
He didn't play enough last season to need to be on re-entry waivers.

Quote:
This just doesn't make sense to me as an AHL move. At $600,000 (as far as I know that's his actual salary, $550,000 is his cap hit) he's an incredibly expensive minor leaguer, especially when he's not even suitable for callup (he'd just become a $300,000 non-player on the waiver claim). IMHO sending him to the Manitoba doesn't make sense at all.
It was mentioned in an article that the Moose will likely be picking up part of the tab as they are with Jason Krog. Looks like they are making a big push for the Calder Cup, so they are willing to pay the extra expense to do so.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2008, 02:40 PM
  #123
Steveorama
Registered User
 
Steveorama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Looks like they are making a big push for the Calder Cup, so they are willing to pay the extra expense to do so.
It seems pretty clear that Heisinger is making a huge push to WIN NOW in Winnipeg, spending big coin (by AHL standards) to make it happen.
I love Heisinger's winning attitude and hope that some of it rubs off on the Canucks' brass. His emphasis on scouting and development has been a huge boon for the Canucks' minor league system.
The Moose should have a hell of a team this year. If Schneider's development curve continues as anticipated and the Canucks don't get killed by injuries, the Moose should be among the Calder Cup favourites, IMO.

Steveorama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2008, 10:37 AM
  #124
Rotang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 2,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
It was mentioned in an article that the Moose will likely be picking up part of the tab as they are with Jason Krog. Looks like they are making a big push for the Calder Cup, so they are willing to pay the extra expense to do so.
It's also good to see Gillis seemingly go out of his way to acquire players that will benefit the Moose given they've been one of the best farm organizations in the league. Perhaps an acknowledgment of their importance to our success and an effort to keep them in the fold for the future?

Rotang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2008, 11:05 AM
  #125
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotang View Post
It's also good to see Gillis seemingly go out of his way to acquire players that will benefit the Moose given they've been one of the best farm organizations in the league. Perhaps an acknowledgment of their importance to our success and an effort to keep them in the fold for the future?
Gillis has also been clear that he's big on players/personnel who have winning traditions, so it may also be that he feels having a winning team on the Moose will only benefit prospects down there.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.