HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Pettinger to Tampa, claimed on Waivers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-22-2008, 12:12 AM
  #126
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Count me in that boat. At least Pettinger can be used as a 3rd liner - at least one of those two players is a "13th forward" with the other being a 4th liner.
Me too. I have to admit that I was neither negative or positive on Pettinger in the "pre" but definitely a better fit for OUR club - given that we already have Rypien O'Brien and Hordichuk - than Brown and was certainly more talented. So yeah, losing Pettinger sucks (as a comparison, Brown had 15 goals in the AHL and Pettinger 15 in the NHL - who has more talent?)

Fortunately, we kept Wellwood and fortunately, we have Bolduc and Krog left in Manitoba. Plus there's going to be guys on waivers throughout the year and at least one will end up here.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 02:02 AM
  #127
Core
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripwyre View Post
Your over-exaggeration is hilarious. If Krajicek (who I liked quite a bit and still do) is such a great puck-mover, why did it never translate onto the score sheet? Juraj Simek is anything but promising, Ouellet is more than an AHLer, and Pettinger is not sorely needed. But other than that, nice effort.
Krajicek has not had success when he was a canuck as a result of injuries and being in a limited role. Last season, he only played 39 games, but had 11 points, which showed that he was improving over his previous point total of 16pts in 78 games. Being paired with defensive defenseman Aaron Miller didn't help his play. Krajicek was also the 3rd pairing, so he did not have a lot of icetime compared to other players.

First time AHLer Juraj Simek did not have a impressive season, but his puck handling and hockey sense skills proved that he was a long term project capable of being a good player in the future. Furthermore, he played on the fourth line with the Moose, so what did you expect from him production wise?
Writing off a prospect after one season is a questionable action.

Tampa Bay intended to place Ouellet on waivers, so if Gillis wanted him, he did not have to trade a player to receive him, yet he did.

Pettinger was needed after the injuries on the offense occurred. They recalled him on waivers to take over either Hordichuk or Rypien's spot.

Nice effort explaining your reasons.

Core is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 02:24 AM
  #128
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorro View Post
Krajicek has not had success when he was a canuck as a result of injuries and being in a limited role. Last season, he only played 39 games, but had 11 points, which showed that he was improving over his previous point total of 16pts in 78 games. Being paired with defensive defenseman Aaron Miller didn't help his play. Krajicek was also the 3rd pairing, so he did not have a lot of icetime compared to other players.
Krajicek's point total projections increased almost exclusively because he produced more on the powerplay, which was very likely due to being given more opportunity to play on the first unit due to defensive injuries. If you look at the points he scored the first two months of last season, they were mostly second assists on PP goals scored by the Sedins and Naslund.

In 06/07 Krajicek scored 11 points at ES and in 07/08 he was on pace for 12. Willie Mitchell scored 10 in 06/07 and was on pace for 12 last season. And while you'd expect Mitchell to score more due to more ice time, Rory Fitzpatrick was on pace for 10 over a full season at ES/SH. Aaron Miller was on pace for 13 last season. If Krajicek didn't have the benefit of PP time, he would have been a 10-12 point defenseman the past two years. Guys like Salo, Ohlund, and Bieksa are generally up around 20-25 ES points and they are just above average offensively.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 02:26 AM
  #129
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorro View Post
Tampa Bay intended to place Ouellet on waivers, so if Gillis wanted him, he did not have to trade a player to receive him, yet he did.
Actually, they did waive him.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 02:28 AM
  #130
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Krajicek's point total projections increased almost exclusively because he produced more on the powerplay, which was very likely due to being given more opportunity to play on the first unit due to defensive injuries. If you look at the points he scored the first two months of last season, they were mostly second assists on PP goals scored by the Sedins and Naslund.

In 06/07 Krajicek scored 11 points at ES and in 07/08 he was on pace for 12. Willie Mitchell scored 10 in 06/07 and was on pace for 12 last season. And while you'd expect Mitchell to score more due to more ice time, Rory Fitzpatrick was on pace for 10 over a full season at ES/SH. Aaron Miller was on pace for 13 last season. If Krajicek didn't have the benefit of PP time, he would have been a 10-12 point defenseman the past two years. Guys like Salo, Ohlund, and Bieksa are generally up around 20-25 ES points and they are just above average offensively.
Keep in mind, though, the guys that Krajicek was moving the puck to. I think that he's being overrated by some, but he's also being underrated by others.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 02:32 AM
  #131
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Keep in mind, though, the guys that Krajicek was moving the puck to. I think that he's being overrated by some, but he's also being underrated by others.
But Krajicek was moving the puck to the same players as his teammates. It's one thing if we're comparing Krajicek to Nicklas Kronwall in Detroit or Andrej Meszaros in Ottawa, but Krajicek didn't even outperform his teammates that are considered to be stay-at-home defensive defensemen. Guys like Bieksa, Ohlund, and Salo are solid but unspectacular offensive defensemen and they put up twice as many points on average at ES compared to what Krajicek has the past two years.

And he spent a lot of time with good linemates - after Miller he spent more time on the ice with the Sedins and Naslund than any other teammate.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 02:50 AM
  #132
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
But Krajicek was moving the puck to the same players as his teammates. It's one thing if we're comparing Krajicek to Nicklas Kronwall in Detroit or Andrej Meszaros in Ottawa, but Krajicek didn't even outperform his teammates that are considered to be stay-at-home defensive defensemen. Guys like Bieksa, Ohlund, and Salo are solid but unspectacular offensive defensemen and they put up twice as many points on average at ES compared to what Krajicek has the past two years.

And he spent a lot of time with good linemates - after Miller he spent more time on the ice with the Sedins and Naslund than any other teammate.
I'm not going to argue that Krajicek is as good, at this point, or will ever be better than those guys.

I guess my main thing with the Krajicek trade is that they moved a young guy who was decent, and who had stretches of being very good, at something that the team pretty desperately needs, for a young guy who brings pretty similar attributes to Rob Davison, and who, at this point (obviously it's way early) looks to be not much better than him. That, combined with the moves to keep Brown, a player who brings attributes that are already covered with Rypien and Hordichuk, at the expense (or potentially at the expense) of Wellwood and Pettinger, is a bit unnerving to me for some reasons that I haven't really been able to completely put together yet.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 04:11 AM
  #133
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,788
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
Wellwood made it because no one wants to touch him with a 10' pole. 29 GMs took a pass, yet the first GM that had the chance took Pettinger. That should be telling...
annnnnnnnnnd Wellwood scores a goal and an assist and is our best player (besides Bieksa) in the game tonight.



Say what you want about Wellwood but the guy has the talent to be a top 6 NHL forward. I don't care if he's a fatty or a slacker or whatever, the guy has hands and all he's done in a Canucks uni is put up points at pretty much every chance he's gotten. There is no reason why this guy shouldn't have a regular spot on our top 6, even when everyone is healthy.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 11:04 AM
  #134
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
Wellwood made it because no one wants to touch him with a 10' pole. 29 GMs took a pass, yet the first GM that had the chance took Pettinger. That should be telling...
Nepotism was a factor for Pettinger. Not that it was the only reason for his buddies in Tampa Bay for claiming him (they are a business after all) - but at worst, Pettinger is a decent 4th liner making pretty much minimum wage for the team claiming him on re-entry.

I never claimed Wellwood is a full-time top six forward right now (and I have strong doubts whether he'll ever be a full-time top six forward); but he is adequate as a short-term replacement/depth guy for that role. Many teams have prospects in their system they'd rather "give a chance" in a top six role - hence their reluctance to take a chance on Wellwood - even at 50% off. That unfortunately isn't a luxory that the Canucks have. Grabner isn't ready. After him, who else is left? Krog, at 33, is a career AHLer who is an adequate call-up if Johnson gets hurt - but not somebody you want in the top six at the NHL level.

It's a question of present needs and what this organization has on the farm. Carrying eight defensemen means you can only have ONE extra forward. Would you rather it be a 4th liner depth guy or a 2nd liner depth guy? IMHO/my POV, I'd rather that depth spot be taken up by a 2nd liner depth guy who can at least fill that role temporarily.


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 10-22-2008 at 11:11 AM.
Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 11:46 AM
  #135
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
I'm not going to argue that Krajicek is as good, at this point, or will ever be better than those guys.

I guess my main thing with the Krajicek trade is that they moved a young guy who was decent, and who had stretches of being very good, at something that the team pretty desperately needs, for a young guy who brings pretty similar attributes to Rob Davison, and who, at this point (obviously it's way early) looks to be not much better than him.
Yeah, it's not like I disliked Krajicek, but I think people had unreasonable expectations of what he was going to become. I don't see him as more than a bottom pairing version of Brett Hedican. The team has been a mess defensively when he is on the ice (last season at ES the team gave up 1.2 more goals per game when he was on the ice than when he was off, and the season before it was .3 more, despite lining up against the opposition's weaker players) and he hasn't shown much offensive promise.

The trade isn't looking great right now, but I knew O'Brien would be a bit of a project. He was a really good defenseman in 06/07 (better than Krajicek, IMO) but last season in Tampa he regressed. Given that the whole team has pretty much sucked with defensive coverage, I'm willing to give him a bit more time to settle into his role.

Quote:
That, combined with the moves to keep Brown, a player who brings attributes that are already covered with Rypien and Hordichuk, at the expense (or potentially at the expense) of Wellwood and Pettinger, is a bit unnerving to me for some reasons that I haven't really been able to completely put together yet.
I agree, the Brown thing was pretty mind boggling to me too. I don't mind an emphasis on toughness but when it comes at the expense of skill on a team in desperate need of skill, it's not a good thing. But O'Brien has shown an ability to be tough and skilled, which is why I'm not as concerned about that move.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 11:55 AM
  #136
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The trade isn't looking great right now, but I knew O'Brien would be a bit of a project. He was a really good defenseman in 06/07 (better than Krajicek, IMO) but last season in Tampa he regressed. Given that the whole team has pretty much sucked with defensive coverage, I'm willing to give him a bit more time to settle into his role.



I agree, the Brown thing was pretty mind boggling to me too. I don't mind an emphasis on toughness but when it comes at the expense of skill on a team in desperate need of skill, it's not a good thing. But O'Brien has shown an ability to be tough and skilled, which is why I'm not as concerned about that move.
This is probably really wacky, and I don't really believe it as more than just a nagging feeling or something along those lines, but the Brown thing, combined with the O'Brien trade (not just Krajicek for O'Brien, but also taking on Ouellet), the huge cap space, the promise to be an offensive team (seemingly, so far in the season, at the expense of the other end) and the Luongo is captain thing, etc. all combine together to kind of make me a bit uneasy.

None of them are things that I really have a problem with in isolation, but all combined I get a bit of a sinking feeling that it's possible that they want to do things to placate the fans with a bunch of fights and big hits (things that can be added to the lineup on the cheap), with being "controversial" in making Luongo captain (which also comes with the added benefit that they look like they're really pushing to keep him without doing the best thing in that area: building a contender), and with more visually exciting play-style, while taking the 10 mil in cap space to the bank instead of doing the harder and more expensive things that make for a more fan-friendly product: getting some surefire top-end talent. At the end of the year, they can say that the current core obviously can't get it done, and go into full-on rebuild mode with cheap young players.

Granted, I don't really believe this, and the fact that they're paying guys NHL salaries to play in the AHL (although we don't know how much of that is being covered by the Moose), is reassuring, but I can't help but think about the Keenan era, when we saw skilled players moved out in favour of guys who did little else but start line brawls.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 12:11 PM
  #137
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
annnnnnnnnnd Wellwood scores a goal and an assist and is our best player (besides Bieksa) in the game tonight.



Say what you want about Wellwood but the guy has the talent to be a top 6 NHL forward. I don't care if he's a fatty or a slacker or whatever, the guy has hands and all he's done in a Canucks uni is put up points at pretty much every chance he's gotten. There is no reason why this guy shouldn't have a regular spot on our top 6, even when everyone is healthy.
I said that after the game. It's not like I didn't know what happened. Any player on the ice (except SOB) could have scored that goal. No reason? Really? So mediocre defensive play, being soft as butter, and being a slacker aren't reasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Nepotism was a factor for Pettinger. Not that it was the only reason for his buddies in Tampa Bay for claiming him (they are a business after all) - but at worst, Pettinger is a decent 4th liner making pretty much minimum wage for the team claiming him on re-entry.
If it's true Tampa had first crack, you can't say nepotism was the only factor. You just don't know.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 12:26 PM
  #138
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
I said that after the game. It's not like I didn't know what happened. Any player on the ice (except SOB) could have scored that goal. No reason? Really? So mediocre defensive play, being soft as butter, and being a slacker aren't reasons?
You have to give the guy some credit, he made a smart play at the blueline to help the team get entry and went to the net and made himself available for the pass. If any other player not on the first PP unit were on the ice in his place, that goal likely doesn't happen. I thought he had a solid game defensively too, he made a couple good plays and cleared the zone well and you could see the effort was there. He's never going to be mistaken for a defensive specialist, but he was at least as good as the players that have been playing on the second line on a regular basis.

He's soft as butter, but who cares? Being soft means he's going to turnover the puck on occasion, but he does a good job of regaining and retaining control with his stickhandling and anticipation. It's not like the team's not going to give the puck away anyway if it was Hansen or Grabner or Krog in his spot on the roster.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 12:33 PM
  #139
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
If it's true Tampa had first crack, you can't say nepotism was the only factor. You just don't know.
Which is why I said it wasn't the only factor. Sure we won't know for sure (as there's no way TB management team is going to admit that) - but there is a "connection" between them and Pettinger; plus it's not like the Bolts have a shortage of forwards (unless I'm unaware of any recent injuries they've suffered).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 12:56 PM
  #140
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
You have to give the guy some credit, he made a smart play at the blueline to help the team get entry and went to the net and made himself available for the pass. If any other player not on the first PP unit were on the ice in his place, that goal likely doesn't happen. I thought he had a solid game defensively too, he made a couple good plays and cleared the zone well and you could see the effort was there. He's never going to be mistaken for a defensive specialist, but he was at least as good as the players that have been playing on the second line on a regular basis.

He's soft as butter, but who cares? Being soft means he's going to turnover the puck on occasion, but he does a good job of regaining and retaining control with his stickhandling and anticipation. It's not like the team's not going to give the puck away anyway if it was Hansen or Grabner or Krog in his spot on the roster.
You don't care if he's soft as butter? The issue is a little bigger (no pun) than Kyle Wellwood. It's how he complements the top 6, which, right now, is probably the softest in the NHL. Wellwood, like when he was first picked up, should be considered no more than a bandaid solution and if he shows up once every couple games and pots a point, while being completely pedestrian the rest of the game, I'm not sure he makes the team better and I fear it merely covers up the team's biggest weakness (imagine him in the lineup come playoffs).

As for effort, as someone else pointed out in the GDT, he didn't even make the cut for 6 on 5 because of how lazy he is. He got bumped off the puck behind the opposition's net with a few minutes left, stopped, looked around, and slowly skated back to the bench while the other team went the other way.

Regardless, I think we can all agree we need a larger sample size. But this season is going to absolutely suck if we keep going with these fringe NHLers in a top 6 spot.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 01:04 PM
  #141
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
Regardless, I think we can all agree we need a larger sample size. But this season is going to absolutely suck if we keep going with these fringe NHLers in a top 6 spot.
I'll agree that he's no full-time top six forward (at present) - but he does serve a purpose - being a "fill-in" for depth purposes. He's adequate in that role. Canucks really don't have anybody else on the farm that can fill that role at present - it's the reason by we have Pyatt in the top six - shortage of offensively skilled guys.

As a 13th forward, I don't have a problem with him.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 01:07 PM
  #142
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
As for effort, as someone else pointed out in the GDT, he didn't even make the cut for 6 on 5 because of how lazy he is. He got bumped off the puck behind the opposition's net with a few minutes left, stopped, looked around, and slowly skated back to the bench while the other team went the other way.
I saw a postgame interview with Vigneault on Sportsnet last night and he actually came right out and said that he should have had Wellwood out 6-on-5 given "the way he played tonight". He then went on to say something about "walking the fine line between rewarding players for their play and showing confidence in your key guys" (paraphrased). So I think it's a stretch to say that Wellwood was held off because of some deficiency in his play.... more that Vigneault went with the more established guys.

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 01:11 PM
  #143
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
You don't care if he's soft as butter? The issue is a little bigger (no pun) than Kyle Wellwood. It's how he complements the top 6, which, right now, is probably the softest in the NHL. Wellwood, like when he was first picked up, should be considered no more than a bandaid solution and if he shows up once every couple games and pots a point, while being completely pedestrian the rest of the game, I'm not sure he makes the team better and I fear it merely covers up the teams biggest weakness (imagine him in the lineup come playoffs).
I think negatives of being soft can be somewhat overcome by smarts. Nicklas Lidstrom, according to some definitions, is soft as butter (doesn't take many hits, doesn't really engage physically) but he's able to be effective based on his physical abilities and his smarts. Now I'm obviously not trying to say that Wellwood is as good as Lidstrom (it's just the easiest comparison to make), but so far with the Canucks the fact that he's soft hasn't affected his ability put up points. And it's not like he's that much softer than Demitra, who he's replacing. And the fact is, as an injury replacement in the top-6 it's very likely that he'll just be replacing another soft player anyway.

I agree that the bigger issue is the lack of a good top-6 forward to play on the second line, but that's irrelevant when it comes to addressing Wellwood. Right now, with what the team has for options, Wellwood has been far and away the best for the second line. Obviously I'd rather have Mats Sundin centering the second line, but that's not a choice. But based on what the team has to work with, I'd rather have a second line that is soft but that puts up points than a second line that is tougher but doesn't.

Quote:
As for effort, as someone else pointed out in the GDT, he didn't even make the cut for 6 on 5 because of how lazy he is. He got bumped off the puck behind the opposition's net with a few minutes left, stopped, looked around, and slowly skated back back to the bench while the other team went the other way.
He has also take a couple big hits to make plays defensively (remember when he got rocked by Ovechkin? he still managed to get the puck up the boards) that other players on the team may not have made. He saved Luongo's ass last night when he was caught wandering out of his net. Yeah, he's going to frustrate you occasionally with a lazy play or because he's pushed off the net, but how is that any different than any other soft second line skill player that teams get away with all over the league?

For all the talk of him being poor defensively, the second line was a plus for only the second time all season. Wellwood hasn't been on the ice for a goal against since the first game of the preseason.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 01:15 PM
  #144
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
As a 13th forward, I don't have a problem with him.
I agree. I take issue with those that see him as a permanent fixture in our top 6.

And a lot of the defenses of Wellwood I heard last year with Ryan Shannon...

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 01:41 PM
  #145
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,788
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
I don't see him as a "permanent" fixture in the top 6 either, but on this team with the personnel we have right now with what he's shown so far he should be in a top 6 role until he doesn't deserve to be...and I'm talking he needs 10-15 games straight at least getting top 6 minutes and power play time.

I said this in the other thread too, I could really care less if he's soft or terrible on defense or has a bad attitude all the guy has done in a Canuck sweater is produce points...To me that warrants a top 6 roster spot on a team that supposedly is challenged to score goals.

We're not talking about a guy who we're asking to play way over his talent level either. This is a guy who was close to a point a game player a couple years ago...The talent is there, there's just been a bunch of BS happen with him. His fault or not I really could care less but as long as he produces and shows he's the 06-07 Wellwood (which he has looked like almost every game he's dressed for us) he definitely deserves a long long look at getting a top 6 forward spot until Gillis brings in another real top 6 guy.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 03:55 PM
  #146
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
I don't see him as a "permanent" fixture in the top 6 either, but on this team with the personnel we have right now with what he's shown so far he should be in a top 6 role until he doesn't deserve to be...and I'm talking he needs 10-15 games straight at least getting top 6 minutes and power play time.

I said this in the other thread too, I could really care less if he's soft or terrible on defense or has a bad attitude all the guy has done in a Canuck sweater is produce points...To me that warrants a top 6 roster spot on a team that supposedly is challenged to score goals.

We're not talking about a guy who we're asking to play way over his talent level either. This is a guy who was close to a point a game player a couple years ago...The talent is there, there's just been a bunch of BS happen with him. His fault or not I really could care less but as long as he produces and shows he's the 06-07 Wellwood (which he has looked like almost every game he's dressed for us) he definitely deserves a long long look at getting a top 6 forward spot until Gillis brings in another real top 6 guy.
I agree with you. It just speaks volumes that we're in this predicament and going to be dependent on Wellwood to manufacture offense and anchor the second line.

FruityPants3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 04:31 PM
  #147
freakydave
Registered User
 
freakydave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
I agree with you. It just speaks volumes that we're in this predicament and going to be dependent on Wellwood to manufacture offense and anchor the second line.
Who cares as long as he does produce.That's the point.He played his way on to the team & got waived because he's to "soft" "lazy"a liability ,not an AV type of player.If Wellwood plays well enough to keep his spot as 2nd line centre he will be a top 6 forward in the NHL.
If he can't Gillis will have to make a move .

freakydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 04:52 PM
  #148
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHomelessAteMyCat View Post
I agree with you. It just speaks volumes that we're in this predicament and going to be dependent on Wellwood to manufacture offense and anchor the second line.
It was unavoidable considering that Demitra has a history if missing a given number of games per season (and he is the key member of the 2nd line - if for no other reason that he's the *ONLY* proven top six forward on that line).

As mentioned, going with 8 defensemen also limits the number of "extra forwards" one can carry (sure Davison can play forward - but he'll be at best a 4th liner). It is important that this 13th forward have at least "top six offensive skills" given the dearth of such skilled fowards on the farm and the injury-proness of Demitra.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 05:13 PM
  #149
FacepalmBenning
FIRE EVERYONE!!!!!!!
 
FacepalmBenning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +44 1252 230 607
Posts: 13,369
vCash: 500
You know at this point if a morbidly obese guy with a horrible mustache named Roy could step up with the potential of 60 points in the NHL this season without being a defensive liability, I'd happily throw him on the second line.

So at least Wellwood doesn't have a horrible mustache.

FacepalmBenning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2008, 05:16 PM
  #150
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneDayAsALion View Post
So at least Wellwood doesn't have a horrible mustache.
I'm pretty sure that's why the Canucks didn't want to touch Jokinen with a 10ft pole.


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 02:11 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.