If that's the case, they really don't have very many notables on their forward lines.
They're losing 7 of their 13 forwards under contract after this season, plus 2 D-men.
Ebbett (played about 4 games; depth guy)
Volpatti (same as above)
Lapierre (4th line C; has been solid for the Canucks)
Mahlotra (took a major step back this year/missed training camp)
Raymond (.....)
*Burrows
Higgins (3rd line winger)
And Alberts is a 7th defensemen.
Other than Burrows, Higgins is most-likely another player the Canucks really would like to retain.
Ebbett (played about 4 games; depth guy)
Volpatti (same as above)
Lapierre (4th line C; has been solid for the Canucks)
Mahlotra (took a major step back this year/missed training camp)
Raymond (.....)
*Burrows
Higgins (3rd line winger)
And Alberts is a 7th defensemen.
Other than Burrows, Higgins is most-likely another player the Canucks really would like to retain.
More meaningful would be to list who they have under contract:
Sedin
Sedin
Kesler
Booth
Hansen
Kassian
They only have 6 forwards on the roster going forward. Two of them will be 32, and two will be 28. Chicago in their post cup year is probably the best comparable for that sort of turnover.
More meaningful would be to list who they have under contract:
Sedin
Sedin
Kesler
Booth
Hansen
Kassian
They only have 6 forwards on the roster going forward. Two of them will be 32, and two will be 28. Chicago in their post cup year is probably the best comparable for that sort of turnover.
I don't think so. They lost the likes of Byfuglien, Ladd, Versteeg, etc. None of these names are comparable to the ones going into UFA on the Canucks' roster. Canucks can afford to re-sign those players. But I agree, looking at from your way of laying it out. Much better approach.
I don't think so. They lost the likes of Byfuglien, Ladd, Versteeg, etc. None of these names are comparable to the ones going into UFA on the Canucks' roster. Canucks can afford to re-sign those players.
You're looking at things solely from a "who did they lose" perspective then are discounting the value of a bottom 6 though. What's more important is to look at who they retain. The situations are fairly similar in that regard.
You're looking at things solely from a "who did they lose" perspective then are discounting the value of a bottom 6 though. What's more important is to look at who they retain. The situations are fairly similar in that regard.
I don't quite understand what you're saying.
I'm saying they lost their depth by deciding to keep the stars (Kane, Sharp, etc.).
I'm saying they lost their depth by deciding to keep the stars (Kane, Sharp, etc.).
You're trying to say that Chicago's situation is different because they lost [x] players but Vancouver's "losing" different players. That's a pretty silly way to look at things though. It shouldn't be viewed by what they lose (which is irrelevant) it should be viewed by what they retain. Unless they perform substantially better in free agency than Chicago did, they'll be in a similar boat. At this point in time, it's a little difficult to say how they'll do in free agency. Depending upon who re-signs before next July, it could make this year's free agent pool look extremely deep.
More meaningful would be to list who they have under contract:
Sedin
Sedin
Kesler
Booth
Hansen
Kassian
They only have 6 forwards on the roster going forward. Two of them will be 32, and two will be 28. Chicago in their post cup year is probably the best comparable for that sort of turnover.
So they have 2 wingers and 2 centers for the top-six, two decent young grinders for the third and fourth lines, and literally no other forwards.
The Sedins expire the year after that, too. Vancouver's in "Win Now" mode and their window is very, very, very rapidly closing.
Edit: and there's a key difference between Vancouver and Chicago that we're all forgetting here:
I would be more concerned (if I were a Vancouver fan) of the loss of Salo and his replacement in Garrison. Maybe Garrison will float on his own without Soupy, but the Nucks D is not the same D that got them to within one game of the Stanley Cup.
I'm not saying that the Wild's D is better, just saying that in the realm of judging the Nucks upcoming season, it is impossible until Luongo is turned into a decent blue liner.
Wasn't meant to be a troll at Vancouver...it's just that building up a core like this in "win now" mode is a gamble, and one that's a lot easier to swallow if it actually works. Hawks may have had to sell off huge parts of their team, but I kinda doubt Chicago fans have any regrets about that fact. (Well, maybe their equivalent of SoH, but... )
Wasn't meant to be a troll at Vancouver...it's just that building up a core like this in "win now" mode is a gamble, and one that's a lot easier to swallow if it actually works. Hawks may have had to sell off huge parts of their team, but I kinda doubt Chicago fans have any regrets about that fact. (Well, maybe their equivalent of SoH, but... )
I think what the Hawks showed was the importance of having strong depth in your lineup. Yes they still have the star players, but the star players can only play 2/3 of the game. That's a lot of time to be on your heels if you're sub par in the bottom six.
The last couple years it's looked like the Hawks have run out of steam by the time they hit the playoffs. They were able to get over the hump a couple years ago but now it's a lot harder.
I'd still take their situation...won a Cup and kept the star players. You never know what happens when you get in.
I think what the Hawks showed was the importance of having strong depth in your lineup. Yes they still have the star players, but the star players can only play 2/3 of the game. That's a lot of time to be on your heels if you're sub par in the bottom six.
The last couple years it's looked like the Hawks have run out of steam by the time they hit the playoffs. They were able to get over the hump a couple years ago but now it's a lot harder.
I'd still take their situation...won a Cup and kept the star players. You never know what happens when you get in.
Exactly. Once they lost the depth, it became two years of barely sneaking into the playoffs as an 8th seed and getting knocked out in the round one as a 6th seed.
)
