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

Expiry Dates (AKA the Vancouver Canucks over 30 club)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-04-2013, 03:02 PM
  #26
TheDiver*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
In a years time, 6 million dollars is second line money. It almost is now.

The Sedins are not over paid even now and if Gillis can construct a new 1st line then the Sedins will be good to resign for the second line.

Constructing a new 1st line would be a hell of a lot easier if we still had Hodgson.

Why was it consensus among the Hodgson trade apologist crew that Hodgson had to be traded because the 1 and 2 center spots were nailed down when a year later, here we are talking about dumping the Sedins ?
Because he didn't want to be here, and his dad was a repulsive whiner of a human being.

TheDiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 03:05 PM
  #27
jigsaw99
Registered User
 
jigsaw99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Calgary ended up like Calgary because they went 20 years without drafting a top 6 forward and waited until their 9th straight year of not getting past the 1st round before making changes. Re-signing the Sedins when they're 33 (assuming they can be had on good contracts) doesn't automatically turn the team into Calgary.
our top 2 forward for prospects right now is Jensen and Schroeder. That's not very good.

jigsaw99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 03:16 PM
  #28
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigsaw99 View Post
our top 2 forward for prospects right now is Jensen and Schroeder. That's not very good.
Yeah, but the Flames didn't even have guys like Kesler, Edler, Bieksa, Raymond, or Hansen that they drafted. The first year they missed the playoffs in 10-11 they literally had 2 full time players (Backlund and Moss) who were drafted by the team.

When you build your team entirely through UFA signings and trades you're stuck getting players other teams are willing to give up on. That's especially true in a place like Calgary where players are hardly beating down the door to sign with them. The only reason the Canucks got guys like Hamhuis and Garrison on good deals is because they both really wanted to play here.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 03:16 PM
  #29
dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 517
vCash: 500
Grabner and Hodgson would have been 1-2 in goal scoring this year if they were Canucks. Way to go MG.

dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 03:55 PM
  #30
SomeoneGreat
Registered User
 
SomeoneGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc View Post
Grabner and Hodgson would have been 1-2 in goal scoring this year if they were Canucks. Way to go MG.
Grabner got waived by florida, what chance in hell do you think he would have had to make AV's squad?

SomeoneGreat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 04:27 PM
  #31
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
Because he didn't want to be here, and his dad was a repulsive whiner of a human being.
Just because the rest of the team was easy to deal with, doesn't mean you scrap the guy that is harder to deal with.

Having a strict family is not really a bad thing. The kid has discipline.

And even then, Gillis was shopping him in a dealine/rental market. Totally wrong. The right market to shop him is in the off season.

And he should have traded for a guy in the same development curve and in the same position if he just didn't like Hodgson. Instead of going for Tyler Seguin or Tyler Ennis, he traded for a guy to slot into his ongoing Steve Bernier project.

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 04:29 PM
  #32
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneGreat View Post
Grabner got waived by florida, what chance in hell do you think he would have had to make AV's squad?
Waived by Florida. Good job Florida. That says a lot about Florida.

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 04:32 PM
  #33
jigsaw99
Registered User
 
jigsaw99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneGreat View Post
Grabner got waived by florida, what chance in hell do you think he would have had to make AV's squad?
there a reason Florida is drafting 2nd overall this upcomng draft. that organization is incompetent.

jigsaw99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 04:52 PM
  #34
TruKnyte
Registered User
 
TruKnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,890
vCash: 450
If Gillis is able to build a new first line around Kesler, I think the Sedins could be perfect 2nd liners for the next few years. Basically what I would like to see (which is much easier said than done):

-Kesler centering first line
-Sedins on the 2nd
-A REAL shutdown center, which we haven't had since Malholtra went down
-An identity for the 4th line rather than the bits and pieces we've tried to use for the past decade.

TruKnyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 04:52 PM
  #35
TheDiver*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Just because the rest of the team was easy to deal with, doesn't mean you scrap the guy that is harder to deal with.

Having a strict family is not really a bad thing. The kid has discipline.

And even then, Gillis was shopping him in a dealine/rental market. Totally wrong. The right market to shop him is in the off season.

And he should have traded for a guy in the same development curve and in the same position if he just didn't like Hodgson. Instead of going for Tyler Seguin or Tyler Ennis, he traded for a guy to slot into his ongoing Steve Bernier project.
That's not the point.

I don't care how strict he is with his kid.

But how dare he try to bully an NHL Gm?

MG said he had spent more time on Cody's off-ice Prima Donna BS than all other players combined.

The kid was a cancer.

TheDiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 05:19 PM
  #36
jigsaw99
Registered User
 
jigsaw99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
That's not the point.

I don't care how strict he is with his kid.

But how dare he try to bully an NHL Gm?

MG said he had spent more time on Cody's off-ice Prima Donna BS than all other players combined.

The kid was a cancer.
This whole thing is over blown. We don't even know what really happened. Hodgson "bullying" Gillis? lol?

jigsaw99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 05:26 PM
  #37
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
That's not the point.

I don't care how strict he is with his kid.

But how dare he try to bully an NHL Gm?

MG said he had spent more time on Cody's off-ice Prima Donna BS than all other players combined.

The kid was a cancer.
So you basically never watched Eric Lindros play, ever.

There's lots of interesting player/agent/GM dynamics going around in the league.

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 05:28 PM
  #38
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
That's not the point.

I don't care how strict he is with his kid.

But how dare he try to bully an NHL Gm?

MG said he had spent more time on Cody's off-ice Prima Donna BS than all other players combined.

The kid was a cancer.
Don't care that MG dealt Hodgson. Issue is about the return. If MG wanted to move Hodgson, so be it, but understand what the situation of your team is. Trying to win a Cup, therefore, if you move your best young prospect, you need to get someone who can help the team. If Kassian was 3 years further in his development, then it might have been a good deal for the Canucks. But, he's still struggling to either be on the 2nd or 4th line with AV.

MG, not sure what his thinking is with all of these long term contracts. No flexibility whatsoever.

Booth, Ballard, Malhottra and Schneider is a combined $15 million in cap space not in the lineup.
Booth, injured, nothing you can do. But, hasn't fit in yet.
Malhottra, injured, team deems his limited vision a detriment to himself.
Ballard - has never fit into AV's system.
Schneider - without a LU deal, one of them was going to be on the bench.

MG's biggest weakness as a GM has been his acquisition of expensive veteran players. Hamhuis is the only guy who has lived up to his contract. Malhottra was as well for the first 60 games, prior to his eye injury. Ballard, deal was terrible for the Canucks. Booth, hasn't done much in his time with the team. Still think having Sammy and Sturm off the roster would have helped the team this past off season to re-tool.

Drafting hasn't been great either.
08 - Hodgson, Sauve. Can live with moving Hodgson if Kassian was actually able to help the team now. Sauve, hurts because of the other Dmen drafted after him in Hamonic, Scandella, Schultz, Weircoch all drafted after him.
09 - Schroeder, Rodin, Connoughton -
10 - dealt for Ballard, Bernier, Alberts
11 - Jensen, traded down to take Honzig the goalie
12 - Ganuce, Mallett

After 5 drafts, who are the ones who will be regular NHLers down the line? Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce? Jury still out on Sauve, KConn, Rodin, Honzig, Mallett. Pretty bad for 5 drafts?

As for the twins, term is the key if the Nucks decide to extend them. No 5 year deals. 3 is the max term.

For the twins themselves, they need to elevate their game. Too passive. Always too far from the net. Not decisive.

Would love to see Henrik play the way he did in the 3rd periond in game 4 against the Kings back in 2010. Down in the game and the series, Hank on an odd man rush took the puck and into the middle of the ice and buried the puck upstairs on Quick. Needs to do more of that. Both of them do.

They are never really set to shoot the puck when they receive a pass. If you're going to be on the PP, you have to be ready to shoot the puck at all times.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 08:32 PM
  #39
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
That's not the point.

I don't care how strict he is with his kid.

But how dare he try to bully an NHL Gm?

MG said he had spent more time on Cody's off-ice Prima Donna BS than all other players combined.

The kid was a cancer.
You know who Alex Ovechkins agent is ? His mother.

Just because the rest of the team is docile, doesn't mean you throw the guy playing hardball out.

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 08:37 PM
  #40
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruKnyte View Post
If Gillis is able to build a new first line around Kesler, I think the Sedins could be perfect 2nd liners for the next few years. Basically what I would like to see (which is much easier said than done):

-Kesler centering first line
-Sedins on the 2nd
-A REAL shutdown center, which we haven't had since Malholtra went down
-An identity for the 4th line rather than the bits and pieces we've tried to use for the past decade.
Kelser isn't young anymore but yeah, it would make the 1st line build a lot easier.

If we purge Ballard, Booth and Loungo or Schnieder, that alone leaves 14 million dollars to spend on elite wingers.

We could also trade one of the pricey D men to free up more space.

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 08:42 PM
  #41
Diamonddog01
Registered User
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
So most NHL players typically do not get better, and actually regress around age 30.

If you search HFboards, people have discussed this topic and cited studies showing a hockey players' peak time to be around age 26-28.

Some players are exceptions, like Joe Sakic and Niklas Lidstrom, and even Steve Yzerman who benefitted from taking on a different role.


After 30, its usually downhill.

Pavel Datsyuk went from 90 points as a 30 year old town to 70 the next season and has gone down ever since.

Zetterberg had 93 points as a 27 year old, to 69 as a 30 year old.


Ryan Smyth had 66 points as a 29 year old, then went down to 53, and has regressed from then on.

Jarome Iginla's last 50 goal season was the year he turned 30. Now he's a 30 goal scorer.



So we can't expect the 30 year olds on this Canuck roster to improve beyond what we've seen from them.

So now the question is, who is over the hill and who is regressing so fast that their salary is no longer justified?:



  1. Roberto Luongo 34
  2. Manny Malhotra 33
  3. Alex Burrows 32
  4. Daniel Sedin 32
  5. Henrik Sedin 32
  6. Andrew Alberts 31
  7. Keith Ballard 31
  8. Kevin Bieksa 31
  9. Andrew Ebbett 30
  10. Dan Hamhuis 30
  11. Derek Roy 30


To me, from this group only Dan Hamhuis looks like he is still the player he was at his peak.


So how do the Canucks look to build with a core that is aging?
The bolded players won't be back next season. So that leaves

Burrows
Sedins
Bieksa
Hamhuis

and Alberts, who is realistically a 6th defenceman at best. As for the above 5 players - they are in their early 30's so not super concerned. The Sedin's contracts are up at the end of next season anyways, and if we ever want to win the ultimate prize it's becoming fairly evident that they may not be the players to build around.

I wouldn't be opposed to them returning for 4M per year or so - but we'll see how things pan out.

I'm not as concerned about the age of our players as I am about the lack of good young talent in the pipeline, and the fact that there are massive holes that have been left unfilled now since 2011.

First and foremost - a puckmoving defenceman. Next up - a legitimate 3rd line C, sorry but Schroeder just isn't going to cut it. Finally we need to replace Booth with a better top 6 player.

Now yes, all of this is easier said than done. But has had 2 ****ing years to try to sort this out.

Diamonddog01 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 08:24 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.