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

Would you be satisfied/okay with doing nothing this trade deadline?

View Poll Results: Would you be okay with the Canucks not trading for anyone during the deadline?
Yes 68 48.23%
No 73 51.77%
Voters: 141. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2012, 06:20 PM
  #51
DeeperMBC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NBurnaby
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
I would not be crushed if we didn't make a move. However if we can get depth D on the rt side. It would go a long way.

DeeperMBC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2012, 06:25 PM
  #52
Blob Mckenzie*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
We do have some depth in the organization.

Once his cap hit becomes insignificant and there is little fear of another team claiming him, we can call up Steve Reinprecht, and Andrew Ebbett may be ready to play by the playoffs. Chris Tanev will almost certainly be called up - the only reason he is in Chicago is because Gillis doesn't want to waive Rome or Alberts to fit him on the roster.

Are any of the defencemen projected to be available in minor trades as good as Tanev? I like Tanev more than Bryan Allen or Hal Gill, probably even more than Stephane Robidas.

Is Travis Moen really that much of an upgrade on Steve Reinprecht? He's younger, but not significantly better.

Jordan Schroeder has also played well enough to get a call up.

These are not guys we can depend upon for key roles, but if we need depth, I actually think they are better than most of what is available for 3rd round picks at the deadline.
Yes, and the only organizational depth that can step up is all butter soft. Schroeder, Reinprecht and Ebbet would look amazing in the top 9 if Burrows, Hansen and Higgins got hurt.

This team needs some more players who can contribute that have a c hair of a mean streak. Having Raymond, Reinprecht, Coho, and Schroeder and Ebbet as part of your top 9 forwards should scare the hell out of anyone on this board but it sure as hell won't make any opposing D-men flinch.

With Higgins' situation, Hansen's unbalanced play and Raymond who plays even smaller than his 175 pounds I'd really like to see a gritty/edgy type top 9 forward or two.

With KB4 basically a 5th d man in shackles who AV is unwilling to move up in the event of injury to the top 4 he is an overpaid, redundant piece here. I like the suggestion above of moving him out and bringing in B Allen . AV has little use for Ballard and it might be time to cut him loose for both parties.

Blob Mckenzie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2012, 06:44 PM
  #53
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,012
vCash: 50
^^^ I think you are overstating how "soft" our team is.

The only forwards under 200lbs are Burrows (188), Hansen (195), Raymond (185), Hodgson (185) and the Sedins (they are listed as 187 and 188 but I think this is old, they are closer to 195). Ebbett would be the lightest at 175. Burrows and Hansen both play pretty physical for a guys their size. The Kesler line is about as strong and talented as they come. Bitz and to a lesser extent Duco have added a physical edge to our game, but even last year, in the first three round of the playoffs, it was the Canucks dishing out most of the punishment.

The only defenceman under 200lb is Kevin Bieksa (198) who plays like he's about 210. Chris Tanev is 185 if he is called up. Edler, Hamhuis, Ballard and Alberts are all pretty physical. We just need to keep our guys healthy.

I also think you are undervaluing Ballard's role this year. Ballard, until his neck injury, had been playing really well of late. The issue that AV has with Ballard is that he is really poor at playing on his off wing (RH) side. So when we lost Salo, a RH shot, Ballard was not able to move up the depth chart. If we lost Edler or Hamhuis, Ballard would very likely move up the depth chart. If we lost KB3 or Salo, Ballard is not as able to fill that role.

Still, I would be more comfortable if Gillis was able to bring in another RH shooting defenceman who can comfortably play 16-20 minutes per game. But there are not a lot of these guys available.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2012, 06:55 PM
  #54
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
I'll be extremely disappointed if there isn't at least some sort of blueline help brought in.

Completely content with the forward group as is though.
Its not going to happen. Booth was our splash. MG is trying to make that clear

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2012, 07:18 PM
  #55
turkulad
Registered User
 
turkulad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Turku
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,129
vCash: 500
One more depth defenseman. Hopefully one that has flown under the radar and can be had for peanuts. I think it's stupid at least not to consider such an option, and I trust this team's scouting for a guy that fits the profile. I don't even yearn for an upgrade, I just want one more Albert/Sulzer/Rome level player.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that none of the roster players we have now are moved during the TDL. On draft day though, I think it's gonna be a different story.

turkulad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2012, 07:27 PM
  #56
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,698
vCash: 457
If Radek Martinek were healthy... I'd probably be willing to give out a 6th or 7th.

shortshorts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:48 PM
  #57
7ytluom
Registered User
 
7ytluom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
A depth gritty forward (unless their is a steal of a deal on the table) and a depth defender should be enough for the Canucks to make a solid playoff run. That being said, I wouldn't be upset if the Canucks didn't do anything.

7ytluom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:53 PM
  #58
Blob Mckenzie*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
^^^ I think you are overstating how "soft" our team is.

The only forwards under 200lbs are Burrows (188), Hansen (195), Raymond (185), Hodgson (185) and the Sedins (they are listed as 187 and 188 but I think this is old, they are closer to 195). Ebbett would be the lightest at 175. Burrows and Hansen both play pretty physical for a guys their size. The Kesler line is about as strong and talented as they come. Bitz and to a lesser extent Duco have added a physical edge to our game, but even last year, in the first three round of the playoffs, it was the Canucks dishing out most of the punishment.

The only defenceman under 200lb is Kevin Bieksa (198) who plays like he's about 210. Chris Tanev is 185 if he is called up. Edler, Hamhuis, Ballard and Alberts are all pretty physical. We just need to keep our guys healthy.

I also think you are undervaluing Ballard's role this year. Ballard, until his neck injury, had been playing really well of late. The issue that AV has with Ballard is that he is really poor at playing on his off wing (RH) side. So when we lost Salo, a RH shot, Ballard was not able to move up the depth chart. If we lost Edler or Hamhuis, Ballard would very likely move up the depth chart. If we lost KB3 or Salo, Ballard is not as able to fill that role.

Still, I would be more comfortable if Gillis was able to bring in another RH shooting defenceman who can comfortably play 16-20 minutes per game. But there are not a lot of these guys available.
I don't think the Canucks are soft but as I say..... lose a couple of gritty forwards and plug the holes with softies like Schroeder, Reinprecht or Ebbett. This team doesn't have any decent banging forwards on the farm that can play with any snarl.

Duco ..... please. Bitz is a nice story but I can see the wheels falling off there too. Gillis should have asked about David Clarkson in the off season. Sure as hell won't get him now.

Blob Mckenzie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:55 PM
  #59
Balls Mahoney
SAVE US SVEN
 
Balls Mahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +44 1252 230 607
Country: United States
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
I'm fine with the team doing nothing at the deadline. I think the Canucks already have more depth than any other organization in the league. I'm comfortable with the five headed monster of Rome, Alberts, Sulzer, Ballard and Tanev competing for ice time on the bottom pairing. And I'm comfortable with Gillis' brigade of grinders in Weise, Reinprecht, Duco, Bitz, Oreskovich and Schroeder being able to fill in when needed.

Balls Mahoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 02:58 PM
  #60
Dr Awesome
Bo "knows" Horvat
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
No. However I would rather the canucks make no deal then a wrong deal.

Dr Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 03:20 PM
  #61
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,482
vCash: 50
Whatever moves are made, they won't be costing the Canucks much (or anything) in terms of roster players. As others have noted, Gillis already made his big move getting Booth. I think he may get one more versatile defenseman who can play the right side and that's it.

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 08:20 PM
  #62
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
So it looks like there are two popular opinions.

1) People are iffy about our defense and want one more to push Rome/Alberts to the 7th spot, and want something done.

2) People believe Tanev is the answer.

It's pretty even and this is what I wanted to know out of this poll. The Canucks are in great position to make a cup run. We just need Tanev/Or another solid 6th defensemen.
I believe Tanev is the answer, but I still want to push Ballard/Rome/Alberts out of the 6th/7th spot to

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Salo
Allen - Tanev
Rome - Alberts

would be nice.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-13-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Shareefruck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #63
Blob Mckenzie*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
I believe Tanev is the answer, but I still want to push Ballard/Rome/Alberts out of the 6th/7th spot to

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Salo
Allen - Tanev
Rome - Alberts

would be nice.
I don't mind this. Ballard has little to no use here and if we could ship him to the Canes to jump start his career it might be best for both parties as he will never be top 4 here and he makes too much money to play on the bottom pairing.

Add in a ***** to play on the 4th line and ship out Raymond or Hansen for a nastier top 9 guy and we are in business.

Blob Mckenzie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2012, 11:12 PM
  #64
Elusive Derposaurus
Best Dino Alive
 
Elusive Derposaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canadia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,156
vCash: 500
Yes. We don't need to do anything too significant. Although, I would like another Bottom 4 D-Man, I think that if the deadline did pass with nothing occuring, then I would be fine with it. This team looks solid enough if they can get back to they way they played earlier in the year.

Elusive Derposaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 12:44 AM
  #65
cbjerrisgaard
Finger Biter
 
cbjerrisgaard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,203
vCash: 500
I said no, BUT it's not like I'd be that upset. I would just be extremely puzzled.

I picture similar "meh" moves as last year that turn out to be "hey look at that, they worked out nice"

lol

cbjerrisgaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 01:13 AM
  #66
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,093
vCash: 500
After we lost Ehrhoff I was hoping Ballard can step up, but he hasn't and Salo is always injured and is playing like a elder sometimes.

And so our defense once in awhile breaks down pretty bad leaving our goalies to bail us out, MG either needs to create a much stronger forward group to compensate for our average to a bit above average D, or get a top 4 dman to solidify the defensive corps.

Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 01:54 AM
  #67
OgoBoHo
FIRE DESJARDINS
 
OgoBoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,486
vCash: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Pignatti View Post
I don't think the Canucks are soft but as I say..... lose a couple of gritty forwards and plug the holes with softies like Schroeder, Reinprecht or Ebbett. This team doesn't have any decent banging forwards on the farm that can play with any snarl.

Duco ..... please. Bitz is a nice story but I can see the wheels falling off there too. Gillis should have asked about David Clarkson in the off season. Sure as hell won't get him now.
Doesn't change the fact we we're one of the top hitting teams in the playoffs last year even without Bitz and Duco. Bitz was throwing crunching hits tonight as an example, and he's still just getting his game legs from being off hockey for so long. Duco has to adjust to the NHL level a bit yet.

OgoBoHo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 01:55 AM
  #68
OgoBoHo
FIRE DESJARDINS
 
OgoBoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,486
vCash: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Pignatti View Post
I don't mind this. Ballard has little to no use here and if we could ship him to the Canes to jump start his career it might be best for both parties as he will never be top 4 here and he makes too much money to play on the bottom pairing.

Add in a ***** to play on the 4th line and ship out Raymond or Hansen for a nastier top 9 guy and we are in business.


You just lost all credibility with this part of your post here.

OgoBoHo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 04:21 AM
  #69
Kip96
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 852
vCash: 500
Canucks still lack that Big Physical Dman that can clear the front of the net

That has lead to most of the breakdowns in front of our net during the Hawks and Bruins series. Players are allowed to get in Luongo's face without consequences and that killed us (Like Buttfugly)

In the Playoffs the abuse in front of the net is rarely called which is why Chara was such a beast last year and Pronger was so valuable throughout the years

Championship teams are the ones who win the battles in front of their nets and the others as well because the whistles get put away

Kip96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 04:45 AM
  #70
shottasasa
Registered User
 
shottasasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Jamaica
Posts: 184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kip96 View Post
Canucks still lack that Big Physical Dman that can clear the front of the net

That has lead to most of the breakdowns in front of our net during the Hawks and Bruins series. Players are allowed to get in Luongo's face without consequences and that killed us (Like Buttfugly)

In the Playoffs the abuse in front of the net is rarely called which is why Chara was such a beast last year and Pronger was so valuable throughout the years

Championship teams are the ones who win the battles in front of their nets and the others as well because the whistles get put away
That is Alberts and Rome's job. We could get another big physical depth d-man but for me that is a lateral move in terms of physicality. I would like another d-man for depth though. I would love a top 4 physical d but it won't happen.


I voted no, but as I said, a bit more depth won't hurt, as long is it doesn't cost us decent prospects.

shottasasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 08:21 AM
  #71
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,402
vCash: 200
Unless there is some kind of season ending injury somewhere, I would really prefer if they did not make any moves. Like this group, and Tanev is very VERY able to come in and cover on D.

Bougieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 10:29 AM
  #72
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,932
vCash: 500
I'd be shocked if we didn't make a move. Probably won't be a major one though. Gillis is the type of GM who tries to leave nothing to chance and he will spend right up to the cap to get at least some depth. The team has a couple of holes. Not major ones but more on the depth end. I'm pretty confident that Gillis will either pick up a big third or fourth liner or at least a depth defenceman and possibly both.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 11:03 AM
  #73
LiveeviL
No unique points
 
LiveeviL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Jämtland, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to LiveeviL
Gillis is skilled so I kind of expecting him to work some magic, so yes I am not satisfied with a no move at deadline. On the other hand I am not really lacking very much in the team so from that point of view I could do with a no move.

The depth of D-men isn't that good, well we got depth, but not of quality enough if one (or more!) of the top 4 is out. But then again, how many top 3-4 D-men can be found at deadline without creating an upset? Well that is were the mentioned magic comes into play I guess.

LiveeviL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 11:30 AM
  #74
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
I'd be shocked if we didn't make a move. Probably won't be a major one though. Gillis is the type of GM who tries to leave nothing to chance and he will spend right up to the cap to get at least some depth. The team has a couple of holes. Not major ones but more on the depth end. I'm pretty confident that Gillis will either pick up a big third or fourth liner or at least a depth defenceman and possibly both.
This is probably the easiest year to accept nothing at the deadline

LolClarkson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2012, 11:39 AM
  #75
Treefingers
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Treefingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
I like how the Canucks are now, but I think it would still be ideal to add another defenceman. Plus, it's always disappointing when your favourite team does nothing on trade deadline day (no matter how good they are).

Treefingers 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 11:29 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.