WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Post Reply
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Island Nucklehead » Tue May 18, 2010 1:37 pm

Fred wrote: I see Mitchell as a injury prone player. So he's not even a possibility IMO, he's aging and still suffering serious injury, not a gamble I would take. I see both Hamhuis and Morrison as top 4 players.

Armstrong maybe his best days are passed him & Asham is certainly not worth more than a 1 year deal ( he made lesss than a million last season with the Flyers) but both have experience. Idon't see either as big money players Maybe trade to Bernier now ( he's a fixed salary) to Atalnta for Armstrong and get his rights to sign in the summer
Hamhuis is certainly a top four guy. He can play 21 minutes a game and would be able to fill the void left by Willie. I'm not against that swap at all, nor do I think re-upping Willie is the best option. My concern is with the salary, that if we pay North of four million we'll be looking at a defense that costs nearly 20 million and still lacks a proven number one guy (I say proven because another season from Ehrhoff like the one he had and we'll be set there).

I'm not sold on Morrisonn. His 17 minutes/game ranked sixth on Washington, and would rank the same on Vancouver. He's not a Mitchell replacement, and I don't see us wanting to pay him top four money.

Armstrong is 27 years old. He's in prime-time years and this contract could be the biggest he's gotten. I'm all for replacing Bernier with him... but he's going to cost more than Bernier.

I'm fine with Asham, Scott Nichol, Shawn Thornton or even a return of Matt Cooke. Sandpaper is what this team needs, and these guys can offer it.

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by the toucan kid » Tue May 18, 2010 4:29 pm

(I say proven because another season from Ehrhoff like the one he had and we'll be set there).
Wow. I mean, I quite like Ehrhoff, he's definitely a good fit and a valuable commodity that we stole for trinkets, but a true number one? The job of a defenseman is so much more complex than a stat sheet can indicate, and I don't particularly value +/- as a statistic. Ehrhoff can certainly be a point man on a good first powerplay unit, but I don't think he's as good a puck mover as a shooter. He's certainly not bad at either end of the ice, but what we need to go deep is at least one guy of the Keith ilk who can neutralize or marginalize top players in a head to head. That ain't Ehrhoff.

I guess just another incident of a player being statistically qualified to earn the distinction of a "#1" without actually being good enough to be the "#1" for our purposes.

User avatar
rockalt
MVP
MVP
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: London

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by rockalt » Tue May 18, 2010 4:52 pm

Bang on, Toucan. Ehroff has been fabulous but the moment we start describing him as a number 1, the moment he fails to achieve expectations. He's a great number two but I believe he lacks the defensive game and physicality to be a true number 1.

But then again, have the Canucks ever had a true number 1 defenseman? The obvious answer is no. Mattias Ohlund, is in my mind, the closest they came but he was never quite there. Definitely one of the best number 2 guys you could have, but his offensive game was just not quite good enough to make him a true number 1. Who knows if his freak eye injury early in his career prevented him from reaching his full potential, but he was never quite good enough. One thing that was frustrating about Ohlund though is how rapidly his game dropped after the lockout. 2002/2003 Ohlund was incredible but already by 2005/2006 he was a couple of steps behind - which doesn't make any sense considering he was only 29.

Jovo came pretty close I guess (always preferred Ohlund) but his offensive game could not overcome his defensive blunders. I feel like he had the most potential considering his ability to take over games when he was on, but he was too inconsistent, particularly in his own end, to truly qualify as a number 1.

Jyrki Lumme? Well, much of the the same, I'm afraid.... And the search continues...

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by the toucan kid » Tue May 18, 2010 5:44 pm

Jovo came pretty close I guess (always preferred Ohlund) but his offensive game could not overcome his defensive blunders.
I might argue Jovo was for a brief, brief bit of time.

Farhan Lalji

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Farhan Lalji » Tue May 18, 2010 7:06 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:even a return of Matt Cooke.
That won't happen with AV as coach.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Island Nucklehead » Wed May 19, 2010 12:55 am

Well guys like Kaberle, Green, Boyle etc. will never be confused with physically intimidating d-men. Fact is guys like Pronger, Chara etc. are rare. I don't subscribe to the statistics garbage, but just because a player isn't overly physical shouldn't disqualify him from being a number 1 guy. Ehrhoff is capable in his own zone, and excels with the puck. If he can continue to play large minutes at that level, putting up 50+ points he should be considered as a number-1 type guy.

The idea of getting a guy "like Keith" is a bit silly. That's like saying we need a guy "like Crosby" to win. Duncan Keith is a Norris finalist. You don't need to be a Norris finalist to be a number one guy, nor do you have to have a number one guy be responsible for playing against the opponents top forwards. Hal Gill isn't a number one guy, but he's the one going up (successfully) against Crosby and Ovechkin.

User avatar
nucklehead_88
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Maple Ridge B.C.

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by nucklehead_88 » Wed May 19, 2010 2:49 am

i say this, sacrafice Luongo to the hockey gods in a ritualistic fashion in the middle of Robson street, nulling his contract, spend the money to have someone put Andrew Alberts, Pavol Demitra, and Aaron Rome in a turkish prison with no underwear and a very slippery bar of soap, and trade Bernier to the NY Rangers for a bag of pucks and a broken Zamboni.....just my opinion
"HE WILL PLAY, YOU KNOW HE'LL PLAY, HE'LL PLAY ON CRUTCHES...."

Jim Robson

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by the toucan kid » Wed May 19, 2010 8:10 am

Well guys like Kaberle, Green, Boyle etc. will never be confused with physically intimidating d-men. Fact is guys like Pronger, Chara etc. are rare. I don't subscribe to the statistics garbage, but just because a player isn't overly physical shouldn't disqualify him from being a number 1 guy. Ehrhoff is capable in his own zone, and excels with the puck. If he can continue to play large minutes at that level, putting up 50+ points he should be considered as a number-1 type guy.
Those are two different types of players, Chara and Pronger or Green and Boyle. Still, Ehrhoff is neither. He doesn't actually excel with the puck in the way the guys you mention do. They're great movers and rushers in a way that can actually control the game as well as a Chara or Pronger. Ehrhoff is a nice, competent two way D man, but not a number one as I understand it.
The idea of getting a guy "like Keith" is a bit silly. That's like saying we need a guy "like Crosby" to win. Duncan Keith is a Norris finalist. You don't need to be a Norris finalist to be a number one guy, nor do you have to have a number one guy be responsible for playing against the opponents top forwards. Hal Gill isn't a number one guy, but he's the one going up (successfully) against Crosby and Ovechkin.
Well you might need a guy to PLAY like Crosby to win, in the same way you might need a guy to play like Keith to make it through four playoff rounds. The fact is the reason anyone thought this team might go far is because the Twins started scoring at a top rung pace and became an elite scoring unit. I honestly do think we need one of those dominant puck controlling and ice time mongering D-men if we're going to get to the endpoint.

In the same way that coaches look smart when they get good goaltending, stay-home defensemen look like they're actually doing something more than they are. That's what's up with ole Hal.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Island Nucklehead » Wed May 19, 2010 10:26 am

the toucan kid wrote: Those are two different types of players, Chara and Pronger or Green and Boyle. Still, Ehrhoff is neither. He doesn't actually excel with the puck in the way the guys you mention do. They're great movers and rushers in a way that can actually control the game as well as a Chara or Pronger. Ehrhoff is a nice, competent two way D man, but not a number one as I understand it.
I actually find Ehrhoff to be a fantastic skater. I think the Canucks need to integrate that ability more to their game. Too many times they would be too far ahead of an on-rushing Ehrhoff, and when he hit the line the rest of the guys were just standing there.

Chara and Pronger are a rare breed, and I would probably pull a stunt like Philly did to get one of them. Big, talented, MEAN. Rare indeed.

Kel
MVP
MVP
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Kel » Wed May 19, 2010 10:55 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
the toucan kid wrote: Those are two different types of players, Chara and Pronger or Green and Boyle. Still, Ehrhoff is neither. He doesn't actually excel with the puck in the way the guys you mention do. They're great movers and rushers in a way that can actually control the game as well as a Chara or Pronger. Ehrhoff is a nice, competent two way D man, but not a number one as I understand it.
I actually find Ehrhoff to be a fantastic skater. I think the Canucks need to integrate that ability more to their game. Too many times they would be too far ahead of an on-rushing Ehrhoff, and when he hit the line the rest of the guys were just standing there.

Chara and Pronger are a rare breed, and I would probably pull a stunt like Philly did to get one of them. Big, talented, MEAN. Rare indeed.
Actually I think Ehrhoff gets too much credit for his skating ability. He's actually not that fast, if you recall the numerous times that he was unable to keep up with, let alone beat, opponent puck carriers when the team was caught in a bad change or turnover. He definitely doesn't win many foot races and I was concerned how slow he was without the puck. I still am. With the puck, however, he is able to skate with ease and make moves to carry the puck into the offensive zone. I still think it's not so much his speed but rather his puck handling skills that allowed him to do that. Anyway, we shouldn't confuse him with a true top-pairing guy. And I'm not sure Hamhuis is able to fit into the top-pair role well either. He played behind Weber and Suter in Nashville I believe.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Island Nucklehead » Wed May 19, 2010 12:38 pm

Hamhuis isn't a number one guy. No question.

Ehrhoff is a top pairing guy, sorry to tell you guys this. He plays the most minutes, gets the most points, scores the most goals and plays in all situations for a team that is near the top of the NHL's standings. We can debate how good you really have to be to be considered a number one guy... I believe a difference exists between a number one guy and a truly elite defenseman. Do we require an elite defenseman to win? I think that's the debate.

Farhan moment: Forget Hamhuis. Gillis is on the record as stressing that the team needs experience.

Trade Mayson Raymond and our First round pick to Toronto for Tomas Kaberle. Toronto is going to want a first rounder this year. IMO, we're going to have to decide on Grabner or Raymond. Raymond probably has more trade value at the moment, but is an RFA. Toronto needs top-6 skill, and we need skill on the back end. Salaries would work.

Kaberle-Ehrhoff
Salo-Edler
Bieksa-O'Brien
Alberts

Kel
MVP
MVP
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Kel » Wed May 19, 2010 1:19 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote: Ehrhoff is a top pairing guy, sorry to tell you guys this. He plays the most minutes, gets the most points, scores the most goals and plays in all situations for a team that is near the top of the NHL's standings. We can debate how good you really have to be to be considered a number one guy... I believe a difference exists between a number one guy and a truly elite defenseman. Do we require an elite defenseman to win? I think that's the debate.
Ehrhoff only ranked 44th among all defensemen in terms of ice time per game last season. Not having anyone in the top 30 is most likely an indication that the Canucks had no true number one D-man. I'm not sure having an elite defenseman is a requirement for a team to win, but if the team lacks one it has to make it up from other areas. The Canucks were supposed to make it up with depth and great goaltending, yet neither was available by playoff time.

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by the toucan kid » Wed May 19, 2010 2:07 pm

Ehrhoff is a top pairing guy, sorry to tell you guys this. He plays the most minutes, gets the most points, scores the most goals and plays in all situations for a team that is near the top of the NHL's standings. We can debate how good you really have to be to be considered a number one guy... I believe a difference exists between a number one guy and a truly elite defenseman. Do we require an elite defenseman to win? I think that's the debate.
Well to me the debate is always when we're slotting players according to numerical value is, whether or not they are good enough in that slot to fit our purposes. Those purposes, are for pretty much everyone here, to win the cup. So, no Ehrhoff is not a #1 defenseman in that respect.

Hamhuis isn't a number one or even a number two, I'm not even sure if we have half of a good first pairing on this roster at this point, although that might depend on who the better half is going to be. We certainly aren't deep either so there goes that philosophy. Basically we've got to rip that whole D corps apart, but like many of you have said, we can likely only start it this year, bite our tongues, and wait for Salo to be shown the door next year.

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Fred » Wed May 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:Hamhuis isn't a number one guy. No question.

Ehrhoff is a top pairing guy, sorry to tell you guys this. He plays the most minutes, gets the most points, scores the most goals and plays in all situations for a team that is near the top of the NHL's standings. We can debate how good you really have to be to be considered a number one guy... I believe a difference exists between a number one guy and a truly elite defenseman. Do we require an elite defenseman to win? I think that's the debate.

Farhan moment: Forget Hamhuis. Gillis is on the record as stressing that the team needs experience.

Trade Mayson Raymond and our First round pick to Toronto for Tomas Kaberle.
I wouldn't take Kaberle if he came free. Big guy who plays small has lost his passion for the game and is ranked 290th for +/- His biggest asset is he get lots of publicity playing in TO. If he played in Florida you wouldn't have heard of this guy. Frankly we can't afford a big name "D" unless we get rid of Luongo's US$10 mil. So dream what you will but we're going to need a "D" who's good and will get better, that's what we have to look for which fits MG philosophy money hockey. Leave the likes of Phaneuf, Boumeester to those that don't have big name players on thier roster. That's why I think a Hamhuis or a Morrison will fit our budget. I think a young player who are intelligent good attitude and has good feet can be moulded to your own style. Even Albert with his lack of mobility was making far less mistakes at the end compared with what he was doing early on. Then you need some NA style forwards who AV is willing to play.

Adrian Aucoin is an URFA this summer and is a righty to boot
cheers

Kel
MVP
MVP
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: WHERE do the Canucks go from here? List your strategies

Post by Kel » Wed May 19, 2010 2:56 pm

Fred wrote: we can't afford a big name "D" unless we get rid of Luongo's US$10 mil.
That US$10 mil is NOT the cap hit. His cap hit is at $5.33 mil. The reason they made the contract 12 years long was to make the cap hit low enough to allow the team to afford players to improve the team, including a potential big name "D".

Post Reply