CANUCKS have arguably deepest DEFENSE and GOALTENDING in NHL
Goaltending = Luongo, Sanford
Defense = Bieksa, Ohlund, Mitchell, Salo, Miller, Krajicek
On top of that, the Canucks still might be amongst the best (or best) in terms of penalty killing, 4 on 4 hockey, and overall goals against.
So, what's purpose of this post? I guess the point I'm trying to make, is why are most people dying for the Canucks to make a move? (i.e. trade a defenseman and/or prospects for scoring help).
Case in point: Calgary Flames last year. The Flames upgraded their offense by trading for Tanguay (and making a few other moves). Result? The Flames improved their offense, but it was at the expense of their defense and overall team toughness. In the end, the Flames actually went BACKWARDS as a team.
As it relates to the Canucks, consider these arguable points:
-The Canucks last season, were fairly successful because they knew their limitations on offense. As a result, they played smart defensive hockey and made opponents pay when they had the chance. The Canucks found a 'formula' to win, and stuck with that.
-The media (for once) were actually quite lenient with the Canucks since they weren't perceived to be contenders (unlike the year before).
Here's my concern:
-If the Canucks do end up trading some of their defensive depth/talent for some offense, they could end up like the Calgary Flames (i.e. not "better"....just "different"). With new found offense (and a loss on defense), the Canucks might develop the illusion that they have more weapons on offense...and can play more open. As result, they will deviate from the system that made them successful this season (just as we saw with Calgary).
Farhan's solution:
-Do NOT trade ANY of the current Canuck defensemen. Period. Let the Canucks develop an identity. We are deep in net, AND we are deep on 'D'. Why try and win games 4-3 when we can just as easily win 2-1? A WIN is a WIN. Period.
Farhan's alternative solutions:
-Instead of trying to trade Ohlund, etc., etc. for guys like Marleau, Gomez, or whatever, ....forget that.
-Instead of trying to acquire a superstar forward via trade, lets try and add a few ingredients to our PP. Some "PP specialists" if you will. Anson Carter might be a guy who can help in this regard. He has already proven that he has chemistry with the twins. A guy like Peter Bondra might be another guy (not necessarily Bondra, but someone of that "ilk"....someone that can had for cheap, and can help make our PP better....he doesn't have to have other talents!).
-So in the end, the Canucks are MAINTAINING their goaltending, defense, and PK strength, but are simply ADDING things.
Peter Forsberg:
-I am also in favour of taking a risk on Forsberg. Forsberg can be had for cheaper than what he's worth. In signing FREE AGENT Forsberg, the Canucks don't have to GIVE UP anything. They can simply add a piece to the puzzle.
Best case scenario: Forsberg returns to his old form, and the Canucks become a powerhouse all-around.
Worst Case scenario: Forsberg turns out to be a bust and/or injury prone. If that's the case, the Canucks still have their exceptional defensive depth and goaltending. Furthermore, Canucks might get some cap relief if Forsberg gets injured for an extended period of time.
CANUCKS have arguably deepest DEFENSE and GOALTENDING in NHL
Moderator: Referees
-
Farhan Lalji
More thoughts regarding Forsberg:
As I mentioned earlier, I support the idea of Nonis taking a run at Forsberg (and even overpaying a little for him).
Even if they "overpay" for Forsberg, it would still be a HUGE bargain if Forsberg ever returned to his old form. On top of that, the Canucks would add a WORLD CLASS talent (quite possibly the best player in the game when healthy) and do NOT trade away defensive depth and/or prospects! (and thus, maintaining our current strengths). Even if Forsberg turned out to be a bust or got injured, the Canucks would still have their other strengths (and would have freed up cap space if Forsberg's injuries were prolonged)
On the flip side, I do have a few concerns (even if they're unfounded):
-As we saw during the Messier era (and two seasons ago), the media might COMPLETELY bloat expectations and put ridiculous amounts of pressure on the team. If Forsberg isn't up to par, he could very easily become the media's new Bertuzzi. Higher expectations could lead to higher frustration levels.
If the Canucks ignored the idea of getting Forsberg and simply focused on signing a few PP specialists (without trading away defensemen and/or prospects), expectations won't be blown out of the waters (while at the same time, the Canucks could very QUIETLY be a very dangerous team).
As I mentioned earlier, I support the idea of Nonis taking a run at Forsberg (and even overpaying a little for him).
Even if they "overpay" for Forsberg, it would still be a HUGE bargain if Forsberg ever returned to his old form. On top of that, the Canucks would add a WORLD CLASS talent (quite possibly the best player in the game when healthy) and do NOT trade away defensive depth and/or prospects! (and thus, maintaining our current strengths). Even if Forsberg turned out to be a bust or got injured, the Canucks would still have their other strengths (and would have freed up cap space if Forsberg's injuries were prolonged)
On the flip side, I do have a few concerns (even if they're unfounded):
-As we saw during the Messier era (and two seasons ago), the media might COMPLETELY bloat expectations and put ridiculous amounts of pressure on the team. If Forsberg isn't up to par, he could very easily become the media's new Bertuzzi. Higher expectations could lead to higher frustration levels.
If the Canucks ignored the idea of getting Forsberg and simply focused on signing a few PP specialists (without trading away defensemen and/or prospects), expectations won't be blown out of the waters (while at the same time, the Canucks could very QUIETLY be a very dangerous team).
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lancer
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
- Location: Kingston, Ontario
Any comparisons between the Nucks and the Flamers are apples and oranges.
Calgary's situation last year had comparatively little to do with who was on the roster.The Flamers went with a new coach (Playfair) with a different style and attitude. Most Calgary media types laid the blame for the Flamers' lack of success on their lack of drive/finish, lack of road game, and mental errors. Apparently the Flamers' organization attempted to address it by dumping Playfair for Keenan (sort of like doing aggressive chemotherapy with cobra venom). Yeah, you can say that the Flamers shifted a little towards more offensive hockey, but even Flamers fans will tell you it was their attention to detail, lack of consistency and similar problems which dogged them last year.
The Canucks, on the other hand, will have the same coach with the same coaching style and system in place. Luongo will start the season better adjusted to his defence. The Nucks won't waste ice time and salary on the likes of Chouinard. If Bulis comes back, he will at least start off with a better idea about his role, etc. In many ways the guys will be starting largely where they left off at the end of last year (with a couple more healthy bodies)... unless Nonis pulls off a trade.
I hear you in that you don't want to rock the boat too much and cast off the likes of Ohlund (I'd hate to see him go myself). That said, the guys needed offense badly last spring and they will likely need it just as much this fall. Unless Nonis is content to see the offense come from within (Isbister suddenly plays like a 1st-rounder), he's going to have to roll the dice and make a deal. You gotta give in order to get, and our trump suit is on D, unless someone wants to take on prospects and picks (ya never know...). Precisely because the Nucks are deep on the blue line and in net, that's where Nonis can deal without leaving gaping holes in the roster.
Calgary's situation last year had comparatively little to do with who was on the roster.The Flamers went with a new coach (Playfair) with a different style and attitude. Most Calgary media types laid the blame for the Flamers' lack of success on their lack of drive/finish, lack of road game, and mental errors. Apparently the Flamers' organization attempted to address it by dumping Playfair for Keenan (sort of like doing aggressive chemotherapy with cobra venom). Yeah, you can say that the Flamers shifted a little towards more offensive hockey, but even Flamers fans will tell you it was their attention to detail, lack of consistency and similar problems which dogged them last year.
The Canucks, on the other hand, will have the same coach with the same coaching style and system in place. Luongo will start the season better adjusted to his defence. The Nucks won't waste ice time and salary on the likes of Chouinard. If Bulis comes back, he will at least start off with a better idea about his role, etc. In many ways the guys will be starting largely where they left off at the end of last year (with a couple more healthy bodies)... unless Nonis pulls off a trade.
I hear you in that you don't want to rock the boat too much and cast off the likes of Ohlund (I'd hate to see him go myself). That said, the guys needed offense badly last spring and they will likely need it just as much this fall. Unless Nonis is content to see the offense come from within (Isbister suddenly plays like a 1st-rounder), he's going to have to roll the dice and make a deal. You gotta give in order to get, and our trump suit is on D, unless someone wants to take on prospects and picks (ya never know...). Precisely because the Nucks are deep on the blue line and in net, that's where Nonis can deal without leaving gaping holes in the roster.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.
Hate the League.
Hate the League.
blah, blah, blah...over-analysis of everything Canuck, that's all I ever see on these boards. Someone tell Nonis that he shouldn't be building another team full of softies like himself...get some freakin' guys that can chuck them and maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't have had the likes of Bieksa, Salo, and Kesler out during parts/most of the playoffs. The Canucks get pushed around again and again with the likes of Burrows, Cooke, and Linden patrolling the 3rd and 4th lines. But ohhhh, they draw penalties...whooppee, we get to go on the powerplay instead while the team looks like a bunch of clowns and pansies.
And Pyatt's 2 fights a year means nothing, Isbister will get abused along with Cowan against any legit enforcer, Ritchie will be someone's shite again...on and on with the team. Also don't get on the high horse about how tough Bieksa is, he's 185lbs dripping wet and would have no chance against real heavyweights.
And Pyatt's 2 fights a year means nothing, Isbister will get abused along with Cowan against any legit enforcer, Ritchie will be someone's shite again...on and on with the team. Also don't get on the high horse about how tough Bieksa is, he's 185lbs dripping wet and would have no chance against real heavyweights.
...would that not be the point of coming to a canuck forum? Sure we're over-analyzing right now, it's freakin' July and we're trying to talk hockey...we're grasping at straws!Canuck2 wrote:blah, blah, blah...over-analysis of everything Canuck, that's all I ever see on these boards.
There's not much to talk about, so we go over shit more then we might normally. As for the toughness, sure we're not the biggest team, Dn and Tam have both mentioned they'd like to add size, and they have. The 'legit heavyweights' are few and far between who can actually play, and not every team needs a total knuckle-dragger like they used to. I loved the guy, but the days of Gino Odjick are gone. That being said, it would be great to have a true power forward/heavyweight that can play top 2 lines obviously, but who should we go for out there? FA's? Not much luck out there. Trades?
After reading this topic I find myself leaning more towards some of Farhans ideas. At first I thought I would be opposed, but it does make some sense. I do agree with Lancer however that we have to give to get, and perhaps dealing some younger players for some help up front wouldn't be such a bad idea. Lets not go sell the farm or anything but a deal that can give us a legit scoring threat would be awfully nice...
Last edited by Badfish on Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
DonCherry4PM
- MVP
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm
The following is stated based upon the premise that we want the team to get better and to be a contender. If that is the case, which I think it would be safe to assume, I would tend to disagree with some of the sentiments noted here.
Yes, the Canucks have an awesome defense. Yes, the Canucks have arguably the best goalie in the league. But does this make us into a contender? I would argue that it does not. Last year we had pretty much the same defense (minus the addition of Miller who may make a greater contribuition as the 6th D but is doubtful to push us over the brink). While I would love to see Hansen turn into a great goal scorer or Pyatt develop into a legitimate power forward, I don't see these hopes as anything more than that - a hope.
It would seem that to be a legitimate contender a team needs to have at least two solid scoring lines. That is something that the Canucks lack. When the twins' line was shut down, as it was in the playoffs, our scoring was severely stunted. With our scoring shut down it really didn't matter how good the defense was - as was seen in the many extended playoff games where the Canucks held off the opposing team for period after period but couldn't themselves put the puck in the net. Without scoring it is impossible to win, and it would seem very difficult to score against top tier teams when only having one legitimate scoring line.
Related to our lack of scoring, I have never understood Nonis' penchant for creating a defensive team when we have a goaltender who is one of the best. I could understand this fetish with defense given Cloutier - in that case it was stop the puck at the blueline or else. With Luongo we have a goaltender who will not only stop almost every shot, but who thrives with more pucks coming at him. Now, I am not saying that defense isn't an important part of the componentry of a winning team but that, given our goaltender situation, I think offense is of even greater importance.
As we all saw last year, no matter how many shots Luongo stops, he can't score goals. And usually he can't stop every shot. Given that our offense was and continues to be quite impotent, I feel that continuing to bolster an already strong defense is moving in the wrong direction. I would very much be an advocate of trading one of our top D-men(especially Ohlund were he to waive his NTC) for a legitimate top six forward who could give us two threatening lines. Even in trading one of our top D it isn't as if we would be depleting our defense and immediatley digress to being a sieve. We have amazing depth at D. We actually have depth in D on the farm team - imagine that. Trading from our strength doesn't connote that we will become weak. We have enough strength in that position to remain strong even with the absence of one of our top four. And if there are injuries, which there will be, I have faith that there is enough depth in the organization to handle that.
If the team continues to hold the course, I don't see us going any further than we did last year, nor do I see us as a legitimate contender. I do think that having two legitimate scoring lines would greatly improve the team and would actually put us into serious contention. Thus I would not be at all adverse to trading away some of our strength at D to bolster our weak offense.
All of that said, I do agree with Farhan that if we could sign Forsberg or the like there would be no need for a trade. But I doubt very much whether that will happen and see a trade as a much more reasonable possibility.
I would tend to agree with Lancer that "You gotta give in order to get."
Yes, the Canucks have an awesome defense. Yes, the Canucks have arguably the best goalie in the league. But does this make us into a contender? I would argue that it does not. Last year we had pretty much the same defense (minus the addition of Miller who may make a greater contribuition as the 6th D but is doubtful to push us over the brink). While I would love to see Hansen turn into a great goal scorer or Pyatt develop into a legitimate power forward, I don't see these hopes as anything more than that - a hope.
It would seem that to be a legitimate contender a team needs to have at least two solid scoring lines. That is something that the Canucks lack. When the twins' line was shut down, as it was in the playoffs, our scoring was severely stunted. With our scoring shut down it really didn't matter how good the defense was - as was seen in the many extended playoff games where the Canucks held off the opposing team for period after period but couldn't themselves put the puck in the net. Without scoring it is impossible to win, and it would seem very difficult to score against top tier teams when only having one legitimate scoring line.
Related to our lack of scoring, I have never understood Nonis' penchant for creating a defensive team when we have a goaltender who is one of the best. I could understand this fetish with defense given Cloutier - in that case it was stop the puck at the blueline or else. With Luongo we have a goaltender who will not only stop almost every shot, but who thrives with more pucks coming at him. Now, I am not saying that defense isn't an important part of the componentry of a winning team but that, given our goaltender situation, I think offense is of even greater importance.
As we all saw last year, no matter how many shots Luongo stops, he can't score goals. And usually he can't stop every shot. Given that our offense was and continues to be quite impotent, I feel that continuing to bolster an already strong defense is moving in the wrong direction. I would very much be an advocate of trading one of our top D-men(especially Ohlund were he to waive his NTC) for a legitimate top six forward who could give us two threatening lines. Even in trading one of our top D it isn't as if we would be depleting our defense and immediatley digress to being a sieve. We have amazing depth at D. We actually have depth in D on the farm team - imagine that. Trading from our strength doesn't connote that we will become weak. We have enough strength in that position to remain strong even with the absence of one of our top four. And if there are injuries, which there will be, I have faith that there is enough depth in the organization to handle that.
If the team continues to hold the course, I don't see us going any further than we did last year, nor do I see us as a legitimate contender. I do think that having two legitimate scoring lines would greatly improve the team and would actually put us into serious contention. Thus I would not be at all adverse to trading away some of our strength at D to bolster our weak offense.
All of that said, I do agree with Farhan that if we could sign Forsberg or the like there would be no need for a trade. But I doubt very much whether that will happen and see a trade as a much more reasonable possibility.
I would tend to agree with Lancer that "You gotta give in order to get."
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
- Sun Tzu
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
- Sun Tzu
-
Farhan Lalji
Hey Lancer,Lancer wrote: I hear you in that you don't want to rock the boat too much and cast off the likes of Ohlund (I'd hate to see him go myself). That said, the guys needed offense badly last spring and they will likely need it just as much this fall. Unless Nonis is content to see the offense come from within (Isbister suddenly plays like a 1st-rounder), he's going to have to roll the dice and make a deal. You gotta give in order to get, and our trump suit is on D, unless someone wants to take on prospects and picks (ya never know...). Precisely because the Nucks are deep on the blue line and in net, that's where Nonis can deal without leaving gaping holes in the roster.
Good analysis of the Calgary situation. I admittedly don't follow the Flames very much, and so I'm glad you could share some more insight.
I definitely agree that the Canucks need more offense if they are to take the proverbial "next step."
However....
-I don't think the Canucks need to make a MAJOR trade in order for this to happen
-I don't think it's necessary for the Canucks to trade away defensive depth in order to get offensive help (especially when you consider that the Canucks just might end up being "different"....not "better").
What I want people to think about is this: As great as our team defense and goaltending was last season, it could actually be even BETTER this season (based on the current team we have on paper). Miller = upgrade on Fitzpatrick, Krajicek = one more year of experience, Sanford = upgrade on Sabourin.
On top of all this, we STILL have some cap room.
In other words, the Canucks can STILL add to their offense WITHOUT having to trade away their defensive depth and/or prospects. THAT is my argument.
My argument is that instead of trading away defensive depth for a $4-5 million dollar forward that can play alongside the Sedin twins (players of which can make almost ANYONE look good anyways) or Naslund (who under Veenyo's current system, won't play like his old free wheeling WCE days unless its at the expense of team defense), why not KEEP what we have.......and simply ADD what we need?
These additions can come in various forms:
1) With the remaining cap space, go after a guy like Peter Forsberg. Best case scenario? Forsberg returns to his old form, and the Canucks are deep everywhere. Worst case scenario? Forsberg is a bust and/or injury prone, but the Canucks maintain their defensive and goaltending supremacy. Forsberg's prolonged injuries could clear up cap space.
2) With the remaining cap space, go after "PP specialist" type forwards. Guys who can be had for fairly cheap, are fairly useless hockey players, but under the right circumstances.....can help immensely on the power play (i.e. Anson Carter, Peter Bondra, etc.).
This past season for instance - despite the Canucks barely scoring any goals, we still defeated Dallas in 7 games. In our series against the Ducks, the Canucks could have very easily won 3 of those (I'd argue that the Canucks outplayed the Ducks in games 3 and 4).
IF the Canucks power play was half-way decent, the Canucks very easily could've won a lot of those games. Dallas could've been beaten in 5, while the Ducks might've been beaten in 6 or 7.
On top of that, the Canucks had a few key injuries (i.e. Cooke, Kesler, etc.). That's some speed and grit right there. What if THEY were in the line-up?
One more thing we can learn from this past season: You can NEVER have too many defensemen. Look how many injuries the Canucks had on D. Look at Buffalo from a few seasons ago.
MY VERDICT: Based on the Canucks' current line-up and make-up, they do NOT need a power house offense to be a championship team. All the Canucks need, is to maintain their excellent goaltending and defense. If the Canucks can continue their excellent PK and improve their power play, then an average offense will suffice IMO. The Sedin twins, a few emerging youngsters, and Naslund, should ATLEAST ensure that the Canucks will have an average offense 5 on 5.
Sigh .. thanks for the input ...Canuck2 wrote:blah, blah, blah...over-analysis of everything Canuck, that's all I ever see on these boards. Someone tell Nonis that he shouldn't be building another team full of softies like himself...get some freakin' guys that can chuck them and maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't have had the likes of Bieksa, Salo, and Kesler out during parts/most of the playoffs. The Canucks get pushed around again and again with the likes of Burrows, Cooke, and Linden patrolling the 3rd and 4th lines. But ohhhh, they draw penalties...whooppee, we get to go on the powerplay instead while the team looks like a bunch of clowns and pansies.
And Pyatt's 2 fights a year means nothing, Isbister will get abused along with Cowan against any legit enforcer, Ritchie will be someone's shite again...on and on with the team. Also don't get on the high horse about how tough Bieksa is, he's 185lbs dripping wet and would have no chance against real heavyweights.
Grizz
-
Farhan Lalji
Hopefully, my "over-analysis" didn't offend you too much?Canuck2 wrote:blah, blah, blah...over-analysis of everything Canuck, that's all I ever see on these boards. .
Nonetheless, my point still stands.
Trading away defensive depth for an offensive RW superstar is an unnecessary high risk in my opinion. For one thing - the Sedin twins don't need a superstar RW......all they need is a DECENT RW. Anson Carter, at $700,000, can practically do the SAME THING that a $4-5 million dollar guy can do in that EXACT position. 33 goals guys. 33 goals.
Putting a superstar RW'er alongside Naslund (at the expense of defensive depth) is also a huge and unnecessary risk. Given Veenyo's current system (and how Naslund plays under it), who is to say that this newly acquired RW will be the new "knight in shining armour" for Nazzy?
If you want offense? Great? Don't do it at the expense of our tremendous defensive corps and/or prospects. Go after a free agent like Peter Forsberg, or go after a few PP specialists that can be had for cheap.
Great Goaltending + Great team defensive depth + Great Penalty Kill + Great Power Play + Average offense = A pretty good chance to win the cup.
Anaheim all intact (Neidermayer etc.) has to be right up there as well ... but yeah good analysis ...
I would also like the nucks to keep their D together and continue to work on the young guys ... draft well and develop. The odd free agent at the right time might be a good idea but the price to get them nowadays on deadline days is absolutely absurd ... I think one has to be very very careful picking and choosing that way ... lots of teams have been completely burn't by some of those deals (ie Nashville) ...
I like Forsberg by the way but I think he is a walking bandaid ... there are no guarantees whatesover as to the number of games he will play ... for a cheap price I might consider him ... the problem is teams are still asking top dollar for his services which is entirely based upon what he used to be able to do.
Scoring though is certainly a problem .. Naslund and Mo make what ? ... 10mil a year between the two and both are on the second line ... if they could regain form (although I doubt it based upon the new style change and their apparent downswings) we would have two solid scoring lines ... we can argue that Naslund is a more complete player now ... which he is ... but the fact is he is paid to score goals so it is a lot of money tied up based on the production we are seeing. I think we are going to have to wait that one out ... lets hope Naslund just has a super year ... I believe too it is the last year in his contract.
Grizz
I would also like the nucks to keep their D together and continue to work on the young guys ... draft well and develop. The odd free agent at the right time might be a good idea but the price to get them nowadays on deadline days is absolutely absurd ... I think one has to be very very careful picking and choosing that way ... lots of teams have been completely burn't by some of those deals (ie Nashville) ...
I like Forsberg by the way but I think he is a walking bandaid ... there are no guarantees whatesover as to the number of games he will play ... for a cheap price I might consider him ... the problem is teams are still asking top dollar for his services which is entirely based upon what he used to be able to do.
Scoring though is certainly a problem .. Naslund and Mo make what ? ... 10mil a year between the two and both are on the second line ... if they could regain form (although I doubt it based upon the new style change and their apparent downswings) we would have two solid scoring lines ... we can argue that Naslund is a more complete player now ... which he is ... but the fact is he is paid to score goals so it is a lot of money tied up based on the production we are seeing. I think we are going to have to wait that one out ... lets hope Naslund just has a super year ... I believe too it is the last year in his contract.
Grizz
You are right there too Farhan ... we can't keep turning the ship around every couple of years ... we did the full offence thing a few years ago and it didn't work ... AV has turned the ship around and has solidified our defense etc. ...If you want offense? Great? Don't do it at the expense of our tremendous defensive corps and/or prospects. Go after a free agent like Peter Forsberg, or go after a few PP specialists that can be had for cheap.
... Definitely a major mistake to turn it around once again and dump some of our defensive minded players for offence ... not saying we shouldn't pick up some more offensive minded type players but certainly keep with the system we have maintaining a balance ... It is exciting etc. to have the pure offensive players but our system doesn't really support the offensive type players that only thrive under a offensive type system ... we need solid two way players that chip in goals but also mind their defensive responsibilities ... Forsberg is that type of player although I do have concerns with him ... see above comments from previous post.
Grizz
Farhan, unlike your thread about Roenick, I agree with this one mostly 
Yes, we need to the keep or improve the D core. Luongo is set. I don't see Sanford being that much (if any) of an improvement over Sabby.
I think that Nonis is in the enviable position of being able to wait to make his move. He didn't have to make a headline move July 1 to put people in the stands, he just needed to show that he's capable of making the subtle moves. None of us know how the team will look at the trade deadline (injuries, slumps, etc) but I would rather see Nonis make his move then rather than now.
At the beginning of last year, almost everyone on this board agreed that we were starting a new phase/era (not necessarily re-building) and the a true Cup run would be 2-3 years away at best. I still hold that thought. If we make a Cup run it will be either because everyone is overachieving, or Nonis traded away some prospects to 'force' a Cup run.
For now I will enjoy listening to games and hearing about Luongo's saves and the fact that will win more games than we lose and will make the playoffs. I'll be happy to see guys like Kesler, Bieksa, and Sedin's improve, and I'll be rooting for Naslund and Morrision to find their groove again.
As for Forsberg, if he came cheap enough, I would jump on it to help Naslund earn his $6 mil.
(sorry for the blah, blah blah...)
Yes, we need to the keep or improve the D core. Luongo is set. I don't see Sanford being that much (if any) of an improvement over Sabby.
I think that Nonis is in the enviable position of being able to wait to make his move. He didn't have to make a headline move July 1 to put people in the stands, he just needed to show that he's capable of making the subtle moves. None of us know how the team will look at the trade deadline (injuries, slumps, etc) but I would rather see Nonis make his move then rather than now.
At the beginning of last year, almost everyone on this board agreed that we were starting a new phase/era (not necessarily re-building) and the a true Cup run would be 2-3 years away at best. I still hold that thought. If we make a Cup run it will be either because everyone is overachieving, or Nonis traded away some prospects to 'force' a Cup run.
For now I will enjoy listening to games and hearing about Luongo's saves and the fact that will win more games than we lose and will make the playoffs. I'll be happy to see guys like Kesler, Bieksa, and Sedin's improve, and I'll be rooting for Naslund and Morrision to find their groove again.
As for Forsberg, if he came cheap enough, I would jump on it to help Naslund earn his $6 mil.
(sorry for the blah, blah blah...)
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
Agree with this, incrementally improve our goaltending, incrementally improve our defense (even if we're improving our strengths, improvements are improvements), and then adjust in minor ways where we can to improve our offense, hopefully Ritchie is better than Chouinard, Isbister has potential, Kesler and Cooke healthy, the addition of Shannon, Morrison and Naslund in contract years with something to improve, at the worst, it SHOULD be better as is. If we can add a guy like Carter or Forsberg for the right price, it's a low-risk with high possible gain, and if that doesn't work, then trade Schneider and Cooke for something with our remaining cap space.Farhan Lalji wrote:Hey Lancer,Lancer wrote: I hear you in that you don't want to rock the boat too much and cast off the likes of Ohlund (I'd hate to see him go myself). That said, the guys needed offense badly last spring and they will likely need it just as much this fall. Unless Nonis is content to see the offense come from within (Isbister suddenly plays like a 1st-rounder), he's going to have to roll the dice and make a deal. You gotta give in order to get, and our trump suit is on D, unless someone wants to take on prospects and picks (ya never know...). Precisely because the Nucks are deep on the blue line and in net, that's where Nonis can deal without leaving gaping holes in the roster.
Good analysis of the Calgary situation. I admittedly don't follow the Flames very much, and so I'm glad you could share some more insight.
I definitely agree that the Canucks need more offense if they are to take the proverbial "next step."
However....
-I don't think the Canucks need to make a MAJOR trade in order for this to happen
-I don't think it's necessary for the Canucks to trade away defensive depth in order to get offensive help (especially when you consider that the Canucks just might end up being "different"....not "better").
What I want people to think about is this: As great as our team defense and goaltending was last season, it could actually be even BETTER this season (based on the current team we have on paper). Miller = upgrade on Fitzpatrick, Krajicek = one more year of experience, Sanford = upgrade on Sabourin.
On top of all this, we STILL have some cap room.
In other words, the Canucks can STILL add to their offense WITHOUT having to trade away their defensive depth and/or prospects. THAT is my argument.
My argument is that instead of trading away defensive depth for a $4-5 million dollar forward that can play alongside the Sedin twins (players of which can make almost ANYONE look good anyways) or Naslund (who under Veenyo's current system, won't play like his old free wheeling WCE days unless its at the expense of team defense), why not KEEP what we have.......and simply ADD what we need?
These additions can come in various forms:
1) With the remaining cap space, go after a guy like Peter Forsberg. Best case scenario? Forsberg returns to his old form, and the Canucks are deep everywhere. Worst case scenario? Forsberg is a bust and/or injury prone, but the Canucks maintain their defensive and goaltending supremacy. Forsberg's prolonged injuries could clear up cap space.
2) With the remaining cap space, go after "PP specialist" type forwards. Guys who can be had for fairly cheap, are fairly useless hockey players, but under the right circumstances.....can help immensely on the power play (i.e. Anson Carter, Peter Bondra, etc.).
This past season for instance - despite the Canucks barely scoring any goals, we still defeated Dallas in 7 games. In our series against the Ducks, the Canucks could have very easily won 3 of those (I'd argue that the Canucks outplayed the Ducks in games 3 and 4).
IF the Canucks power play was half-way decent, the Canucks very easily could've won a lot of those games. Dallas could've been beaten in 5, while the Ducks might've been beaten in 6 or 7.
On top of that, the Canucks had a few key injuries (i.e. Cooke, Kesler, etc.). That's some speed and grit right there. What if THEY were in the line-up?
One more thing we can learn from this past season: You can NEVER have too many defensemen. Look how many injuries the Canucks had on D. Look at Buffalo from a few seasons ago.
MY VERDICT: Based on the Canucks' current line-up and make-up, they do NOT need a power house offense to be a championship team. All the Canucks need, is to maintain their excellent goaltending and defense. If the Canucks can continue their excellent PK and improve their power play, then an average offense will suffice IMO. The Sedin twins, a few emerging youngsters, and Naslund, should ATLEAST ensure that the Canucks will have an average offense 5 on 5.
And then next year, $9.2M from Morrison and Naslund for free agents, Grabner, Raymond, Hansen, all a year closer, it can only get better.
Mark