I assumed it was a forgone conclusion.
Canucks Young Guns
Moderator: Referees
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl
- Chef Boi RD
- MVP
- Posts: 7157
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Re: Canucks Young Guns
I’m with you cats
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl
Re: Canucks Young Guns
We dont have to worry wids. Hughes makes tiny troy obsolete and seattle can have him. He can be our welcome to the league giftHockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:10 pmName one benefit playing Hughes 11 games instead of 10?
Im sure boeser and petterson would endorse the gift of the smurf
If you need air...call it in
- Chef Boi RD
- MVP
- Posts: 7157
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Re: Canucks Young Guns
We (RG and I) are in the process of trying to define who exactly are the GillisBro’s and the BenningBro’s and that you are either one or the other, never both. What are you on about?Diehard1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:14 pmAre we still doing this? It’s been 5 years, move on - this is the longest breakup with Gillis imaginable. There are 5 players on this team that Gillis had some part in finding - Horvat (drafted), Gaudette (Gillis got the pick used to get him), Markstrom (Luongo trade), Hutton (drafted), Tanev (signed). Edler was already here. In case you were counting, that’s 3 of your 6 best players, along with Petey and Boeser, that Gillis gave to Jimbo, and arguably 5 of your best 10.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:09 pmThen why are all you HF Canuck bro’s so quick to defend Gillis if it’s possible to be a BenningHater without being a GillisBro?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:48 pmYou needn't abandon your hatred of all thing Gillis in order to be skeptical, or even overtly critical, of Benning and his plans.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:14 pm
At this point, you make room. The season is done. If Green and Benning are not willing to play out the rest of the season with the future in mind then I just might become a GillisBro. These two need to stop being stupid. A blatant tank with your future dominating the lineup may be in order, we ain’t winning with the vets, so why the fuck not? If I here Green go on about the little things that Eriksson does, etc I’ll lose it.
Benning inherited a team universally agreed upon, across the board, to possess the worst future outlook AND prospect pool in the NHL at the time of Jim’s hiring? Do you agree RG?
The rest of the filler on this roster is directly attributable to Jimbo and he’s been here 5 seasons, so let’s focus on that. This coming offseason will be his 6th in charge, that must be enough time to give him some credit and/or blame.
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
-
- CC Rookie
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:55 pm
Re: Canucks Young Guns
Based on current roster (or rights to players) I would prefer not to lose any of the following to the expansion draft:Diehard1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:59 pm
If Hughes plays more than 10 games - it’s 10, not 9, then we will most likely use one of Stecher, Hutton or Juolevi to Seattle.
Yes, Juolevi has to be protected. If Edler signs a deal with a NMC and we play Quinn more than 10 games then we have to expose two of Stecher, Juolevi and Hutton.
- Edler
- Tanev
- Hutton
- Stecher
- Juolevi
- Tryamkin
I can live with losing Pouliot, Biega, Sautner, McEneny, Charfield or to a lesser degree, Schenn.
What I would want to see Canucks do is:
1) Edler gets 2 years contract then is UFA (with hope to resigned after draft), or, if he refuses, aim for a contract allowing him to be traded before 20/21 trade deadline.
2) Tanev I still see them needing - who else actually plays defense. However, he will be on the wrong side of 30 and injuries are piling up. Look for a younger top 6 winger to get back in trade.
3) Hutton/Stecher should be long term keepers - Protect
4) Juolevi - part of the future - protect
5) Tryamkin - he should be here to play in 20/21. He has until trade deadline to prove himself as a keeper, in which case one of Hutton or Stecher likely will hit the trade market (hoping Juolevi actually pans out). If he is is not showing the will/ability to excel, then bye bye for best you can get.
Last edited by lostinarink on Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Canucks Young Guns
If RD didn’t have Gillis to post about then his daily posts would drop by half or more.Diehard1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:14 pmAre we still doing this? It’s been 5 years, move on - this is the longest breakup with Gillis imaginable. There are 5 players on this team that Gillis had some part in finding - Horvat (drafted), Gaudette (Gillis got the pick used to get him), Markstrom (Luongo trade), Hutton (drafted), Tanev (signed). Edler was already here. In case you were counting, that’s 3 of your 6 best players, along with Petey and Boeser, that Gillis gave to Jimbo, and arguably 5 of your best 10.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:09 pmThen why are all you HF Canuck bro’s so quick to defend Gillis if it’s possible to be a BenningHater without being a GillisBro?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:48 pmYou needn't abandon your hatred of all thing Gillis in order to be skeptical, or even overtly critical, of Benning and his plans.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:14 pm
At this point, you make room. The season is done. If Green and Benning are not willing to play out the rest of the season with the future in mind then I just might become a GillisBro. These two need to stop being stupid. A blatant tank with your future dominating the lineup may be in order, we ain’t winning with the vets, so why the fuck not? If I here Green go on about the little things that Eriksson does, etc I’ll lose it.
Benning inherited a team universally agreed upon, across the board, to possess the worst future outlook AND prospect pool in the NHL at the time of Jim’s hiring? Do you agree RG?
The rest of the filler on this roster is directly attributable to Jimbo and he’s been here 5 seasons, so let’s focus on that. This coming offseason will be his 6th in charge, that must be enough time to give him some credit and/or blame.
Re: Canucks Young Guns
We have no idea what is needed in 2 years so don’t do anything now to make it more complicated for the draft. All of this because of a couple meaningless games now?
Not worth the risk.
Not worth the risk.
Re: Canucks Young Guns
After 5 full seasons it’s done., the book on Gillis is closed. This is Jimbo’s baby, whether they sink or swim. Attributing any of this team to Gillis isn’t constructive as Jimbo has had plenty of time to shape it in his vision.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:24 pmWe (RG and I) are in the process of trying to define who exactly are the GillisBro’s and the BenningBro’s and that you are either one or the other, never both. What are you on about?Diehard1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:14 pmAre we still doing this? It’s been 5 years, move on - this is the longest breakup with Gillis imaginable. There are 5 players on this team that Gillis had some part in finding - Horvat (drafted), Gaudette (Gillis got the pick used to get him), Markstrom (Luongo trade), Hutton (drafted), Tanev (signed). Edler was already here. In case you were counting, that’s 3 of your 6 best players, along with Petey and Boeser, that Gillis gave to Jimbo, and arguably 5 of your best 10.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:09 pmThen why are all you HF Canuck bro’s so quick to defend Gillis if it’s possible to be a BenningHater without being a GillisBro?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:48 pmYou needn't abandon your hatred of all thing Gillis in order to be skeptical, or even overtly critical, of Benning and his plans.RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:14 pm
At this point, you make room. The season is done. If Green and Benning are not willing to play out the rest of the season with the future in mind then I just might become a GillisBro. These two need to stop being stupid. A blatant tank with your future dominating the lineup may be in order, we ain’t winning with the vets, so why the fuck not? If I here Green go on about the little things that Eriksson does, etc I’ll lose it.
Benning inherited a team universally agreed upon, across the board, to possess the worst future outlook AND prospect pool in the NHL at the time of Jim’s hiring? Do you agree RG?
The rest of the filler on this roster is directly attributable to Jimbo and he’s been here 5 seasons, so let’s focus on that. This coming offseason will be his 6th in charge, that must be enough time to give him some credit and/or blame.
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl
Re: Canucks Young Guns
How the fuck is anyone still talking about gillis? Its a diagnosable syndrome of some sort...
Doc....your thoughts?
Doc....your thoughts?
If you need air...call it in
- 5thhorseman
- MVP
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:04 am
Re: Canucks Young Guns
Aren't we going to lose one of Markstrom or Demko, so this whole discussion is moot.lostinarink wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:30 pmBased on current roster (or rights to players) I would prefer not to lose any of the following to the expansion draft:Diehard1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:59 pm
If Hughes plays more than 10 games - it’s 10, not 9, then we will most likely use one of Stecher, Hutton or Juolevi to Seattle.
Yes, Juolevi has to be protected. If Edler signs a deal with a NMC and we play Quinn more than 10 games then we have to expose two of Stecher, Juolevi and Hutton.
- Edler
- Tanev
- Hutton
- Stecher
- Juolevi
- Tryamkin
I can live with losing Pouliot, Biega, Sautner, McEneny, Charfield or to a lesser degree, Schenn.
- Hockey Widow
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm
Re: Canucks Young Guns
Exactly. Its easy to say oh wow so we expose Stetcher, but Stetcher may not even be here. Thats the point. We don't know what our D will look like in two years and who will have to be exposed. Im not worried about losing Hughes, Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, Juolevi, Types. They will be protected. But if we have to protect Hughes that leaves one more D we cant protect. We will in all likelihood protect 3 D. If Hughes needs to be protected and we assume Juolevi will be protected that leaves one more D we can protect. Thats the point.
The only HW the Canucks need
Re: Canucks Young Guns
Hey does anyone know, is Petey injured, cause something seems amiss?
cc oldtimer
- Strangelove
- Moderator & MVP
- Posts: 12715
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
- Location: Lake Vostok
Re: Canucks Young Guns
It could be that some here are suffering from some kind of Coulrophobia/Dutchphobia combo.Uncle dans leg wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:51 pm How the fuck is anyone still talking about gillis? Its a diagnosable syndrome of some sort...
Doc....your thoughts?
____
Try to focus on someday.
Try to focus on someday.
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl