Mason Raymond is one of the best players in the League. I wonder if he will play with Crosby or Stamkos in Sochi. I guess they could just load up the one line with their three best forwards and do thatBurningBeard wrote:Mason Raymond?Jovocop wrote:Herb is right. Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. Can you name another prospect that has as much skills as Shinkaruk, besides Bure and the Sedins?? Unfortunately, I can think of any...
Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Moderator: Referees
- Art Vandelay
- CC Veteran
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:56 pm
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Michael Grabner?Jovocop wrote:Weight could be added but skills and hockey IQ cannot be taught. Herb is right. Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. Can you name another prospect that has as much skills as Shinkaruk, besides Bure and the Sedins?? Unfortunately, I can think of any...RoyalDude wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa easy there big fella. The kid is light as a feather, he has an up hill battle. I like the kid too, but keep it realherb wrote:
Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. The kid has sick skills and may be on the Canucks roster next year. He is about as untouchable as prospects get.
- The Brown Knight
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
herb wrote: I just don't think you trade those kinds of prospects for what would amount to a depth move (albeit a significant one).
Good point, but you said it best: (albeit a significant one).
The only thing really missing frrom this team right now is a power play. The addition of Erhoff could very well ignite a complete 180 in our PP......to the point where our GF would go up by 1 on average.
Granted - we've been getting decent chances (as another poster pointed out.....I can't find his quote), and our power play will probably end up being "middle of the road" at some point, but why not bring it back to its 2011 level?......or close to it? Erhoff is that guy. Plain and simple.
My line of thinking is that if Erhoff comes back here, this Canucks team is awfully close to their 2012 or even 2011 level.........for atleast a few years.
I love Shinkaruk as well, but solid puck moving defensemen/PP QB's do not grow on trees. They are far more rare than skilled wingers. As far as promising up front talent goes, we've got Horvat.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"
The Dark Indian Rises
The Dark Indian Rises
- BurningBeard
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Now you're making me look stupid. I wish I had picked Michael Grabner, I wasn't thinking.Zedlee wrote:Michael Grabner?
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Well at least we won't have to worry about the Austrian Rocket scoring on us tomorrow, as he's just been suspended for 2 games lol for his hit on Carolina's Nathan Gerbe.BurningBeard wrote:Now you're making me look stupid. I wish I had picked Michael Grabner, I wasn't thinking.Zedlee wrote:Michael Grabner?
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Similar players I suppose, and I haven't seen Grabner play in a while, but Shinkaruk has a higher compete level than one-way Grabner ever did. Shinkaruk has also put up nearly double the amount of points Grabner ever did in the WHL, and is on pace for 120 points this season (Grabner scored in the 50's).
I hate getting sucked into these silly "trade proposals", yet here I am. Anyway, to me this is very much a transition year and a guy like Ehrhoff absolutely does not push us over the top against teams like San Jose and Chicago but takes up more precious cap space going forward for a guy who will be our fifth best defenseman five on five. There is little hope that the Sedin led Canucks can beat the best teams in this league four times out of seven without help, and it's time to start thinking ahead to building a new first line. Thankfully Gillis is doing so and not looking to move what little prospect depth we have.
This may very well be the final kick at the can in the CHL for Gaunce, Horvat and Shinkaruk, and so far so good as they are all lighting it up. Losing a high level prospect like Shinkaruk sets the future of this organization back at least another year in trying to build that new first line.
Don't forget, Dank already looks like he may be slowing down, and this season we'll find out what a healthy Ryan Kesler is really (in)capable of. Like I said, transition year.
I hate getting sucked into these silly "trade proposals", yet here I am. Anyway, to me this is very much a transition year and a guy like Ehrhoff absolutely does not push us over the top against teams like San Jose and Chicago but takes up more precious cap space going forward for a guy who will be our fifth best defenseman five on five. There is little hope that the Sedin led Canucks can beat the best teams in this league four times out of seven without help, and it's time to start thinking ahead to building a new first line. Thankfully Gillis is doing so and not looking to move what little prospect depth we have.
This may very well be the final kick at the can in the CHL for Gaunce, Horvat and Shinkaruk, and so far so good as they are all lighting it up. Losing a high level prospect like Shinkaruk sets the future of this organization back at least another year in trying to build that new first line.
Don't forget, Dank already looks like he may be slowing down, and this season we'll find out what a healthy Ryan Kesler is really (in)capable of. Like I said, transition year.
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Grabner, at best, is a second liner on a good team. You can argue about Hodgson but he does not have the speed and heart to go with his skills.Zedlee wrote:Michael Grabner?Jovocop wrote: Weight could be added but skills and hockey IQ cannot be taught. Herb is right. Shinkaruk is the most talented and offensively gifted Canucks prospect I have seen since maybe Bure. Can you name another prospect that has as much skills as Shinkaruk, besides Bure and the Sedins?? Unfortunately, I can think of any...
- Island Nucklehead
- MVP
- Posts: 8362
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
- Location: Ottawa
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
If the Canucks wanted Ehrhoff at that price they would have paid him that price. Trading assets, and extremely valuable ones like Shinkaruk, for him right now would make Gillis look like a fool (much to the glee of the Gillis-fucked-my-wife crowd around these parts).
We acquired him for next to nothing, he put up some great point totals here, and he bolted for the big payday. The Canucks top-4 is locked up until 2015-16, and paying Ehrhoff until he's 39 isn't appealing to me at all. That ship has long sailed.
We acquired him for next to nothing, he put up some great point totals here, and he bolted for the big payday. The Canucks top-4 is locked up until 2015-16, and paying Ehrhoff until he's 39 isn't appealing to me at all. That ship has long sailed.
- Hockey Widow
- CC Legend
- Posts: 16115
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
I agree, as much as A relatively free Ehrhoff brought to this team lets remember he is not a shut down D man and easily got out muscled in the playoffs. He has great O production but has also been slowed by injuries. In a Perfect world he would be a great fit, but not in a cap world.
Scoring from the top six is a major problem and finally have prospects that MAY be able to provide that is a blessing. Let's see what this season brings, get the twins re-signed and move forward. Our back end with Tanev, Stanton and Corrado is much younger than in years past and by all accounts has a bright future. The top 4 are a lock and who knows, 2-3 years from now we may want to exploring moving one of them but not right now. Unless someone offers up a solution to a third line centre and top six scoring for one of Bieksa or Edler I wouldn't move either right now. And either one is worth a young third line centre and a top six.
What would you pay to land either guy on our team? I mean if Ehrhoff is worth Shinky plus?
Scoring from the top six is a major problem and finally have prospects that MAY be able to provide that is a blessing. Let's see what this season brings, get the twins re-signed and move forward. Our back end with Tanev, Stanton and Corrado is much younger than in years past and by all accounts has a bright future. The top 4 are a lock and who knows, 2-3 years from now we may want to exploring moving one of them but not right now. Unless someone offers up a solution to a third line centre and top six scoring for one of Bieksa or Edler I wouldn't move either right now. And either one is worth a young third line centre and a top six.
What would you pay to land either guy on our team? I mean if Ehrhoff is worth Shinky plus?
The only HW the Canucks need
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
It's great to see both Santorelli and Richardson playing well above expectation. However, it's only been 10 games in the season. I assume you would not expect both of them outscoring Daniel, Henrik, and Kesler in a 82-games season, would you? Stanton, so far, has 1 goal which is more than Bieksa and Tanev. Are you expecting him to score 1 goal every 10 games from now on and outscoring Bieksa?? Perhaps Stanton can outscore Tanev .Mondi wrote:The team is 10 games into the season, and they have
Daniel 2
Henrik 2
Burrows 0 (I know he's injured)
Kesler 3
Hansen 2
Higgins 2
That's a lot of top six guys on pace for 16 goal seasons.
Booth has 1, Kassian has 1 and god bless Mike Santorelli and Brad Richardson both outscoring all of our $2 million plus forwards.
I would look at trading anyone on this team for offensive help, today. No one is untouchable. Nor should they be.
However, I'd be careful asking GMMG to make any trades as his track record suggests we'd probably do something like Shinkaruk and a first for Tomas Fleischmann!
- The Brown Knight
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
I pretty much agree with everything Hockey Widow and Island Knucklehead said in response to my post.
I have nothing more to add.......for now.
I have nothing more to add.......for now.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"
The Dark Indian Rises
The Dark Indian Rises
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
No really if you want any relevant data. It's an incredibly long season. If you look at the underlying data for these players and the team as a whole, we are doing OK.Mondi wrote:I mean an 1/8 of the season is surely enough to draw some conclusions?
I love the early season for the simple fact I love to watch all of the armchair critics out there gush at the guys who rocket out of the gate and shit on those who get off to a slow start.
Dan Hamhuis only has two points this season (on pace for 16...). What the hell conclusions can we reliably make from that other than he's having a slow start?
In their most recent seasons with the Canucks, Booth, Hansen and Higgins have scored at a 23, 17 and 20 goal paces (over 82 games) respectively. I fully expect these established veteran players to score at similar paces this year.
Dank, Kesler and Higgins are currently 7th, 8th and 9th in league wide shots taken, yet neither of these guys has more than three goals. Combined, they have taken 114 shots, but have only scored seven times, which results in a pathetic shooting percentage of 6. In previous years, these three scored at around a 10% clip.
I'm a bit more concerned about Booth, Kassian and Hansen at this point as they are simply not getting enough pucks on net, but I think they will come along.
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Thank you, Herb!herb wrote:No really if you want any relevant data. It's an incredibly long season. If you look at the underlying data for these players and the team as a whole, we are doing OK.Mondi wrote:I mean an 1/8 of the season is surely enough to draw some conclusions?
I love the early season for the simple fact I love to watch all of the armchair critics out there gush at the guys who rocket out of the gate and shit on those who get off to a slow start.
Dan Hamhuis only has two points this season (on pace for 16...). What the hell conclusions can we reliably make from that other than he's having a slow start?
In their most recent seasons with the Canucks, Booth, Hansen and Higgins have scored at a 23, 17 and 20 goal paces (over 82 games) respectively. I fully expect these established veteran players to score at similar paces this year.
Dank, Kesler and Higgins are currently 7th, 8th and 9th in league wide shots taken, yet neither of these guys has more than three goals. Combined, they have taken 114 shots, but have only scored seven times, which results in a pathetic shooting percentage of 6. In previous years, these three scored at around a 10% clip.
I'm a bit more concerned about Booth, Kassian and Hansen at this point as they are simply not getting enough pucks on net, but I think they will come along.
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
One thing that we need to be aware of is that the Nucks have played 10 games, the most of all teams except 1. This team is in a crucial X # of games in X # of nights. JT has had little to no time to work on the areas that need to be approved.
I am holding back on any comments until this team gets some proper practice time (I do reserve the right to lose it mid game once in a while)
I am holding back on any comments until this team gets some proper practice time (I do reserve the right to lose it mid game once in a while)
Re: Moving one of our Top 4 defenseman for a Top 6 Forward
Not sure why I would analyze seasons where there was very little to no data to build any conclusions off of other than he was injured the entire time. Shocking he didn't put up points when he didn't play, I know. You're right though; Booth probably won't play the rest of the year.Mondi wrote:Your math with respect to Booth is banana sandwich, unless you're going back two years for your projection. Not to mention, said player is now a healthy scratch (being replaced by a defenseman).
What does a second line player on a cup contender score over 82 games? 50ish points...hey look, Saad, Stalberg and Bickell scored at similar rates with Chicago last year as Higgins and Hansen.Mondi wrote:I do expect Hansen and Higgins to chip between 15 and 20 goals a piece, probably not enough from bona fide second liners on a Cup contender. Unless you have a couple of other 40-goal men up front...
Pretty clear to me this team isn't built with the intention of Hansen and Higgins both being permanent fixtures on the second line. An injury to Burrows and lackluster starts to the season from Booth and Kassian (combined with a good start from Higgins) have reshuffled the deck at this point. Like I said, only 10 games in, yada yada.
Wouldn't be a total shock if these two don't eclipse their career highs.Mondi wrote:As for Daniel, and Kesler...they have been trending down the last couple season. In my view, 30 to 35 goals a piece will be necessary to make up fro the lack secondary scoring Vancouver did have when they were challenging for President's Trophies and indeed the Cup. They could get there, but I think the last 40+ NHL games for Daniel have yielded 6 goals. Of course, that's not a great sample size. Then again, you can work with the data you have.
That said, I'd be shocked if both scored at their current rates over 82 games.
Shot difficulty is impossible to quantify. Are you suggesting these players are taking shots from different areas than they did in the past and that this trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future? Over the long term, their shooting percentages will probably revert closer to their career averages (~10%).Mondi wrote:As for your analysis on shots taken, that's great. But you also have look at the games and see where those shots are coming from. The long range wrister from the boards isn't exactly a high percentage shot. Even Torts was getting on the boys about not getting to the scoring areas.
Who wouldn't be excited for more offense? Just please don't make it at the expense of what little exciting prospect depth we have, because this is very likely a transition year and not a "go all in" year.Mondi wrote:I guess my point wasn't to raise the ire of all the resident homers, just that I'd be up for a hockey trade to inject some creativity in the offence outside of one Henrik Sedin (the greatest Canuck of all time).