Roster Questions

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

Moderator: Referees

If an overhaul of this team is needed, which of the following players who should MG shop around...

Hank and Danny
12
7%
Edler
44
25%
Booth
45
26%
Higgins
8
5%
Bieksa
15
9%
Ballard
45
26%
Hamhuis
2
1%
None of the above
2
1%
 
Total votes : 173

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Aaronp18 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:45 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
Aaronp18 wrote:One of the biggest reasons players sign or re-sign in Vancouver is because of the commitment from ownership and management to do whatever it takes to remain a contender. Sometimes this means making some tough decisions and making changes many may not like initially to better the team.

I don't think that any future signings will hinge on whether or not Gillis moved Burrows or Edler before their NTC kicked in if they are moves to improved the team. The Canucks provide everything a player needs or might need to succeed and this is a promise the team has made to all its players. If the team fails to meet expectations changes need to be made.

The teams needs differ from season to season. Right now scoring depth is a major issue, along with what seems to be an overly comfortable core of players that may not be motivated enough to stay.

The coaching change will help with the staleness we've been witnessing the past couple years but it may not change everything. A shot across the bow of the roster is what is also necessary IMO.

It's a privilege to play in Vancouver and its expected that you bring everything you can when playing for the Canucks. If that isn't happening then you may not be playing here much longer.

Accountability.

I'm with ya philosophically Aaron, accountability is número UNO, however, are you suggesting they trade Edler because he deserves to not be here based on effort and commitment to win on his part

Or

Are we really talking about trading him because he is the biggest talent we have without a NTC at the moment?
Because if that's true it's not the same "we are all Canucks" message really...


Yes.
User avatar
Aaronp18
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1765
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby ESQ » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:06 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:One of the biggest reasons players sign or re-sign in Vancouver is because of the commitment from ownership and management to do whatever it takes to remain a contender. Sometimes this means making some tough decisions and making changes many may not like initially to better the team.

I don't think that any future signings will hinge on whether or not Gillis moved Burrows or Edler before their NTC kicked in if they are moves to improved the team. The Canucks provide everything a player needs or might need to succeed and this is a promise the team has made to all its players. If the team fails to meet expectations changes need to be made.


Granted this isn't the year, but the time will come when the Canucks (probably under Gillis) will need to make a big splash in free agency. When that day comes I doubt the Canucks will be seen as a perennial contender, and other intangibles could make or break a FA deal. After listening to Sturm's and Samuelsson's comments after being traded 6 games in, I think the way management honours contracts for sure factors in to the decision-making of potential free agents. Right now Sammy is out there shitting all over Gillis to any player who asks his opinion, it doesn't take a ton of those disgruntled ex-players to sway a lot of peoples' opinions.

Of course my speculations as to what Gillis' motivation is for his blanket honouring of NTCs are irrelevant, it is Gillis' policy and he will deviate from it if the circumstances warrant. I'm just saying that future blowback on reneging NTCs (or trading someone a week before it comes into effect) will likely factor into his decision. As an ex-agent he is very well-positioned to know how such actions influence players' decisions.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Rumsfeld » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:41 pm

I'm telling you Esq, you worry too much.

Just kick back, spark up a fattie, and watch the bold moves fall where they may.

If your team is struggling and trading a player before his NTC kicks in makes you better, you do it. Players seldom worry about their moral obligations to a contract when they demand a trade halfway through said contract.

These guys signed a contract that allowed them to be moved before a certain date. This is professional sports, not the Oprah Winfrey show. Who gives a shit how they feel about it if no stipulations of the contract were breached?

Players sign with certain teams for a few reasons. Money, money, money, contending for Stanley, and playing in a city they like. I seriously doubt that a GM has ever vetoed future deals by moving a player early in the season or before his NTC kicks in. He is simply trying to improve his team and he is doing it within the structured confines of a mutually-agreed upon contract.

Samuelsson was a floating useless bitch who deserved to be dumped at the first opportunity. It's not uncommon for traded players to rail against the GM who traded them and it's not going to affect other players' willingness to sign with a team. Gillis was an agent and I'm sure he knows these guys are in it for themselves.

Gillis didn't give up on Sammy, Sammy gave up on us.

As for Sturm, that was a situation where Gillis realized his mistake and moved quickly to fremedy it.... something this board has put him on the rack for NOT doing with Ballard the last three seasons. Sturm was completely shot and looked like he couldn't make the top-6 of an AHL squad. Winning teams don't keep guys like that around because they don't want to hurt any feelings.

What the fuck are we worrying about again? :lol:
Cowards die a thousand times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Pissed in the Canyon

Re: Roster Questions

Postby ESQ » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:13 pm

Rumsfeld wrote:What the fuck are we worrying about again? :lol:

I had a long post in response, but I don't actually disagree with anything you're saying. Gillis will do what he thinks is best, if my pure speculation is true than its something Gillis is in the best position to assess as a former agent, if I'm wrong then No Worries :drink:

Actually, I will defend Samuelsson - he was one of our best playoff performers and exactly what the team was missing against Boston/LA/SJS - complementary scoring that can move up and down the lineup and be effective on 3 lines. Sadly I don't know if he'll ever stay healthy again, which makes him a fair swap for Booth.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Rumsfeld » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:22 pm

ESQ wrote:
Rumsfeld wrote:What the fuck are we worrying about again? :lol:

I had a long post in response, but I don't actually disagree with anything you're saying. Gillis will do what he thinks is best, if my pure speculation is true than its something Gillis is in the best position to assess as a former agent, if I'm wrong then No Worries :drink:

Actually, I will defend Samuelsson - he was one of our best playoff performers and exactly what the team was missing against Boston/LA/SJS - complementary scoring that can move up and down the lineup and be effective on 3 lines. Sadly I don't know if he'll ever stay healthy again, which makes him a fair swap for Booth.


Fair enough, Sammy was great in the '10 playoffs... but he was terrible defensively, slow, and injured constantly... something we already had enough of in our top-6. By the time we traded him he looked lost out there.
Cowards die a thousand times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Pissed in the Canyon

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Rumsfeld » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:05 pm

I'm a little concerned about what our D is going to look like this season.

Right now it looks like this:

Bieksa Hamhuis
Edler Garrison
Tanev Ballard -- Corrado ?Alberts?

Now obviously Ballard is gone one way or another.

I highly doubt anyone else besides Bieksa is going to be traded.

Tanev and Corrado on the same D-corps makes an already-shrimpy blue line look even shrimpier. If we want to be a "stiffer" team, that should start at the back.

*notices CFP staring at ass*

Cut it out CFP, I can't believe you jumped the rail on that ferry.

Now I'm hoping Alberts is re-signed and another bruiser is added... but where would they play?

Edler Garrison
Bruiser Hamhuis
Tanev Alberts -- Corrado

If we move Bieksa that's the only non-wussy pairing combination I could come up with. You don't want Tanev and Corrado together and you don't want either of them with Hamhuis IMO either... too small.

That said, you don't want Corrado sitting in the press box too much either or what's the point of bringing him up?

I'm really not seeing a regular spot on the blue line for Corrado to start the season, regardless of what moves we make.

Anyway, just some morning coffee spitballing.

*checks watch and sees it's 2:00 pm*

Fuck me.
Cowards die a thousand times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Pissed in the Canyon

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Strangelove » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:27 pm

Rumsfeld wrote:If we want to be a "stiffer" team, that should start at the back.

*notices CFP staring at ass*

Fuck me.


:look:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Rumsfeld » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:39 pm

For the last several season we're constantly hearing fans and media referring to how talented a team the Canucks are. In comparison to other contending teams, are we really that talented?

Yes, we are very talented in net.

We have a very deep defense but no real superstar back there.

Our bottom six are comprised of two-way players whose talents lie in the defensive side of the game... like most teams except the Pittsburghs of the league.

Our second line's "talent" pretty much consists of Kesler, and realistically speaking, he's not the offensive dynamo of '11. That was a career year. Love to be proven wrong here this season.

Our first line is a lot less talented than it was a few years ago, let's face it.

Not trying to be negative, just wondering where all this talent lies that everyone is always gushing about in comparison to LA, SJ, ANA, DET, etc. Not even going to bother mentioning teams like BOS, CHI, PIT.....

It just seems like we're only slightly above average in terms of offensive talent.

*jumps in bathtub with plugged-in toaster*
Cowards die a thousand times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Pissed in the Canyon

Re: Roster Questions

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:28 am

Now that our biggest off-season question has been answered, how will the rest of the roster shake out?

The Canucks still have big holes in their bottom 6 forward group.

One guy I'd be looking to sign is Boyd Gordon. He can do an admirable job as a shut-down 3rd line C but is probably best suited as a 4th line centre that gets regular shifts on a good team. Considering the Canucks now have Gaunce, Horvat and Lain a player like Gordon could be ideal as those prospects develop into holding down full time roles with the team.

Via trade, I would look into a Ballard for Torrey Mitchell swap with Minnesota. Mitchell is owed $1.9M over the next two years and is a speedy and versatile bottom 6 forward. He's overpaid and was pretty much buried on the 4th line with the Wild and they need some help on D. It could be decent trade for both teams to address respective needs without giving up appreciable assets and shifting some bad money.

The Canucks probably can't afford both Mitchell and Gordon but even one of them could help the bottom 6.

Unless Gillis makes another big trade or convinces a solid UFA to sign on the cheap, I wouldn't expect a veteran top 6 forward.

I would wager a guess we'll see the Canucks take a wager on some cheap veterans and basically open things up for their young players to grab roster spots.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Hockey Widow » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:22 pm

I agree CC. I think MG has learned that being so precariously close to the cap with no outs built in is too risky. While he is saying all the right things about loving the core and all, his hands are also pretty tied with respect to who he can move and for how much.

With CS and Ballard gone that frees up just over 8 million in space for this year. He can if he needs to still look at trading Booth if there are any takers but one would have to suspect this will be his year to prove he should get to stay and fulfil his contract. He, if healthy, will also be an experienced winger that brings a good hard to the net game. But will he play away from the puck well enough for Torts liking?

With 8 million in cap space we can safely re-sign Tanev now and still have a good chunk of change to get our roster filled out. This is the year to get 3-4 players on ELC into the line up and let them play. This is the year to let Kassian have a long look see with the twins.


With Luongo's notorious slow starts and some new blood in the line up I hope we all have some patience. We just need to make the dance right?
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Reefer2 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:35 pm

With Edler/Burrows still here (and their NTC/NMC or what ever they have) it really is looking like the main core that ended last season will be here for another kick at the cat. I guess only time will tell if JT can take the team to the next level where AV could not.
User avatar
Reefer2
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Meds » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:04 pm

ESQ wrote:
Aaronp18 wrote:One of the biggest reasons players sign or re-sign in Vancouver is because of the commitment from ownership and management to do whatever it takes to remain a contender. Sometimes this means making some tough decisions and making changes many may not like initially to better the team.

I don't think that any future signings will hinge on whether or not Gillis moved Burrows or Edler before their NTC kicked in if they are moves to improved the team. The Canucks provide everything a player needs or might need to succeed and this is a promise the team has made to all its players. If the team fails to meet expectations changes need to be made.


Granted this isn't the year, but the time will come when the Canucks (probably under Gillis) will need to make a big splash in free agency. When that day comes I doubt the Canucks will be seen as a perennial contender, and other intangibles could make or break a FA deal. After listening to Sturm's and Samuelsson's comments after being traded 6 games in, I think the way management honours contracts for sure factors in to the decision-making of potential free agents. Right now Sammy is out there shitting all over Gillis to any player who asks his opinion, it doesn't take a ton of those disgruntled ex-players to sway a lot of peoples' opinions.

Of course my speculations as to what Gillis' motivation is for his blanket honouring of NTCs are irrelevant, it is Gillis' policy and he will deviate from it if the circumstances warrant. I'm just saying that future blowback on reneging NTCs (or trading someone a week before it comes into effect) will likely factor into his decision. As an ex-agent he is very well-positioned to know how such actions influence players' decisions.


What reason would Samuelsson have to shit all over Gillis when asked for an opinion of the guy? Sammy did NOT have a NTC, he had NOT just re-signed. Gillis didn't screw him over at all.

Sturm might be a bit choked about the fact that he was traded so soon after signing with the Canucks. But really, he wasn't doing much for us, and didn't do much for Florida.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby Meds » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:09 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:I agree CC. I think MG has learned that being so precariously close to the cap with no outs built in is too risky. While he is saying all the right things about loving the core and all, his hands are also pretty tied with respect to who he can move and for how much.


This was one of the reasons I was really hoping Edler would be moved. He's now locked up at $5M per year and has a NTC. We're stuck with him. If Torts turns him around then that's great for us, if he wilts and goes into a spiral we're screwed.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby dbr » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:18 pm

Turning "we have no margin for error under the cap" into "we should have traded Edler" is retarded.

At worst he will be contributing to the first power play unit and producing in relatively sheltered minutes at even strength while Hamhuis and Garrison do the heavy lifting, and that will add up to more than a reasonable level of production for a $5m offensive defenseman.

Any better and he will be a huge steal, and even if he just stays at this level that will occur as more and more defensemen come up for renewal and become $7m and change guys.

Yeah if Edler's game "goes into a spiral" he'll be a boat anchor, Sam as Luongo or Kesler or the Sedins or Burrows or Bieksa or Hamhuis or Garrison or..
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Roster Questions

Postby CorranHorn » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Is it unreasonable to want a "kid" line this coming season. I know they're young, but look at Montreal and other teams that have young kids contributing.

I know the ELC is something to consider but this cap world demands some ELC players playing significant roles.
User avatar
CorranHorn
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Meds and 3 guests