Re-booted SKYO approved pipe dreams and trade ideas

[donlever]

Maybe its the better argument and I have rose colo_red glasses -- but can we agree they are 1, 2?

Great analytical description from the UW perspective (once again).

Love it, thanks for taking the time.

Certainly we can agree they are 1/2.

It "may be" (at least in part) that Hughes appears the more dynamic puck controller because Makar needs to be less so in that vein?

I.e. give the disc to Nate whereby Quinn has zero similar opportunity as an equitable comparison.

Also....

....with the Eichel McDavid comparison.

You're not implying that Makar is not Generational are you?

That I would take issue with.

He could win 5 Norris Trophies.

(...not to imply that Hughes could not of course ...)

[donlever]

Either way you spin it, the extenuating circumstances do indeed suggest that it was far from the worst trade in team history.

Ha.

The worst trade in team history is going to be tough to beat.

[Meds]

He never counts the picks they acquire. It fucks up his miserable grumbling.,


Now he's whining about them dealing Horvat. He hated Bo when he was here.

Yeah, I don't get it.

This Miller/Bo feud was smoke and mirrors. The guys sat next to each other in the room.....hardly seems likely that their spots are beside one another if they have some bad blood going on.

Horvat's best season to date was 68 points last year in NY. That's a far cry from Miller's 103 points in the same season. JT was a better than 1.0 ppg player with the Canucks, he played in all situations, was more than willing to drop the mitts (even if he did it badly) when needed, and he was a leader that took the team from the cellar to the second round.....despite having to carry some overpaid dead weight for the last 30 games of the year. You cannot say all of those things about Horvat who is now golfing again in April.

[UWSaint]

Maybe its the better argument and I have rose colo_red glasses -- but can we agree they are 1, 2?

Great analytical description from the UW perspective (once again).

...

....with the Eichel McDavid comparison.

You're not implying that Makar is not Generational are you?

That I would take issue with.

He could win 5 Norris Trophies.

(...not to imply that Hughes could not of course ...)

The McDavid/Eichel comparison I meant w/r/t puck possession skills only. I'm saying Hughes is not only the best defensemen in the league in this skill, but is the best of a generation. And Makar -- in this limited category -- is like Eichel -- in most seasons, if Eichel was #1 on the board you'd think "its a good year to have the #1 pick, that guy is really good at controlling the play!" I meant it to both compliment Makar's ability on this skill Hughes is superior, and to illustrate must how much better than "great" Hughes is at this skill.

Makar is certainly an elite player overall -- not going to fight you hard on "generational," though I wonder how many generational players there can be in a "generation" of hockey players. Crosby and Ovechkin from the 2000s draft years and no one else comes close. But with the 2010s? McDavid, and then pretty good arguments for a handful of players that include Makar.

Yes, he could get 5. And he has a better chance than Hughes to do this because he scores more goals, I don't see that changing, goals are a big deal, and while every professional hockey writer's association voter will weigh different things to evaluate players (many of whom an individual won't see all that much), every writer will use goals as a material part of that calculus. Doubt it? The same group votes for the Selke, which is a defensive award where only offensively skilled players are eligible de facto.... It was amazing how dominant defensively Kesler was once he became the trigger man on a first unit powerplay and scored 41 goals....

[donlever]

Yeah, interesting point on Kesler.

We can agree they're the 2 top defenders in the league and it is not close for the Bronze.

Not really lobbying for one over the other, just shooting the shit really, I am happy with either on my team obviously.

This mano a mano a couple of years back solidified Makars all around capabilities in my eyes.


https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMBspQPgQ/

[Meds]

To the comment that the Canucks have a top 5 D in the league, I don't know that I'd go that far (I might, they do have IMO the league's best defenseman and that counts a ton), but it is certainly a very good defense. They were seventh in the league in terms of fewest shots against; their middle of the pack rank for goals against was due to subpar goaltending (tied for 8th worst save percentage). The D+structure benefit is neutralized by objectively mediocre goaltending, making the Lankinen signing (and fandom on this board) and trade Demko sentiments all the more puzzling. To be sure, an unhealthy and never locked in Demko get the Canucks where they are, but a "good" Lankinen get the Canucks to the same place. Roll the dice on Demko's health -- if you get fortunate, you have above average, quite possibly well above average goaltending.

...

That said, there's no question the Canucks will have to score a bit more and are losing 50 goals in Suter and Boeser. Something in off season needs to be done about that -- though offensive talent doesn't have to come at the expense of a defensive game...

Miller and Pettersson producing the way the former did last season, and the way the latter did for the first 40 games of last season, would likely have had the corresponding effect of having guys like Boeser, Garland, and Hoglander, also generating more goals. Those goals, and the often subsequent puck possession that comes with (before actually) increased scoring, likely see the Canucks win 10 more games than they did.....possibly more when you consider that increased puck possession should (in theory and often reality) result in fewer scoring chances against and fewer goals against.

Vancouver lost 15 games from Oct 4 - Jan 21 by 1 goal, 10 of those games were against teams that they would have mopped the ice with last season. I'm talking teams like Buffalo, Seattle, Utah, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc. How many games did we see the team simply unable to generate scoring or possession time against opponents that really are not defensive stalwarts? Plenty. While I realize that puck possession requires a good blueline in order to retrieve the puck and make the transition to offense, the number of times we gained the zone and watched our top-6 forwards turn the puck over because of bad decisions was, to say the least, frustrating.....or how many times did we see a forward make a brain dead play that prevented the Canucks from even gaining the offensive zone before turning it over or dumping it in in a way that was not retrievable?

What I'm saying is that a good Lankinen does indeed get you to the same place as we are this year, because that is what we had, a good (and sometimes better) Lankinen. That same Lankinen gets you into the playoffs without breaking a sweat if you have a top-6 that is generating offense.

There is no argument that can be made, imho, that a healthy and dialed in Demko is a far better option, and that level of goaltending in the playoffs is of paramount importance. The only 3 goaltenders in the league that I can think of, off the top of my head, that are conceivably better than him (when dialed) are Hellebuyck, Vasilevskiy, and Shesterkin. The question of consistency and reliable health remains. Last spring is case in point.....a healthy Demko and we are probably past Nashville in 5 and players like Boeser and Hughes are rested and better prepared for the second round, where, I don't think the Oilers get by us in that scenario.

So, do you try and run it back with Demko, hope he's healthy, and that the combination of a very good blueline and top-5 goaltending, is enough to win (and lose in extra time) enough 3-2, 2-1, 1-0, games to make it to the 97 point mark? Because that is what we are doing if we don't get some legitimate top-6 forwards who can consistently put up points.

A note on the Rangers.....

When you look at their season last year, and their roster construction, they are the Eastern Conference version of the Canucks this season. They have a good, but not great blueline, their top forwards fell off a cliff in terms of scoring, and their Vezina calibre goaltender goaltender was MIA. Results were predictable.

[Meds]

...but can we agree they are 1, 2?

More of a 1A/1B I think.

On the goal scoring (and point production in general), I appreciate you pointing out the system that Makar plays in, particularly on the PP. I've often looked at Makar's numbers and game and wondered where his game and production is at if he's not playing with the second-best centerman in the game. As you say, Makar is more of a rover on their PP, it is MacKinnon who runs that show.....whereas in Vancouver the entire offense runs through Hughes (which you said of course).

[Meds]

Either way you spin it, the extenuating circumstances do indeed suggest that it was far from the worst trade in team history.

Ha.

The worst trade in team history is going to be tough to beat.

Truth!

[Blob Mckenzie]

Pettersson is a top 4 D man on any team in the league

[UWSaint]

What I'm saying is that a good Lankinen does indeed get you to the same place as we are this year, because that is what we had, a good (and sometimes better) Lankinen. That same Lankinen gets you into the playoffs without breaking a sweat if you have a top-6 that is generating offense.

Sure you can play that game. Winning is scoring more than your opponent. And of course its true that if you score 50+ more goals you win more. But then you are showing that a ++ offense and a ++ defense with mediocre goaltending means the playoffs. I agree, but...the Canucks don't have a ++ offense -- (1) they overperformed two years ago (can we agree?); (2) while they underperformed this year, they lost their engine (Miller) going forward; and so (minus Miller and Boeser) (3) they don't have the horses going into next season that they had going into this season -- or even at its conclusion. So even if underperformers perform to standard, the offense isn't going to lead this team anywhere substantial. There is no buffer allowing average NHL goaltending.

The Canucks lost a lot of one goal games, as you point out, they also lost many of them from the lead or when tied -- in other words, most were not comebacks falling short. And a lot were OT games -- a terrible OT record (especially before the Miller trade).

It would be interesting to get other takes as to why. I think part of it was that the Canucks couldn't get the killer goal. Some of it was top 6 fumbling, which you point out. But before the roster shake ups, I thought the primary two culprits were (1) the D-shell and "get puck to neutral zone" mentality (the Greenification of the D) and (2) the dump and forecheck over possession entries (the Tocchetization of the offense). Unless Hughes was on the ice, the team was hopeless. Things got a lot better in in the back third of the season, but they lost their finishers, so then you started to see the "not enough horses" pinch (nevertheless, they improved in those 1 goal games and even marshalled some come backs).

But the other part of those one goal losses was just not coming up with the big save and the big moment. So many games....

[donlever]

The Canucks lost a lot of one goal games.....

It would be interesting to get other takes as to why.

We can analyze and disect until the cows come home (and many "minutiae based" points will be spot on and a part of the whole - with respect to why "those" games were lost) but....

...in the end numbers don't lie.

The numbers indicate this is a "mid" team.

The numbers dictate mid teams lose those games over the long haul.

[Meds]

The same group votes for the Selke, which is a defensive award where only offensively skilled players are eligible de facto.... It was amazing how dominant defensively Kesler was once he became the trigger man on a first unit powerplay and scored 41 goals....

You have to go back to 2004 when Draper won the award with 24G/40Pts to see when the award was actually handed out to forwards who won it on defensive merits alone. Seems that was probably the era where your sports writers transitioned away from guys who actually understood hockey and watched it for the entirety of the game rather than just the highlights and advanced stats that they could shotgun with their opinions all over social media.

The past 12 years have all been centermen, and I believe all of them have been the 1C on their respective teams, so seeing guys like the aforementioned Draper, as well as Carbonneau, Peca, Dirk Graham, Rick Meagher, and Dave Poulin, on the list is a good reminder of how effectively some guys earned their keep.....it's a rare name on that list that did not play the center position, so I gotta extra kudos to both the players and the astuteness of the selectors when you see wingers like Jere Lehtinen, Craig Ramsay, an Rod Brind'amour, making the cut.

[Meds]

What I'm saying is that a good Lankinen does indeed get you to the same place as we are this year, because that is what we had, a good (and sometimes better) Lankinen. That same Lankinen gets you into the playoffs without breaking a sweat if you have a top-6 that is generating offense.

Sure you can play that game. Winning is scoring more than your opponent. And of course its true that if you score 50+ more goals you win more. But then you are showing that a ++ offense and a ++ defense with mediocre goaltending means the playoffs. I agree, but...the Canucks don't have a ++ offense -- (1) they overperformed two years ago (can we agree?); (2) while they underperformed this year, they lost their engine (Miller) going forward; and so (minus Miller and Boeser) (3) they don't have the horses going into next season that they had going into this season -- or even at its conclusion. So even if underperformers perform to standard, the offense isn't going to lead this team anywhere substantial. There is no buffer allowing average NHL goaltending.

The Canucks lost a lot of one goal games, as you point out, they also lost many of them from the lead or when tied -- in other words, most were not comebacks falling short. And a lot were OT games -- a terrible OT record (especially before the Miller trade).

It would be interesting to get other takes as to why. I think part of it was that the Canucks couldn't get the killer goal. Some of it was top 6 fumbling, which you point out. But before the roster shake ups, I thought the primary two culprits were (1) the D-shell and "get puck to neutral zone" mentality (the Greenification of the D) and (2) the dump and forecheck over possession entries (the Tocchetization of the offense). Unless Hughes was on the ice, the team was hopeless. Things got a lot better in in the back third of the season, but they lost their finishers, so then you started to see the "not enough horses" pinch (nevertheless, they improved in those 1 goal games and even marshalled some come backs).

But the other part of those one goal losses was just not coming up with the big save and the big moment. So many games....

Certainly we can agree they over-performed in 2023-24.

I completely agree that they do not have the horses going into next season.

I was responding to your point about trying to build this back without robbing "Peter to pay Paul", as it were.

I just don't know how they can rebuild the top-6 without parting with an asset like Demko (and a 1st and other prospect).

I think we are all in agreement here that the Canucks either need to build for a window around Hughes, either that or they need to trade him next year for the 1 OA and try to draft McKenna.

[Picker of Cherries]

I still believe they were only an Ian Cole signing away from the playoffs this year. They couldn’t hold a lead for the first half of the year, until they traded for Meaty, and became a PK juggernaut with Forbort and DPetey’s help. They’ll be in the mix next season with a couple decent forward additions and a little better health.

[Meds]

In the mix = upper-middling team.