CanucksCorner.com Forums

Perhaps a Suter replacement if they could land him for the money they wanted to pay Suter. Whatever that was.

Middle 9 players can always be found. It’s true top six that are harder. Alvin has done a good job every year finding bottom 6 middle 9 type players. In fact we have some in Abby.

Personally I’d wait until the right top six centre presents itself. If not this year next.

So there's a middle 9 forwards now. How many forwards are they planning on carrying for the coming season?

Sign Kuznetsov, dump Chytil...

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:03 pm Perhaps a Suter replacement if they could land him for the money they wanted to pay Suter. Whatever that was.

Middle 9 players can always be found. It’s true top six that are harder. Alvin has done a good job every year finding bottom 6 middle 9 type players. In fact we have some in Abby.

Personally I’d wait until the right top six centre presents itself. If not this year next.

What are middle 9 players? 3 through 11 or 2 through 10?

Bottom 6 plus 3 players that are not quit top six so middle 9.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:36 pm Bottom 6 plus 3 players that are not quit top six so middle 9.

So these middle 9 forwards will play below the top 6? I'd assume they would play as head of the bottom 6? So that in theory, would give them 21 forwards on the NHL roster. Add in 7 D and a couple goalies and they will be rocking a 30 man roster. Will the leafue be ok with this?

no. Like I said not quit top six. Is bottom 9 better? I don't see us as having a true top six. So bottom nine and top 3??

I see our "top" 6 being Pettersson, Kane, Boeser. Chytle, DeBrusk, Garland.

BTW. You know well what I mean so give it a rest.

I thought the categories were like this

Top line
Second line
Top 6
Third line
Top 9
Middle 6
Bottom 6
4th line

I’ve never heard of middle 9

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:42 pm Sign Kuznetsov, dump Chytil...

The guy who retired after the 2024 season? Bring back Dank instead. We know they are in shape.

BTW, just because you have a "kuzzy" tattoo on your inner thigh from that other russian dude is no reason for bringing in Kuznetsov

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:36 pm Bottom 6 plus 3 players that are not quit top six so middle 9.

The way I look at it is the finalists this year and last year were a competition between a Selke built team vs a Art Ross built team and the Selke team won both times...

That should give the Canucks hope in that they would be considered a Selke built team...

And the concern for managment would be if they take from their strengths to try to make them a better Art Norris team are they just watering the team down and going backwards?...

Take care...

rikster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 7:57 am

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:36 pm Bottom 6 plus 3 players that are not quit top six so middle 9.

The way I look at it is the finalists this year and last year were a competition between a Selke built team vs a Art Ross built team and the Selke team won both times...

That should give the Canucks hope in that they would be considered a Selke built team...

And the concern for managment would be if they take from their strengths to try to make them a better Art Norris team are they just watering the team down and going backwards?...

Take care...

We disagree on politics, but your analogy is right.

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:00 am

rikster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 7:57 am

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:36 pm Bottom 6 plus 3 players that are not quit top six so middle 9.

The way I look at it is the finalists this year and last year were a competition between a Selke built team vs a Art Ross built team and the Selke team won both times...

That should give the Canucks hope in that they would be considered a Selke built team...

And the concern for managment would be if they take from their strengths to try to make them a better Art Norris team are they just watering the team down and going backwards?...

Take care...

We disagree on politics, but your analogy is right.

I think disagreeing on politics is what can make us stronger as a country...

Take care...

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 6:26 am I thought the categories were like this

Top line
Second line
Top 6
Third line
Top 9
Middle 6
Bottom 6
4th line

I’ve never heard of middle 9

Bottom 12?

Picker of Cherries wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:36 am

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 6:26 am I thought the categories were like this

Top line
Second line
Top 6
Third line
Top 9
Middle 6
Bottom 6
4th line

I’ve never heard of middle 9

Bottom 12?

In Vancouver's case - nailed it. Unless Petey returns to form. Then bottom 11.

Aiming for a guy like Roslovic is similar to all of that pointless action the Canucks did for years trying to load up on 5-6 defensemen on the misimpression that by having more 5-6 defenseman, the middle pairing will be better....

A healthy Chytl's as good a bet to mime a second line center as Roslovic. Do we want two defensively suspect centers (and Roslovic's often been a wing) on a roster to increase the chance that one of them will do the impression? No. There's a real downside to the composition of the lineup to carry two defensively unreliable pivots.

My view: the Canucks should either make big moves and get a sure thing for the 2d line role, get a guy (like Suter) who isn't a sure thing as a second line center but who is a sure thing as an all around player (e.g., trade for Rodriguez), or they should table the issue and see how things play out. Don't go for half a second line center solution. Those are players for rebuilding teams to ice an NHL capable roster as prospects develop.

Doing nothing still allows the possibility that a healthy Chytl proves to be enough; it still allows the space for Raty to continue his progression, become a full timer, and quite realistically contribute 15-20 G with decent two way play.

Recognize that no solutions are free. Even a free agent like Roslovic has a downstream consequence, just as signing Sprong had a downstream consequence. Now I don't mind the Canucks shopping Hoglander or Joshua -- I think they should see if there's a return out there they are content with whether or not they add to the forward group. But its better to shop them when the Canucks don't *need* a trade. And I think that if one of those guys is moved, there's a greater benefit to cap breathing room (for cap flexibility when there are short term injuries and to use in the future when the right player is available) and roster room (to get prospects a better chance to jump in (and provide cheap value)) than there is to add a guy who profiles as an offensive player but who has never been good enough offensively to significantly offset the downsides of his game and make a team want to invest in him long term.