Jeremy Hronek

Will be interesting to see what Tocchet does with the line combos. My guess is that he’ll try Suter-Lindholm-Mikheyev on a line and see how it goes before experimenting with dispersing the Lotto Line.

Extend Lindholm in the unlikely event that negotiations with Pettersson go south. Outside of that however, I’m not sure if the Canucks will be able to extend Lindholm given our cap constraints. Lindholm just may very well be our 2020 Toffoli (ie this was around the time when Thomas Drance was inhaling the sphincter of Judd Bracket).

In that case, my best advice would be to move Mikheyev+ for a center that could possibly help get Kuzmenko going again. Suter-???-Kuzmenko Suter plays LW on this line and acts as the defensive conscience.

In: -Joel Eriksson EK (50% retention) Out -Elias Pettersson 1 -Elias Pettersson 2 -Lekkerimaki -Raty -1st -2nd

Can someone please explain to me why “the Lotto line is not a long term solution?” Was the WCE line from 2002-2004 not a long term solution? Was Sedin-Sedin-Burrows from 2010-2012 not a long term solution? The Canucks are currently an elite team and the Lotto line, for the most part, has tilted the ice whenever they’ve been on. What am I missing here?

Re: Suter-Lindholm-Mikheyev You’re correct that the line above would be more 3rd line-ish than a 2nd line, but my thought is that it would be an elite shut down line…..so much so to the point that you could throw them out there against another teams’ top line (ultimately resulting in more offensive deployment for our other lines). I also think that a guy like Jenner, Lindholm, or Couture would be able to help ignite a little bit of offense from Suter and Mikheyev which would give this line a little bit of offensive production (even if the primary focus would be on shutting down)

Relative to guys like Lindholm, Guentzel, Jenner, etc., my thought is that we wouldn’t have to send as many picks or prospects due to Couture’s age, cap hit, and term.

This is a really good point which is why I’d be interested in revamping the identity of our 2nd line, in terms of making it a premier shut down line that can chip in goals. So, even if opposing top pairing defensemen + 2nd lines counter our 3rd line, we could use a newly created premier shut down 2nd line (Suter-Couture-Mikheyev as an example) to shut down opposing top lines…..which would leave our Lotto Line and 4th line to annihilate what’s left. I’ve mentioned Logan Couture from above (as opposed to a Boone Jenner or Elias Lindholm), because I believe that acquiring Logan Couture would cost us the least amount of picks and prospects relative to other pieces (due to Couture’s age, cap hit, and term). Perhaps I’m wrong but I think Myers + Kuzmenko + B level prospect + 2024 1st gets you Couture + Rutta. Pettersson-Miller-Boeser (Lotto Line) Suter-Couture-Mikheyev (shut down line) Joshua-Bluegar-Garland Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty

I look at the current Canucks line-up and see the following: Pettersson-Miller-Boeser (on par with WCE and 2011 Sedins-Burrows in terms of tilting the ice) Suter-????-Mikheyev (Fans want this line to be able to produce consistent secondary offense to support the Lotto line) Joshua-Bluegar-Garland (produce consistent secondary offense) Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty (produce consistent secondary offense) Although many fans want the Canucks to trade Kuzmenko (or Mikheyev) + picks/prospects to improve our 2nd line (from a scoring perspective), I’ve always maintained that any NEWGUY wouldn’t move the needle in terms of making our 2nd line a dangerous scoring threat since the linemate options would be Kuzmenko (completely lost confidence), Mikheyev, Suter (defensive stalwart bottom 6 player), Hoglander (half decent but bottom 6 calibre player for the most part). The only solution to this would be to break up the Lotto line (which to me personally, doesn’t make sense). However - what if the Canucks still acquired a 2nd line piece, but gave the 2nd line a different identity/role? So - instead of expecting this 2nd line to produce consistent offense to complement the Lotto line (which our bottom 6 does anyways), what is the new role and new identity of this second line was to be a premier shut down line…..that could produce offense on occasion. Suter-Jenner-Mikheyev Suter-Couture-Mikheyev Suter-Lindholm-Mikheyev The way I see it, Suter and Mikheyev 1) Are both exceptional defensive players….probably amongst the best in the league. 2) Could probably produce a little bit of consistent offense (even with a primary defensive/shut down focus) if they had a good defensive minded center (with an offensive element) playing alongside them. So, with this identity, the dynamics of our forward group changes a bit: Pettersson-Miller-Boeser (Lotto line - dangerous as fuck) Suter-[JennerLindholmCouture]-Mikheyev (Shut down line - allows other lines an opportunity for more offensive deployment….can still produce a little bit of offense despite offense not being this lines primary focus). Joshua-Bluegar-Garland (dominates other 3rd lines - produces offense) Hoglander-Aman-Lafferty (dominates other 4th lines - produces offense) My suggestion for the deadline: 1. Find a way to move Kuzmenko+ to Columbus for Boone Jenner (the plus involving picks/prospects) 2. Find a way to move Myers+ for Tanev (the plus involving picks/prospects)

Very true but due to his age, cap hit, and term, acquiring him might not cost us significant assets. Ps - I’ve updated my proposal.

How is this even a legit thread, lol. Crosby will retire a Penguin. The dude’s a legend. This isn’t a Ray Bourque situation where Crosby will try and chase a cup. You *might* be able to sign Malkin once his contract expires (0.1% chance) but this Crosby shit ain’t happening.

This is what also scares me about this current Canuck team. If Hughes goes down with injury, we are a middle of the road team. We need someone like Chychrun to fill in on the top pair with Hronek just incase we lose Hughes to injury.

These are all excellent points. The way I see it however, is that the Garland line (3rd line) and 4th line are consistently producing offense, so much so to the point where our impotent 2nd line hasn’t been an affected the team whatsoever. The Lotto line is every bit as dangerous as the WCE line from 2002-2004 and the Sedin line from 2010-2012, and so would it even make sense to split them up? Here is my biggest fear: 1. The Canucks trade significant assets for a guy like Jake Guentzel. 2. We split up the Lotto line to accommodate Jake. 3. Instead of creating two good scoring lines, we create two somewhat mediocre lines (Mikheyev-Pettersson-Boeser / Hoglander-Miller-Guentzel), and then end up reverting back to our old Lotto line as a result (which basically leaves Guentzel playing with “thespians” such as Suter, Mikheyev, Kuzmenko, or Hoglander on the 2nd line). So for me - I would rather just keep the Lotto line together since they literally tilt the ice every time they’re on (and even moreso with Hughes and Hronek back there driving play). For our current 2nd line - you know what I’d do? Instead of making it a secondary scoring line (which we are already getting from our bottom 6), I’d strongly consider making it an elite shut down line. Suter and Mikheyev are elite defensive players. What if these guys had a fellow elite defensive player to join them? Now all of a sudden, we would have one of the best shut down lines in all of hockey. Anyway, that’s one possibly way that I’d approach things.

true - I guess my point being that 2011, which had as many memorable moments as 1994 (Burrows OT goals, Bieksa’s OT goal, Kesler’s last second goal), was only 13 years ago. To me, it seemed like a subtle jab at the 2011 team and experience but maybe I read too far into it.

I was being breast fed by my father in 1982 when we played the Isles.

I think many people are severely overlooking the fact that we were severely injured against a (moderately) injured Bruins team in 2011. But whatever - to each their own.

So the 2011 run is not legitimate in your eyes?

1. Pettersson and Miller, on the same line, probably could carry either of Kuzmenko or Mikheyev. 2. They can’t score on the 2nd line mainly because Puis Suter is the center (Suter is a good bottom 6 player but not the type of guy you would want as your 2nd line C). So to answer your question, “yes - I am serious bro.”

Superstitions are for thespians. Collect as much hardware as you can and don’t worry about the shortcomings of previous teams. New core, new era, new story, period.

Ballard, in 2011, was a bottom pairing defenseman (or a #4 at best). My argument is that we need another Top 3 defenseman that can fill for Hughes on the top pairing incase of injury.

I still think the 2011 team is our current best team of all-time. That team dominated every single statistical category and was the clear cut favorite in the league amongst hockey pundits. While our current team is very very good, I think they are more 2012ish than 2011, in that, many hockey pundits probably wouldn’t consider them to be the cup favorites despite having the current best record in the league (The 2012 team underachieved while we are overachieving a little imo). With the 2011 team, any one injury to any one player wouldn’t have sunk the team whereas with our current team, I think a long term injury to Hughes would badly fuck us (to the point where we’d immediately become a 10-13 calibre team if we lost QH). So for me, our 2011 team was our GOAT, closely followed by our current team and 2012 team.

If the Canucks are hell bent on acquiring a Top 6 piece, I’d go about it from a different perspective: Form an elite shut down line with Suter, Mikheyev, and #NewGuy. Suter and Mikheyev are already excellent defensive players. If #NewGuy is also elite defensively, then you could give the lotto line and the Garland line more offensive deployment.

Agree with you 100% about our defense (many 4/5 guys + a significant drop off after Hughes and Hronek). My concern about acquiring another primary scorer is that 1. It will cost us assets 2. We would likely need to split up our red hot Lotto line because of… 3. This newly acquired primary scorer and this newly created second line probably won’t be able to do much with any combination of Mikheyev, Kuzmenko, and Hoglander as linemates.

Tl;dr = We don’t need secondary scoring. We need to bring in a Top 3 calibre dman that can anchor a 2nd pairing and form an elite pairing with Hronek just in case Hughes gets hurt. For many weeks now, we’ve seen countless proposals involving the Canucks acquiring a second line piece to provide complementary scoring to our reformed “Lotto line.” For me though, I still maintain the following position: 1. The Canucks do not need help with secondary scoring because even though they have a weak second line, all of their other lines produce consistent offense. Furthermore, in the event of injuries, A. Kuzmenko or Mikheyev could fill in on the Lotto line incase there is an injury to one of the players on there, and that line would still probably be dangerous. B. Suter can play on the Garland line incase there are any injuries to Bluegar, Garland, or Joshua. C. Hoglander + our AHL depth of Raty and/or Podkolzin could easily play anywhere on lines 2-4 as complementary pieces. D. If we really needed to, we could always split up Miller and Petey again if we needed to create depth on other lines to combat against injuries. So long story short - I do not really see a need for the Canucks to make a trade for secondary scoring. The Canucks’ biggest need in my opinion is to bring in a 2A/#3 calibre defenseman that could form an elite pairing with Hronek just in case Hughes were to get injured. If Hughes were to get injured, the Canucks would immediately go from being an elite team to a 10-13 calibre team in my opinion (ie 2nd round fodder or even a 1st round upset loss). Now - could guys like Soucy, Zadorov, and Cole play with Hronek? Absolutely. Would the pairing be elite? Nope. They would get caved in by opposing top lines.

If the Canucks acquire Scissons, I’m changing my handle name to CircumScissons.