Jeremy Hronek

4 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

 

Yeah! I think we were all in shock!

 

Never before in my life had I ever seen a city be so mindfucked over a sporting loss.  

Made me actually lose a bit of respect for my former hometown of Vancouver to be quite honest.  

3 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 I'm just going by my recollections on how he treated Gelinas (remember, this was over 20 years ago).  Never said my memory is infallible.

My apologies, I never tried to insinuate otherwise.  

I just don't recall Keenan treating Gelinas horribly.  

If anything, I saw it as a sign that perhaps Keenan was trying to sell high on Gelinas (Gelinas' best season came the year before and was a bit of an 'outlier' as far as production went).  Given that the 94' core had become stale, I also think Keenan was trying to gut that stale core.  Hence, McLean and Gelinas were moved for Sanderson, Ciccone, and Sean Burke (if I recall correctly).  Ironically enough, all three of those players were moved before the season ended!   

And if there was in fact a lockerrom rift between the old 1994 core and some of the new guard, then Keenan obviously was going to have to make some moves.  

48 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

He really treated Gelinas like garbage.  To this day I can never understand how Gelinas would ever sign a contract knowing that Keenan was "in charge" (when Gelinas signed in Florida).  Chews out Trevor Linden in front of the team for no reason.  Then there was how he treated Grant Ledyard.  Tons more stories like that involving Keenan.  A dark chapter in Canucks history indeed.

Gelinas was injured for almost the entire time Keenan was here.  How do you know he treated Gelinas like garbage?  Does the fact that Gelinas signed in Florida, with Keenan being there, negate your story?   

Linden deserved to be chewed out because he was playing like crap (compared to his early-mid 90's form), but Keenan did go way too far here........and Keenan should have also called out Messier since Messier was not playing like his peak self (although in this case, Keenan had to be careful with how he treated Messier due to the power that Messier had........given the agreement that Messier had with our ownership at the time.  Keenan's double standard treatment was in many respects, John McCaw's fault).   

Yes, the treatment of Grant Ledyard and Peter Zezel by Mike Keenan was downright disgusting.  

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

Do you think his conduct here was acceptable?  Yes or no?  There is literally no reason for anyone to respect that scumbag as a player or as a man.

No, there were lots of things that Messier did that was not acceptable here.  

For example, even though Tom Renney was a bush league coach, Messier should have still had enough respect for him to the point where Messier should not have just jumped on the ice when it was not his shift.  Messier should have conducted himself better while he was here.

Now having said all that, I don't think Messier should have been brought here in the first place.  Too much baggage with core players from the 1994 finals + the Canucks were nowhere near being "a Messier away" from being elite.  The team needed to be gutted.  McCaw gave Messier powers and enticements that no player should ever be offered.  

2 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

Messier and Keenans tenures were documented disasters and some other posters have laid out the main points really well.

 

But I think you're wondering why fans were upset about the decision to bring them in, before all the bad stuff happened?

 

It would be similar to the 2015 Canucks signing Milan Lucic and Claude Julien, then letting Lucic take the captaincy from Henrik. It felt bad, like you sold out the identity of the team. 

Even if it would have been a good hockey move, it felt wrong. It's almost like karmic justice just how poorly that experiment went.

The Vancouver media's obsession with Boston between 2011 and 2017 was really sad and pathetic.  Ditto for the city.

The day/week after Boston won the cup, Sportschek at Metrotown were selling Bruins jerseys in the front row.  What kind of city and store openly honors its rivals like that and acts like a cuck bitch?  If the Canucks had won the cup, do you think they'd be selling Canucks jerseys in Boston?  Fucks sake.

And then, you had the media.  

-"Tryamkin can be our Chara."

-"Kassian can be our Lucic."

-"Brendan Leipsic can be our Brad Marchand."

-"Lets trade for Adam McQuaid and/or Johnny Boychuk."

-"Lets sign Lucic!"

-"The Boston Model."

Was a complete joke and the media here (and many fans) should be embarrassed.

Between 2011 and 2017, you had 26 teams trying to figure out the "Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh models," while Vancouver's media had their noses up Boston's sphincter.  

11 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Messier gave him a clear example of what not to do both as a player and as a person.  Naslund simply has far more class than that worthless piece of trash.

So the Vancouver media and Vancouver fans are completely correct about Messier while every single other NHL pundit is wrong about Messier.

Got it.  

9 minutes ago, puckstopper said:

 

Hmmmm........thinks about it for a millisecond or so!

 

Nope......F messier!

 

 

Fair enough but just so you know, Naslund gives Messier a LOT of credit for helping him become a superstar.  

Naslund was floundering during his first few years as a hockey player but started to take leaps and bounds during the dark period.  When Messier got bought out in 2000, we had a young superstar on our hands that was ready to lead this team.  

1 hour ago, TheBearded1 said:

Too young and uninterested at that time of my life but many here see it as a dark time.

 

WHY?

 

Wasn't it a good idea to bring in winning pedigree?  Who wouldn't want one of hockey's greatest leaders in their room?  Who wouldn't want a cup winning coach behind their bench?   To me, it only spells success.

 

Why the negativity and why the early exits from both personalities?

 

 

The Vancouver media fabricated a lot of nonsense at that time.  

Both Linden and Messier have gone on record stating that their so-called "personal friction" between one another was blown way out of proportion.

The truth of the matter is that the 1994 Canucks core had grown stale and the locker room had become a country club atmosphere.  After getting dominated by Colorado in 6 games in 1996 round 1, the Canucks missed the playoffs in 1997. Linden was no longer the player that he once was after his knee surgery, while guys like Mogilny and Tikanen were unhappy.  Bure was still suffering the after effects of whiplash from the first game of the season and wasn't himself.

The bottom line?  The core needed to be gutted. Messier should not have been brought in as "the missing piece," but the owners saw things completely differently.  Not only that but the owners basically promised Messier the world (i.e. club seats to Grizzlies games + input at the managerial level).  They enticed the hell out of Messier in order for him to come here.  

When Messier got here, he didn't know about Wayne Maki's history and so he was given #11 by ownership.

When Messier got here, the media and fans were "mess" merized and basically anointed Messier the captain themselves and so Linden himself gave Messier the captaincy in order to avoid it becoming a distraction.  

So long story short - the whole Messier thing was doomed to be a failure from the start.  A lot of the core players weren't the biggest fans of Messier from the get-go because they had competed against each other for the cup just a few years earlier.  When the Canucks stumbled out of the gate that season, Messier told ownership about the 'country club atmosphere' in the locker room (which is basically what media members like Neil McRae were saying at the time) and changes started to happen.  

Was Messier an innocent victim in all of this?  Absolutely not.  Years later, Messier even admitted that he shouldn't have accepted Linden's request for the captaincy.  However, Messier should not have been brought in in the first place and that was on ownership.  

19 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

We don’t have another Kuzmenko in the organization right now. The closest would be Lekkerimaki. Beauvillier would need an act of God to become a 30 goal scorer. Höglander same thing. Podkolzin is trending to be a 3rd liner. I wouldn’t be taking the risk to trade a 40 goal scorer to wait for these guys to replicate that. 
 

Kuzmenko isn’t getting 40 goals not playing with Petey. He’s not a play driver. But neither are any of the other guys including Boeser. If you take away Kuzmenko from Petey‘s line then who is replacing all his goals?  
 

The only way you trade Kuzmenko is if you feel that Lekkerimaki can come in and replace him on Petey’s wing. And you extend Boeser. That’s an option for sure. Play Mikheyev on the left side. If you can get a legit partner for Hughes by trading Kuzmenko then that’s an option. 

1. "We don’t have another Kuzmenko in the organization right now. The closest would be Lekkerimaki. Beauvillier would need an act of God to become a 30 goal scorer. Höglander same thing. Podkolzin is trending to be a 3rd liner. I wouldn’t be taking the risk to trade a 40 goal scorer to wait for these guys to replicate that."

Would this be worth taking a calculated gamble on?  

2. Kuzmenko isn’t getting 40 goals not playing with Petey. He’s not a play driver. But neither are any of the other guys including Boeser. If you take away Kuzmenko from Petey‘s line then who is replacing all his goals?  

Which is exactly my point. Like Kuzmenko, Boeser is NOT a player driver......but would he be able to pop in 39-40 goals being attached at the hip to Petey? (just like Kuzmenko was).  What about Lekkerimaki next season?   

3. The only way you trade Kuzmenko is if you feel that Lekkerimaki can come in and replace him on Petey’s wing. And you extend Boeser. That’s an option for sure. Play Mikheyev on the left side.

That's the calculated gamble that I'd be willing to bet on if it means having

Hughes-[KuzmenkoReturn]

Soucy-Hronek

Cole-Myers

As your defense + Demko and DeSmith as your goaltending duo.   Top 10 defense in the league + Top 10 goaltending in the league + taking a calculated gamble that guys like Boeser and Lekkerimaki can do what Kuzmenko has done playing alongside Petey on the top line.  Guys like Beavillier and Hoglander get more ice-time playing alongside JT Miller.  

p.s._____________Ethan Bear will be a decent addition but he's not going to move the needle much.  Connor Garland, at best, will fetch you the skid marks of Andrew Peeke's shit stained underpants.  

50 minutes ago, Mando27 said:

Who needs a time machine? I'm sure Bieksa could slot in right now and help our D.

We literally have Adam Foote on our bench as well!!!  

15 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

a little before my time as a Canucks fan but where did he rank amongst Canucks tough guys? 

 

Oh man, I just remembered I forgot about Gino. Bump him to the top of my list. 

 

Butcher was a nasty piece of business.  I got to see him just when I was starting out as a fan but he was tough and stood up for teammates.  Not sure if he'd be my first choice in this thread since Butcher wasn't a #2A/#3 calibre RHD (which is exactly what this team needs), but Butcher was one of my favourites.  

54 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

So, like, you're not bringing back Bure, Naslund, Linden, a Sedin, Kesler, ect. No all-time greats because that's less interesting discussion. 

 

It's a silly thread, sure, but I'm curious as to who you think would move the needle for the current roster the most.

 

Personally, I'd bring back Salo.

Chris Tanev........with Brad May being my 2nd choice?

How many guys are we allowed to bring back?  

I'd bring back prime Chris Tanev.  

Get that #2A/#3 calibre RHD to play with Hughes so that Hronek can be the alpha of the 2nd pairing with Cole or Soucy.  

Surprisingly, you know who might be my #2 guy?  Prime Brad May.  Good leader and locker room guy, and would provide some much needed grit and toughness up front.  Absolutely no one would take liberties with Pettersson or Hughes.  May day would stick up for his teammates and would also be able to back up his toughness with some decent hockey.  

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Who do we keep, Kuzmenko or Boeser? 

Boeser, like Garland, is currently unmovable and so we'd likely have no choice but to keep Boeser.  

Kuzmenko on the other hand has actual value (well.......for now. My concern is that he's going to take a step back this season under Tocchet's system).   

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Trading Kuzmenko in order to get a top 4 Dman is the same as using your visa to pay your mastercard.  You are simply moving money around to strengthen one area while weakening another. 

I do see what you're saying but 

A) How much of Kuzmenko's production last year was a result of playing with Elias Pettersson?  

B) Even if it's not to the same degree, to what extent could a franchise centre like Pettersson help increase the production of his beneficiaries? (i.e. Boeser, Garland, etc.).   

C) Would some of our current 3rd line players such as Hoglander and Beauvillier see an increase in getting to play with someone like JT Miller?   

Taking next season into consideration, would it a fair assumption to make that guys like Podkolzin and Raty are far likelier to make the team as impact players as opposed to someone like Woo or McWard?  (I'm assuming that Willander won't be ready next season).  

So, that's kind of where I'm at right now as far as Kuzmenko goes.  I think we have more pieces up front and more in the pipeline up front that could realistically make up for the loss of Kuzmenko. I can see Kuzmenko as a guy that could land us that #2A/#3 calibre d-man that can play with Hughes until Willander is ready to step into that role (at which point, we move on from whomever this Return on Kuzmenko would be).   I

My other concern with Kuzmenko is that he's not a Rick Tocchet type player as far as playing under a structured system goes. Kuzmenko seems like he was built perfectly for Boudreau's system.  Given Kuzmenko's age, I'm also not sure if we'd be able to re-sign him at favourable term and money (assuming that there's no drop off in level of play).  

Now would I actually make a Kuzmenko deal?  I'm not so sure - I'd have to think about it more if I was GM but it does sound tempting.  

3 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Trade Kuzmenko?!!!

It would be risky for sure but consider the following:

1) With the exception of Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko (all three of which whom we should not be trading obviously), Kuzmenko is the only asset on the team that could land us a #2A/#3 calibre defenseman.   

2) Is Kuzmenko a good fit for Tocchet's more structured system?  If not, then why not sell high on the guy?

3) Given Kuzmenko's age, will he be a good long term core piece for us once his contract expires?  How much money will he command (assuming that he continues to flourish here).  

4) To what extent can a franchise center like Pettersson help elevate guys like Boeser, Garland, Mikheyev, Beauvillier, Hoglander, etc. if those guys play with Petey more? (in the absence of Kuzmenko).  Would JT Miller be able to do the same to the aforementioned players (i.e. guys that had been previously playing on the 3rd line now get promoted to play with Miller).   

From a farm promotion perspective, what's more likely next year?  Guys like Raty and/or Podkolzin being ready to 'step up' into the line-up, or guys like Willander, and Woo, Juulsen, being able to step into major roles?  

On 10/2/2023 at 1:37 AM, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

 

 

Value:

Naslund-Ronning-Bertuzzi

Hughes-Salo

R.Miller

11 hours ago, Hogs and Podz said:

Where's Lafferty?

 

 

I forgot about him.  

Mikheyev-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Miller-Garland

Suter-Lafferty-Beauviller

PDG-Bluegar-Joshua

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

Garland is staying? 

No.  Just in my hypothetical scenario if we moved Kuzmenko for that #2A/#3 calibre d-man.  

The New Lou

I thought my migraines were gone when we traded away Lou,

but it turns out that we still have 6 million in poo,

One more year of Myers,

but there won't be any buyers,

unless Alvin's brain bursts,

and he packages Myers with firsts!  

57 minutes ago, Nucker67 said:

No way Kuzmenko scores 39 again,

 

 

Which again, makes me wonder if the smart move here would be to sell high on Kuzmenko and get that #2A or #3 calibre d-man to play with Hughes (and then possibly walk away from said player once Willander is ready to take the reigns).   The calculated gamble here would be to bank on guys like Boeser, Hoglander, Beauvillier, Mikheyev, and now "staying" Conor Garland to step up offensively in the absence of Kuzmenko.  Even if they wouldn't be able to completely fill Kuzmenko's shoes, the massive gain on defense would likely outweigh the drop on offence would it not?

Hughes-[KuzmenkoReturn]

Cole-Hronek

Soucy-Myers

Is a pretty solid defense (top 10?)

Demko + DeSmith = Top 10 goaltending

Mikheyev-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Miller-Garland

PDG-Suter-Beauviller

Joshua-Bluegar-Studnicka

Isn't an ideal forward group but wouldn't exactly be considered a weakness.  

37 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Again, medium long term we absolutely need a legit top 4 partner for Hughes. Problem being, #2-#3D aren't readily available and cost a lot of cap space. 

 

 

Wondering if it would be a smart calculated gamble to sell high on Kuzmenko for this piece (is Kuzmenko a good fit for Tocchet's system?) with the calculated gamble being that guys like Boeser, Hoglander, Beauvillier, Mikheyev, and the now "staying" Conor Garland could step up with more ice-time in Kuzmenko's absence.   

49 minutes ago, Provost said:

We don’t need another 3rd pairing D.  We already have a bunch of guys who are 3rd pairing D having to play higher in the lineup (Myers, Soucy, Cole, Juulsen,

 

We need a guy for the top four. 
 

Exactly this.  We need a #2A or #3 calibre guy that can form a legit top pairing with Quinn Hughes while allowing Hronek to anchor a 2nd pairing.  Hughes and Hronek are capable of playing with each other but they aren't an ideal stylistic fit.  

13 minutes ago, Hogs and Podz said:

Jones is hot garbage at his cap hit... Even at 7 mill.  Don't know what happened to him but, he's not the player he was in his first three seasons playing for blue jackets.

Is he though? (hot garbage), or is he just a victim of being on an incredibly bad team?  

How would he look playing alongside Quinn Hughes?  How would he look under a more structured Rick Tocchet system?  

22 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Kuzmenko is the obvious player we could use in a hockey trade to improve our D.    
 

Just made a JB proposal above.   Garland, Beau for Seth Jones (CHI retains around 2.5 to bring it down to 7 for us), they get our first.   Another option for them is Garland and Myers, they get a serviceable player in Garland,  Myers is their secret tank weapon (they will need someone to play there) we get Seth Jones,  doesn't cost us anything but no retention either.    He'd have to waive which maybe is possible.   Sure they'd like to get out of that contract. 

I was originally onboard with a Seth Jones acquisition but I'm not sure if it would work from a cap perspective given OEL's ugly cap penalty in 2/3 years.  Pettersson will probably get around 11 million AAV from us as well and there's definitely going to be some cap challenges for us.

But yes, if the Canucks could make all of the work even with Seth Jones being on the books, then I'd definitely be for it.  

Hughes-Jones

Cole-Hronek

Would be a monstrous top 4.   

The other thing to bear in mind is that we have Willander waiting in the wings and so a lot of our moves will depend on how long we think it will take Willander to become an elite NHL defenseman.  

As far as Kuzmenko goes, I think he could be a perfect case for selling high on.  Dude's coming off a 40 goal season and is now playing under a structured Rick Tocchet system.  Kuzmenko should be able to land one that #3 calibre RD to play with Quinn Hughes (which would allow the #2 calibre Hronek to carry the 2nd pairing).   

2 hours ago, SISMIM said:

And here’s a recent article on Ty Glover, where he’s named the “most improved player” on Wilkes-Barre, at this past summer development camp:

 

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/2023/07/10/wbs-penguins-development-camp-ty-glover-video-scouting-report-skating-tlh

 

excerpt:
 

Glover, listed at 6 foot 3 and 201 pounds, is a power forward-type. His strengths are his skating, attention to detail in both ends of the ice, ability to win puck battles and play hard on the forecheck. The part of his game that he calls his "bread and butter" is his ability to be a net-front presence. He spent two years in that role on Western Michigan's power play, and picked up a fair amount of his goals from rebounds or tips in that position.

Both Forrest and director of player development Tom Kostopoulos pointed to Glover's energy and personality as some of the first things they liked about his game in his rookie year.

"He's got a ton of energy," Forrest said. "He creates some real chaos out there, he works really hard, goes to the net. He's really well-liked by his teammates."

Kostopoulos liked that energy in the Penguins' three-on-three tournament to close development camp, too.

"He was flying out there," Kostopoulos said of Glover. "Man, his speed was so noticeable, I'm sure you all saw it. In straight lines, he can fly. I think his energy and his attitude is contagious. It just spreads and the guys love him."
 

(Full article worth reading. Gives a pretty good overall scouting profile of Glover.)

Ty Glover seems to me like he'll fill that gap left by Zack MacEwen from a few years back.