Jeremy Hronek

Isn't this thread about bad takes instead of gay takes? [edit - hope no one is offended by this comment, I'm just "Mess" ing around ;))

Jim Benning was not the hero we deserved but the hero we needed!..........until the 2020 post bubble off-season. #TanevInsteadofSchmidt #ToffoliInsteadofHoltby #MarkstromInsteadOfDemko #DemkoFor1stRounder #1stAsSweetenerToMoveSutterAndVirtanen #SignCheapBackUp #TradePodkolzin&FirstForHampusLindholm

Solid team but would the twins be happy being 3rd line players for an 82 game season?

So, here's what I mean by "creating your best 'realistic' Canucks team of all-time from any era. -You can choose any Canucks player from any era from your line-up. -The player that you choose has the ability and prowess that he displayed as a Canuck. For example, if you choose Cam Neely, it's pre-superstar Cam Neely.....not the "in-his-prime" superstar that we saw in Boston. It's 2015 Ryan Miller not the behemoth from the 2010 Olympics. It's late 30's Mats Sundin and/or Mark Messier (if you dare)....not their peak selves! Now here is where the "realistic" part comes in. You are NOT building a Canucks all-star team. The type of team you build in this thread is designed to play an 82 game season + playoffs. Just like in the real world, players will be unhappy if they are not playing in the role that they are meant to play in. So think twice about having Ryan Kesler as your 3rd line center, or having Bertuzzi on your 2nd power play unit........otherwise they will likely request a trade! We saw what happened with Roberto Luongo in 2014 when Tortorella made Lack the starter in the Heritage Classic. 1st line calibre players throughout Canucks history should play on the 1st line, while 2nd and 3rd liners should also play in the roles that they were known for throughout their careers. Try and be creative: You can do what you want here obviously but try and avoid great and established line combinations from yester-year. Yes, we all know that Sedin-Sedin-Burrows and Naslund-Morrison-Bertuzzi were tremendous lines. If possible, mix it up for the purpose of this game (and because, according to the "loose" rules of this game, Burrows and Morrison aren't really first line calibre players, but rather, were riding shot-gun with their first line calibre line mates). So without further adieu, here is my team: Forwards: Miller-Linden-Bure. I *almost* went with Pettersson and Mogilny here instead of Linden and Bure, but how can you have a Canucks team without prime Linden and Bure? (i.e. two of our biggest clutch players of all-time). Sedin-Sedin-Bertuzzi. 2002 Bertuzzi + 2011 Sedins does not require much of an explanation. They would own the half wall and cycle game and would basically be unstoppable. I also believe that the presence of the Linden/Bure line would help the twins and Bertuzzi perform much better in the playoffs where Linden and Bure could go up against the opposing top lines and pairings. Burrows-Kesler-Hansen. So this is the 2008-2009 version of Burrows, Kesler, Hansen.....shortly before Sundin arrived which catapulted Kesler into stardom. This was also pre SSB Burrows that was a tremendous shut down forward playing alongside super-pest Kesler. Obviously, 'prime' Kesler would be unhappy as a 3rd line player but pre-prime Kesler thrived in this role. Motte-Malhottra-Dorsett. Was a toss-up for me between Dorsett and Cooke but the old school version of me believes that you need an enforcer (that can play) in the line-up to keep the opposition honest. MacEwen (remember - needs to be happy being a 13th forward. 2020 MacEwen gets the nod) Defense: Hughes-Edler. Our two best defensemen of all-time. Both guys are comfortable playing on their off-side and so either one of these guys could slot in on the right side with one another. Jovanovski-Tanev [two high quality defensemen that perfectly complement each other due to opposing skillsets. Could cover each others limitations extremely effectively, to the point of possibly being a super pairing. Mitchell-Salo Burroughs Goaltending: Luongo (2007-2009). The 2007-2009 version Luongo (pre playoff Blackhawks) is head over heels the best goalie that we've ever had. He almost singlehandedly broke and defeated the Dallas Stars during the 2007 playoffs. Demko (2020). Bubble Demko was lights out and almost single-handedly broke Vegas (mindfucked Vegas to the point where they were listless against Dallas in the 3rd round that year). Management and Coaching: Coach: Pat Quinn GM: Brian Burke [will post my PP1 and PP2's later. Same as PK1 and PK2].

Clearly, the names "Tom Renney" and "Rick Ley" are foreign to your vocabulary.

But you nailed it right there. Who? Which someone? Soucy is a #4 calibre defenseman while Myers at this stage is a 5b or a 6. Can Hughes elevate these guys? (as he did with Luke Schenn). Of course he can, but it would be risky..........and again, we are saying all of this under the assumption that all 6 of our top defensemen stay healthy. If someone gets injured, do you really want to see Cole on your top pairing? (or the dissimilar Hughes and Hronek playing together with one another?). So for me? I'm not sure.....I'm not sure I'm sold. On the forward side of things, I see it being more likely that guys like Garland, Boeser, Mikheyev, Beauviller, and Hoglander step up in the absence of a Kuzmenko as opposed to any one of our defensemen (outside of Hronek) truly being able to step up and forming a worthy top pairing if someone got injured. On the prospects side of things, I think guys like Raty and Podkolzin are "closer" to being NHL ready than guys like McWard, Woo, etc. For me, it's not about someone "fitting" with Hughes. It's about someone playing alongside Hughes and forming a dominant pairing. Like a Muzzin to a Drew Doughty. Or a Seidenberg to a Chara.

Agreed. Sedins, Luongo, Kesler, Bieksa, Edler, Schneider, etc., were all products of Burke and Nonis. Yes, Gillis brought in Erhoff, Torres, and Lapierre but a 6 year old could have pretty much done that. While people criticize Benning for his awful pro scouting (which is a fair point), many people often turn a blind eye towards Gillis' equally porous drafting. If you want to know why the Canucks got swept by the Sharks in 2013 after having beaten them in five just two years earlier, look no further than Gillis. In 2013, the Sharks had some new blood in their line-up while the Canucks were completely stale. In many respects, Mike Gillis was the most overrated GM in Canucks' history. While he deserved a very small portion of the 2011 (almost) magic, the lions share of the praise should go towards Burke and Nonis.....and Messier.

I was hoping for Pierre Luc Dubois at the time and was surprised that he went ahead of Tkachuk. Looking back on it now, I'm wondering if Matt Tkachuk had mentioned during the interviews that he didn't see himself staying in Canada for his entire career. If MT had made it known at that time, perhaps this is what dissuaded Benning from selecting him? Given that we have Quinn Hughes, can you imagine where this team would be at had we drafted McAvoy? That would have been your Keith-Seabrook pairing right there.

Neely didn't want to be here anyways. He wanted to play for a real winner like Boston.

I probably would as well but I don't think our ownership would approve of that. Many fans here, without understanding the return, would probably revolt over a Pettersson trade as well.

As much as you hate to admit it, Messier, like most things in his life, probably wins this thread.

To Columbus: Elias Pettersson To Vancouver: Adam Fantilli + David Jiriceck + cap dump to make it work from a cap perspective.

The Canucks would currently be an elite team had they kept Benning around. Benning understood Horvat's value and never would have let him go. Furthermore, Benning would have walked from Boeser and would have found a way to address our problems on RD. Canucks would have made the 2nd round last year if Benning was still here. Guys like Rutherford and Alvin created a very toxic and unstable environment during the 2022 off-season which lead to many players wondering about their futures here (and losing focus).

Almost being the operative word here. If you look closely enough at the Canucks Hall of Fame commemorating their past captains, you might find me there if you look hard enough. In all seriousness though, I wish you guys well in your hunt for a cup. Experiencing a Stanley Cup victory is an experience like none other and believe it or not, I'm pulling for you guys.

Eriksson was actually a solid player for us in many respects. He won board battles and was very rarely out of position. There's a reason why Green had him attached to the Horvat/Pearson line to shut down opponents. That line was almost always on the ice during the last minute of the game. Was Eriksson overpaid? Absolutely. Aside from that however, Eriksson was one of our most defensively responsible players and should have been a part of our 2020/2021 team.

Is that Ghostsof1915 or Ghostsof1997? :-p. I can't go away because the only place where I appear to be living is inside your head young man. Hence, only you can control if I go away or not.

I bet you can't post just once.

Mark Messier's time in Vancouver was grossly misunderstood. Keep in mind that he didn't actually demand to be captain, but rather, the media had anointed him the captain. To avoid what would likely become a major distraction, Linden handed the captaincy to Messier. Messier was actually a good leader for us but McCaw and Quinn were the ones at fault for believing that 36 year old Messier was "the missing piece" for this core. The core had become stale and had become a country club atmosphere that was living off the laurels of 1994. The team needed to be gutted, not bring in Messier. With regards to the Wayne Maki slight, that was on McCaw not Messier. How was Messier supposed to know about Wayne Maki and his history? All Messier did was point out what the media had been saying all throughout the 1996/1997 season.....the core needed to be gutted and there needed to be significant change. Messier may not have won a cup in Vancouver but he was instrumental in helping a guy like Naslund take the next step (Naslund himself gives credit to Messier for this). Bure loved playing with Messier as well. And let's be honest - Tom Renney was an absolutely awful NHL coach at that time. All Messier did was point out the obvious. People also lambast Keenan for chewing out Linden when in reality, Linden's play was simply not up to par at that time. He was not the same guy that he was in 1994 and Keenan simply pointed out the truth. Scratching beneath the surface of excitement, fans and core players in Vancouver were still likely salty that Messier had defeated the Canucks just three years earlier. What if the Canucks had brought in Brad Marchand in 2014? How would have people have reacted after going past the surface? In many respects, Mark Messier was probably the most underrated and under-appreciated Canuck of all-time. There is no Markus Naslund the superstar without Mark Messier.

I wish the kid all the best. Sad for him that things didn't work out here. Juolevi, Virtanen, Rathbone, and Podkolzin all biting boners on the farm.

To what extent can both Pettersson and Miller help elevate Boeser, Mikheyev, Beauvillier, Garland, and Hoglander with more increased ice-time and responsibilities in the absence of Kuzmenko?

Updated post #2: Another idea that I had was the following: 1) Trade Andrei Kuzmenko for a #2A or #3 calibre defenseman that can play with Hughes. 2) With Kuzmenko gone, take a calculated gamble on guys like Garland, Hoglander, Beauvillier, etc., "stepping up" with more responsibilities and ice-time. Now obviously, it's not ideal to move Kuzmenko but lets face facts: -Guys like Garland, Boeser, and Beauvillier aren't going to fetch you a right-handed defenseman that wouldn't look out of place on a top pairing. -The Canucks are in no position to be moving prospects and/or draft picks to land a short-term piece. Mikheyev-Pettersson-Boeser Hoglander-Miller-Garland PDG-Suter-Beauvillier Aman-Bluegar-Joshua Hughes-[KuzmenkoReturn] Soucy-Hronek Cole-Myers Demko DeSmith My personal thought to this is that it's a bit risky and that it might stretch us a little too thin up front.....especially if there are injuries. I would have been more comfortable with the above had Podkolzin been ready but now I'm not so sure. Now having said that, I think the Canucks would potentially be in a stronger position for NEXT season if we made the above deal. 1) We'd have our top 4 defensemen pretty much set. 2) We can let Myers walk without apology. 3) For next season, I think there would be a far greater likelihood in guys like Raty and Podkolzin (knock on wood), being ready to make the team than a guy like Willander (who will likely need more time to develop).

If it was up to me, he'd receive some kind of severe corporal punishment for his actions, but not execution in this case. He should have the living shit kicked out of him, no question......by police officers of a Jewish background.

Realistically, maybe someone like Ryan Pulock from the Islanders? But I can't see the Canucks and Islanders being a good trading partner for this piece. JT Miller going the other way would rob us of our depth down the middle. The Canucks need another #3 calibre defenseman (or a "2B" type). Here is what the Canucks currently have in my opinion: 1. Hughes 2. Hronek 4. Soucy 5. Cole 5B. Myers 6. Wolanin, Fans won't like what I'm about to say but I think the only way we get that legit partner for Hughes is by trading Kuzmenko for said piece.

I don't think Carolina agrees to that deal. Podz and Rathbone are almost reclamation projects at this stage (Rathbone basically is a reclamation project), while Beauvillier and a 2nd are pretty underwhelming. I can't see Carolina agreeing to this.

What would the asking price be?