Jeremy Hronek

I haven't created a team with Ohlund, Edler, or Luongo yet and so here goes:  

Miller-Horvat-Smyl

Ohlund-Edler

R.Miller 

Miller-Kesler-Bertuzzi

Lumme-Salo

Luongo

6 hours ago, qwijjibo said:

Why would Calgary do that?  They're expected to make the playoffs.  Myers is brutal and a huge cap dump 

Trust me I'm aware of this.  I guess my answer to your question is that I'm a biased homer with very wishful thinking?  

Originally, I had Calgary pegged as a team that was going to be blowing it up since there were all these rumours that everyone wanted out (i.e. Toffoli, Hanafin, Backlund, etc), but that problems seems to have been resolved (Toffoli left).   

Interdivisional trades do occur, but they are rare.......and the Canucks would probably have to throw in a significant sweetener for Calgary to even consider Tanev for Myers++.  So yeah, it's unlikely that a trade like this would ever occur.  My guess is that the Canucks will likely wait for later in the year and then re-sign Ethan Bear.......although I don't think Bear is going to move the needle much.  

Maybe Ilya Lyubushkin would be considered an upgrade on Myers?  (and a half-decent worthy pairing for Hughes?).  My gut feeling says, "no" but who knows.  

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

 

 

I'll be a bit unconventional and go with the following line-up:

 

Miller-Kesler-Bertuzzi

 

Jovanovski-Tanev

 

R.Miller

 

-To what extent can Kesler's superb defensive prowess compensate for Miller and Bertuzzi's defensive shortcomings?

-To what extent can Tanev's superb defensive savviness compensate for "Special Ed?"

-To what extent can Miller's playmaking abilities compensate for Kesler's lack of skill in this area?   

 

My gut says that all three of the above potential concerns would be solved........and you'd see a very dynamic, skilled, and physical element with these 5 men on the ice.  Jovanovski leading and joining the rush with Tanev saving his bum + Bertuzzi crashing the net and creating a physical force while Kesler back-checks and bails Bertuzzi out defensively.  Miller would be there sniping and/or playmaking and giving the offense just enough creativity.  Unlike most Canucks' line-ups, this is the type of line that can also physically dominate out there and really set the tone.  This would come in especially handy during the playoffs.  It's going to be tough for teams to batter this line on the forecheck and this line would also be superb at Face-offs with Kesler and Miller there.

 

Speaking of "the other Miller," while it's true that Ryan Miller was a little passed his prime when he got here, he was still a very solid goalie.  Not a superstar by any means (while with us), but he was worth his contract in its entirety.  Not a penny more.  Not a penny less.  Extremely good value at just $2.  

 

 

My other picks:

 

 

#2 (my actual "real" first choice but I wanted to be creative and so I went with the above)

 

Naslund-Morrison-Bertuzzi

Hamhuis-Jovanovski

McLean

 

#3

 

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Hamhuis-Bieksa

McLean

 

#2 and #3 are likely better than my #1 but I enjoyed creating #1 since it "goes against the grain" a little bit (and also has a lot of untapped hidden potential imo).  

The "I officially have no life" edition.  

This is probably my 12th or 13th entry but what can I say......I love my Nucks and their next game isn't for a few days.  

Miller-Pettersson-Mogilny 

Lumme-Bieksa

R.Miller

As many have pointed out, R.Miller just might be the best 'bang for the bucks' as far as the Canucks goalies listed here.  While RM was passed his prime when he got here, he was still pretty solid.  Not a superstar by any means, but not a liability either.  He was paid 6 million and lived up to the contract....not a penny more not a penny less.

J.T. would provide a physical presence and face-off ability to the forward lines.  Petey and Mogilny are both highly skilled two way players that can thread the needle with passes and kill you offensively.  This is an excellent line.

Lumme is another "bang for the buck" player in this game and can carry the puck up the ice quite well.  Not a defensive liability either.  Bieksa can provide some added muscle on the back-end.  

3 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

McLean was a Vezina finalist in 1988-89.

My bad.  I wasn't aware of this.

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Brian Boucher owns the consecutive shutout record.   Five without checking.   Remember back then PHI who'd was looking for the next Bernie Parent, almost found it in Ron Hextall, felt they'd let Parent go.   Didn't happen.   Also not that long ago a kid named Hammond showed up in OTT and went on a 23ish unbeaten streak.  Sorry, 3 games isn't a career.   Until Demko rattles off a couple 55-65 game seasons, gets a Vezina finalist vote and takes us to within a goal from

OT in game 7, he isn't sniffing McLeans jockstrap.   Game 7 CAL.  And Game one NYR.   There wouldn't be a Dallas series or a game 7 without McLean.  .922 sp that playoff against without apologizing to Vegas, much stiffer competition.   McLean also had some epic games in the regular season.    He fizzled out because he remained a stand-up goalie, and didn't follow the rest of the guys and start doing the butterfly as much as anything.    By the time he was Demko's age, compare. 

 

I've seen a lot of goalies (Brian Elliot, another guy) do what Demko did in 3 games.   Heck Luongo versus Turco was 7 games of that.   What Demko did was insane.   Do agree with that.   We haven't seen him do it since (3 games in a row anyways).  Brian Boucher had more career shutouts in his streak pretty sure.    Luongo deserves the top spot.  Then McLean.   Demko has the potential, but we shouldn't be doing this based on that.   

Very good arguments.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the intention was of the creator of this game, but perhaps he/she intended it this way?  A player that costs more isn't necessarily a better player even though it is in most cases?  Furthermore, a better overall player (i.e. Edler over Salo) may not provide better bang for the buck? (i.e. Salo at $1 is better value than Edler at $4?).  I'm not sure.....

1 hour ago, MeanSeanBean said:

 

Naslund-Morrison-Bertuzzi 9

Hughes-Beiksa 6

Miller 2

 

17 bucks. Arguably one of the greatest lines in Canucks history, the Canucks best defensemen talent wise, a tough as nails defensive guy to stand beside him, and a veteran goalie in the American hall of fame. 

 

Seems like a good lineup to me.

Hughes with the WCE would have been insane!   

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Linden was considered a future HHOFer at Brocks age.   Food for thought.   For sure considered a franchise player - and why we got such a bounty for him.   What did Horvat just get us? 

 

Demko doesn't make a lot of sense.    Not sure how a Vezina finalist and playoff hero, is considered a tier below of a guy who's barely even matched Markstrom,  let alone Gary Smith or Broduer yet.   Yikes.   And i'm a big Demko fan but let's be real. 
 

Also feel Lumme isn't getting the love he deserves too.    PK/PP and scored a lot of goals for us.  He didn't crunch guys like Ohlund, or have a few fights like Jovo or a lot of fights like Bieksa.    But he was good.   A top pairing guy for us for a long time. 

Bubble Demko was out of this world.  Vegas completely dominated the series against and Demko almost single-handedly won us that series.  In fact, he broke Vegas so much to the point where they were completely listless against Dallas in the next series (this was from Vegas' coach).  Demko was also tremendous for us during the 21/22 season after a slow start.  Though he was injured last season, the team was noticeably better with Demko in net (although granted, my grandmother's nut sack would have been a better goaltender than both Spencer Martin and Colin Delia).  

McLean was excellent for us from the early 90's to (1995?), but the whole Jeff Brown thing completely broke him.  He was never the same goalie after that.  In many respects, McLean was the Todd Bertuzzi of goaltending.  A few insanely great years that were ultimately outweighed by more mediocre ones.  

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

Agreed.  I also realized that it wouldn't work from a long term cap perspective anyways due to the cap penalty involved with OEL (back to back 4 million dollar cap penalties with that contract in a couple of years) . 

My new (old?) thought is that the Canucks should try and trade Myers, with a sweetener of some kind, to bring Chris Tanev back to the fold.  Not sure if it's feasible since Calgary is a divisional rival, but who knows.  

Hughes-Tanev

Soucy-Hronek

Wolanin-Cole

Now THAT would be a respectable defense.  

Center, Defense, Goaltending.

A wise man once said that in order to win, you need to have a franchise center, a franchise defenseman, and a franchise goalie.  

So......let's put this to the test?  

Henrik, Hughes, and Luongo.....but then I'd be at 15 already with only two points left to fill 3 spots.  So....Demko instead of Luongo puts me at 14.

xxx-Henrik--xx

Hughes-xxx

Demko

Williams-Henrik-Burrows  

Hughes-Salo

Demko

(not bad, but I don't think this line would be potent enough to be a threat offensively.......let's try again.  Slight downgrade at C + upgrade on Wing).

Burrows-Linden-Smyl

Hughes-Salo

Demko

[Linden, Smyl, and Demko probably wouldn't be considered franchise players but they are/were pretty darn close......and were very solid and important pieces to a team.  A voila.  We have a pretty balanced line-up here].

3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Williams-Pettersson-Bure 

Hamhuis-Bieksa 

McLean 

Finally!  A Williams mention.    Nice to see Petey and Bure on the same line as well.  

Team clutch:

Burrows-Kesler-Linden

Hughes-Bieksa

McLean

Team "Bang for buck"

Sedin-Sedin-Smyl

Hamhuis-Bieksa

R.Miller

Some new teams from me:

Naslund-Ronning-Bertuzzi 

Hughes-Salo 

McLean

[This team above was inspired from the dialogue that I read between @IBatch and @JeremyCuddles.  Agreed with both posters that many of the players from yester-year have been criminally underrated in this game (i.e. Ronning, McLean, etc.).  

Naslund-Pettersson-Mogilny

Hamhuis-Bieksa

Cloutier

[While many talk about how great Pettersson and Pavel would be together......trust me, they would have, I actually believe that prime Mogilny and Pettersson would have been even better.  Both are equally comfortable at being the set-up man and sniper, and both players play magnificent two-way games.  Both guys would also easily set-up one of the best snipers in his prime in Naslund].  

Miller-Horvat-Smyl

Hughes-Salo

Demko

[A surprisingly formidable forward group even if it doesn't look scary upon first glance.  Won't dominate but would easily hold their own.....and they'd be backed up our best defenseman in franchise history, as well as George Costanza's favourite, the "bubble boy!"

And of course, how can I *not* create a team without my favourite Canuck of all-time.........Pavel Bure.

Burrows-Linden-Bure

Lumme-Salo

Demko

[I would have rather seen Miller up front playing with Pavel instead of Burrows but I wouldn't have been able to fit them under the cap!]

11 hours ago, IBatch said:

Not to pick on Demko, but not sure why he's ahead of McLean either.   There were some great goalies (HHOFers), he beat out as a Vezina finalist.   And seriously, check out his 94 run...best stats so far by a Canuck

goalie against some pretty insane competition (a lot of HHOFers, and fringe HHOFers) in the playoffs. 

I think the creator of this game may have had a lot of 'recency bias' in mind, but I think a large part of this game might also have to do with letting candidates assess a players' cost relative to their values. For example, most would agree that Edler was a better defenseman than Hamhuis, but is Hamhuis more valuable at $2 than Edler at $4?  etc.  

14 hours ago, JeremyCuddles said:

Hammer and Bieksa is far and away the best value blueline. Wow. Why is Tanev as much as both combined? Lol. Both players clear Tanev, and by a wide margin imo.

 

Nazzy ($4) - Pettersson ($5) - Bertuzzi ($3)

           Hammer ($2) - Juice ($1)

                        Miller ($2)

This is a really good team.  Nice bargain bins with Hammer and Juice.  Petey plays the "Morrison on steroids" role with Nazzy and Bert.  

10 minutes ago, Down By the River said:

Bure - Ronning - Mogilny ($10)

Lumme- Tanev ($5)

Miller ($2)

 

Bure and Mogilny are arguably the two most talented players in Canucks history. Miller is the 2nd best goalie out of the five listed. Lumme and Tanev are defensively responsible but also move the puck extremely well. Ronning the waterbug to dart around, be a decoy, etc .

I'm going to use your Lumme-Tanev idea and create a non-flashy but solid 5-man group that play a smart and responsible two-way game.

Burrows-Kesler-Linden

Lumme-Tanev

Demko

Nothing "sexy" or dynamic with the above but a formidable and responsible group with little to no weaknesses.  

Slight variation to my initial "out of the box" team.  The Jovo-Tanev tandem stays in-tact while I upgrade in net from 'decent' 2014-2017 Ryan Miller to 'bubble' Demko (although I still like my Miller-Kesler-Bertuzzi / Jovo-Tanev / R.Miller team better).

Miller-Horvat-Smyl

Jovanovski-Tanev

Demko

I'll be a bit unconventional and go with the following line-up:

Miller-Kesler-Bertuzzi

Jovanovski-Tanev

R.Miller

-To what extent can Kesler's superb defensive prowess compensate for Miller and Bertuzzi's defensive shortcomings?

-To what extent can Tanev's superb defensive savviness compensate for "Special Ed?"

-To what extent can Miller's playmaking abilities compensate for Kesler's lack of skill in this area?   

My gut says that all three of the above potential concerns would be solved........and you'd see a very dynamic, skilled, and physical element with these 5 men on the ice.  Jovanovski leading and joining the rush with Tanev saving his bum + Bertuzzi crashing the net and creating a physical force while Kesler back-checks and bails Bertuzzi out defensively.  Miller would be there sniping and/or playmaking and giving the offense just enough creativity.  Unlike most Canucks' line-ups, this is the type of line that can also physically dominate out there and really set the tone.  This would come in especially handy during the playoffs.  It's going to be tough for teams to batter this line on the forecheck and this line would also be superb at Face-offs with Kesler and Miller there.

Speaking of "the other Miller," while it's true that Ryan Miller was a little passed his prime when he got here, he was still a very solid goalie.  Not a superstar by any means (while with us), but he was worth his contract in its entirety.  Not a penny more.  Not a penny less.  Extremely good value at just $2.  

My other picks:

#2 (my actual "real" first choice but I wanted to be creative and so I went with the above)

Naslund-Morrison-Bertuzzi

Hamhuis-Jovanovski

McLean

#3

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Hamhuis-Bieksa

McLean

#2 and #3 are likely better than my #1 but I enjoyed creating #1 since it "goes against the grain" a little bit (and also has a lot of untapped hidden potential imo).  

While I think our defense will be better as a whole, with a significantly improved PK, my concern for this team is that there's still too much of a drop off on the back-end after Hughes and Hronek.  We don't really have a true #3 guy.  To further complicate matters, Hughes and Hronek are not stylistically compatible to play with one another and so you'll basically have Soucy (a #4 calibre d-man) playing with Hughes while Cole (and #5 calibre d-man) will be playing with Hronek.......and this of course, is assuming that everyone stays healthy!  (which is not realistic obviously).

The Canucks have very good depth on defense in terms of guy that can fill in on a 3rd pair, and guys that can possibly ride shotgun on a 2nd pairing (i.e. Wolanin, Hirose, Rathbone, McWard, Juulsen, etc.), but this team really need another #2 calibre d-man.

#1/#1A - Hughes

#2 - Hronek

#2A/3 - MIA

#4 - Soucy

#5 - Cole

#5 - Myers

#5-#6 - Hirose, Wolanin, etc.

Depending on what Management's goals are for this season, it might be worth our while to try and trade Myers with a sweetener to try and upgrade on defense (in hopes of getting that missing 2A/3 guy).  Chris Tanev would have been ideal but there's no way Calgary trades him to us.  

I thought Dumba would have been nice but I've been informed that the guy has dropped off a lot.  

9 hours ago, RWJC said:

‘I know what’s at stake’: Di Giuseppe making his case to stick with Canucks

 

VANCOUVER — As the Vancouver Canucks move into the second half of their pre-season schedule, eager for some momentum before their National Hockey League opener on Oct. 11, an obvious need has arisen: they need more guys like Phil Di Giuseppe.

 

Di Giuseppe is a 29-year-old journeyman winger who until his callup by the Canucks last January had spent a full season-and-a-half in the minors without a sniff of the NHL. He has cleared waivers six times and the modest, two-year extension he signed in March to remain with the organization ended a streak of six straight one-year contracts.

 

He opened this training camp on the “bubble,” where he has existed for most of his career, and in a fourth-line deployment. But all Di Giuseppe has done since Day 1 in Victoria is work relentlessly, tirelessly, to push himself deeper into coach Rick Tocchet’s lineup.

 

This week, Di Giuseppe practised and played on the second line with J.T. Miller and Brock Boeser, re-claiming the prime spot he earned at the end of last season. Key prospect Vasily Podkolzin started camp there but has faded.

 

Di Giuseppe is not waiting and hoping for a lineup spot. He’s taking one. Who’s going to stop him?

 

Now, you aren’t winning a Stanley Cup with 18 Phillip Di Giuseppes, but you’d be a hard team to play against and you’d have a heckuva training camp.

Whether it is the five-month old baby, Stella, who Di Giuseppe is now playing for, or simply the wisdom he has gained the hard way in the NHL about opportunity and timing, the Torontonian looks more than just determined. He looks inspired.

Week 1 of the pre-season was hardly a disaster for the winless Canucks. 

 

Their first pre-season game was an utter mismatch of lineups, and in the Canucks’ last two games, when Tocchet dressed a lot of NHL players but still nothing near his strongest lineup, the team was beaten 2-1 in Edmonton on Connor McDavid’s overtime goal, and 3-1 in Seattle by a Kraken team that was one of the best in the NHL at five-on-five last season.

The ”process” that coaches talk about endlessly was actually pretty good after Tocchet used training camp as a classroom on systems play. Excluding the 10-0 embarrassment in Calgary last Sunday, the Canucks’ defensive play has been solid, and their penalty-killing much better in the early rehearsals than it was last season.

 

What they’ve lacked is inspiration.

The Canucks just haven’t had enough players forcing themselves up the lineup, which means there’s been no need for incumbents already at the top to do anything more than they have.

 

But with just two goals in the three games — and after talk all summer about the urgency to start this season better — it sure feels like the Canucks need to find some traction this week so that they’re not standing still like they were the last two Octobers when seasons quickly got away from them.

The Canucks play the Oilers Saturday night at Rogers Arena.

 

So, go Phil, go. Maybe others will go with him.

 

“He’s trying to win a job,” Tocchet said admiringly of Di Giuseppe. “I love guys like that.”

 

“This is nothing new to me,” Di Giuseppe said before the Seattle game on Thursday. “This is my 10th year and nine or 10 of those years I’ve been in this same situation. Is it comfortable? It’s never comfortable. But I know what’s at stake, and when you go through something a number of times you kind of get a feeling of how to handle it day to day. You just stay focused on your game and don’t worry about everything else going around you.”

 

Di Giuseppe was recalled by the Canucks the week after Tocchet replaced Bruce Boudreau as coach and, but for a brief return to the American Hockey League in late February, spent the rest of the season in Vancouver.

 

He played the final 21 games, mostly as a speedy, robust forechecker on Miller’s left side, and contributed four goals, five assists and a tonne of energy. Di Giuseppe was never easy to play against.

 

“You know my path,” Di Giuseppe said, 11 years and four NHL teams since the Carolina Hurricanes made him a second-round pick out of the University of Michigan. “I’ve always been just right there (on the NHL doorstep). Luckily, last year, I got my chance. You never take anything for granted. When you go through bouncing between the minors and the NHL, you never know when that opportunity is going to come. I was playing good hockey, but for a year and a half there, I didn’t get a chance to get called up. So when I did last season, it was one of those make-or-break moments.

 

“You know, I’d kind of always split 50/50 (between the NHL and AHL) and then I played a year and a half strictly in the minors. One thing I’ve learned is it’s hard to just get an opportunity. And then when you do, what are you going to do with it? You’ve got to be ready to go. A lot of things have to fall into place, and then you’ve got to work your butt off.”

Di Giuseppe has never had an NHL roster spot guaranteed, never had the luxury of waltzing through a training camp or pre-season. 

 

The birth of his first child last April, the day after Di Giuseppe arrived home from the Canucks’ final game in Arizona, has further fueled his motivation to become an everyday NHL player. 

 

“Yeah, that’s a big thing,” he said. “It adds another level of pressure. It’s not just about me and my goals. A lot of the guys have families and they’ll tell you the same; you’re playing for their futures and trying to kind of put them in the best position and give your family the best lifestyle you can. So I do think about that, but I don’t let it consume me. If you have a bad day or a bad moment, I think it helps just refocus and kind of get you back on track.”

 

Di Giuseppe hasn’t had a bad day since camp opened. He can’t afford them.

 

Iain MacIntyre
 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/i-know-whats-at-stake-di-giuseppe-making-his-case-to-stick-with-canucks/sn-amp/

I've been impressed with PDG so far.  Keep up the good work.

5 hours ago, BlockerHigh said:

As a long time canuck fan now close to 60! I have seen it all, a lot of bad times, and some good. 
 

As I was considering where this thread would go, I figured to add some spice to it, I figured rather than just stating some concerns, let’s make it fun and a what if.

 

here’s the scenario 

 

I don’t like to panic, or be a sky is falling fan, particularly 2 games into the preseason, but I have some concerns about our potential this year.

 

In my view, it was really important that a number of young guys stepped up this preseason to show they were willing to “take” a spot, and help our depth. There were / are a few spots available at Forward and Defense, and I think all hoped to see Hogz, Podz, and a Dman or two really show they would be hard to cut, ie make it tough for management and the coaches by “kicking down the door”.  
 

Particularly given there were spots available it’s really disappointing to not see players emerging / showing they’re separating themselves in camp and giving us the depth we need. 
 

SO…. 
 

Given we need that depth to make the playoffs… what do we do if we don’t? 
 

Does this end up meaning Petey gets frustrated enough to want to leave? He wants to win… if the players this team is counting on to help improve the team fail to do so, perhaps he says, screw it. I want to go elsewhere 

 

so… question 

 

Given he’s an RFA and let’s assume he has a season similar to last, not materially better or worse… what’s your trade? 

 

Let’s also be realistic given the issues we will have given he would want out…

 

I’m seriously concerned this could play out unless some of the youth we were counting on wake up… 

The good news with Pettersson is that he's made it clear that he wants to be here long term, and that, he's just waiting for the end of the season so that can get offered a premium market value contract (using his performance for this upcoming season as proof that he's deserving of a David Pastrnak-esque type contract).  This is according to the rumours.    

Now having said all that - I'm not sure if I see a pathway for this current core to take the next step and become elite.  A LOT will need to happen over these next  3 years and I just don't see it happening for the following reasons:

1. Most of Myers' money will be used for Pettersson's new contract.

2. Hronek will receive a significant raise and so I'm guessing a lot of that money will come from Beauvillier's expired contract?  

3. Boeser will come off the books in two seasons but a lot of that money will be used on OEL's cap penalty.

And so we'll have some cap challenges to deal with over these next few years and here's the kicker:   

3 years from now:

-Demko will be a 30 year old UFA

-Miller will likely start to begin his age related decline

-Kuzmenko will have been off the books one year prior and may look to go to a contender (or, re-sign here at unfavourable term and money...."unfavourable" given his age at that time).

-Quinn Hughes will only have one year left on his deal and his two younger brothers and family live in the USA.  So even if Quinn doesn't go to NJ, he might want to sign close to there.  Think - Johnny Gaudreau.  American born hockey players aren't the most loyal guys on the planet.  

So again, my outlook for this Canucks' core is kind of 'meh.'  maybe we'll get to the playoffs once or twice over the next 3 years but I can't see us progressing much beyond that.  

Personally?  What I would have done?   I would have blown things up in January of 2023 (earlier this year).

-Trade Pettersson for a 2023 1st + elite prospect

-Trade Hughes for a 2023 1st + elite prospect

-Trade Demko for a 2023 1st (and prospect).

-Trade Miller to Pittsburgh for two 1sts (as was the rumored deal). 

-Horvat to NYI for Raty and/or their 2023 1st (2023 1st was what was being rumored for Horvat at one point)

-Kuzmenko for a low 2023 1st.

-Do a natural tank and finish bottom 3 in the standings (securing one of Bedard, Carlsson, or Fantilli).  

-Weaponize cap space and bring in players on bad contracts (2 years left) while accepting sweeteners.  

Keep guys like OEL, Myers, Boeser, Garland, etc. to ensure that we can hit the cap floor.  Make Luke Schenn captain.  

That's what I would have done, but anyways.........

18 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

This sounds like the OEL deal all over again.  Benning is no longer in charge of us.  We don't have cap space to add a $9.5 million Dman for the next 7 years.  Myers is off the books next year so we can replace him with somebody cheap, maybe Bjork.  Willander will be a cheap ELC contract for 3 years which is what we need.  Same with Lekkerimaki who will probably replace Boeser at some point.  And then D-Petey as well.  We will need these cheap ELC contracts to offset the OEL dead money as well as Petey's new deal.

 

@Biff Tannen,  @King Heffy

@Elias Pettersson

I'll try and respond to your guys' points with this post (apologies in advance to others if I've missed your response as my time is limited).

Here is why I didn't quite feel that a Seth Jones-OEL comparison/analogy was quite 1:1 despite the fact that both players' contracts are/were set to expire at 35/36 respectively.

1.  Stylistic differences:  While OEL was mistakingly pegged as a two-way defensemen by Benning (and perhaps OEL was this type of player during his peak years), the truth of the matter is that OEL was an OFD (Offensive defenseman), and had been an OFD for most of his career. Why is this relevant?  Because - his stylistic similarity to Quinn Hughes made it a mismatch to have him playing alongside Quinn to make a super pairing.  Same thing with Nate Schmidt.  Benning had assumed that Schmidt was a two-way guy but he was more of an OFD.    Seth Jones on the other hand, is a two-way defenseman.  

2. Physicality: Jones can play physically and with grit which would complement Hughes' style. 

3. OEL and Seth Jones' sub-par play - differences.  When the Canucks acquired OEL, OEL had been playing poorly for a few years (father had passed?  I can't remember).  Whatever the case, OEL needed a change of scenery.  When OEL first got here, he actually played pretty well for us in the two way role.  He carried Myers in that second pairing role (although OEL tailed off in the final 1/3rd of the 21/22 season).  Last season, he was injured most of the summer and didn't have a full training session.  Hence, he was sub-par last season.   

Seth Jones on the other hand has had very good underlying numbers in Chicago despite playing on such a bad team. In fact, the only reason why Jones appeared to be struggling in Chicago initially was because he was paired with Jack Johnson.  Once paired with brother Caleb however, Seth was dramatically different.  

So - can you imagine Jones with Hughes?.......under Tocchet's structured system?  (as opposed to whatever fruity system was being employed in Chicago last season).   

So that was my logic in wanting to bring in Seth Jones from a few days ago.

Now having said ALL THAT, I agree with @Elias Pettersson that bringing in Seth Jones wouldn't work from a long term cap perspective since we will need money to re-sign Pettersson and Hronek, combined with the fact that OEL's buyout will rear its ugly head in a few years (4 million cap hit for two seasons).  So with that in mind, I also agree that Jones' cap hit wouldn't work for us and we'll need guys like Boeser's and Myers' contracts to come clean off the books.  

While I like poster Elias Pettersson's idea of making a waiver claim for Bjork (and taking a calculated risk on other cheap guys), my biggest concern is that the Canucks could be at risk in "spinning their wheels" over these next few years and not really gaining any significant ground.  

 3 years from now

-Demko will be a 30 year old UFA

-Miller will likely no longer be at his peak

-Kuzmenko will have become a UFA in the year prior and might be looking for a long term contract at this point (he's not a young guy)

-Hughes will only have one year left on his deal

So - even if we are successful in re-signing both Pettersson and Hronek in the long term (which is not guaranteed by the way), what can we realistically achieve over these next 3 seasons given that we have albatross contracts such as Boeser and Myers, combined with OEL's ugly buyout cap penalty coming up 2-3 years from now).   

Looking at our current defense, even with a fully healthy line-up (which as we know, is a rarity during the season), you have Soucy slated to play with Hughes and Cole slated to be a 2nd pairing guy.  On a good team, Soucy would be a #4 while Cole would be a #5 guy on a 3rd pairing.  

I hate to admit it, but I'm not sure if I see a "pathway" or a "window" for this team in which we make the jump to elite hood over these next 3 seasons given our cap challenges to come.  

Would be pretty neat if they Jays won their 3rd World Series 30 years after their previous one.  

Hard to believe that Dave Winfield is 71 years old now.  Paul Molitor is 67!

3 hours ago, HIWATT said:

What's next, a documentary about Mark Messiers time as captain of the Canucks?

Because we all wanna hear about all of that again too. 

Agreed - although I'd be interested to hear Linden's perspective about how that whole thing went down and what was actually happening in the locker room at that time.  

Would also be interested to hear about Linden's perspective on the alleged power struggle between him, Benning, and the Aqua's.  

I stand corrected and am also on the Marcus Bjork bandwagon now (read some replies in this thread + did a little bit of research on the guy).   

Still  - the idea of a Myers, Boeser, and Willander deal for a guy like Seth Jones does hold a lot of appeal to me (assuming that a deal like that would be considered fair and of course assuming that Jones would waive his NTC/NMC).  

21 minutes ago, NucksRuleYou said:

Jones is turning 29, not 30.

You're right my mistake.

So that's even better for us if we were to trade for him.  His contract will also expire at the age of 35 instead of like 37/38.....which would likely mean that we'd probably only get one year of "past his prime" Jones if we were to make such a trade.