Speculation- Hughes wanting Canucks to trade for Tanev

[stawns]

19 minutes ago, tas said:

you know, a lot of that is fair, and my post was more dismissive than I intended it to be so I apologize. I agree that when it comes to standing by the team as a whole, you've been pretty solid. 

 

I just meant more when it comes to individual situations like these, in my assessment, you more often see half empty than half full. 

 

I wouldn't say that though, but I do understand that context is hard in text only conversation.

 

I'm pragmatic and objective, or I try to be.  When I discuss what I think the team should do, I try not involve emotion, especially around players.  I try to look at it from a hockey perspective not a fan perspective 

 

Case in point, I'm a miller and boeser "hater", which I definitely am not.  I would, and still would, move away from both players because I think it would have been better for the team 2-3 years down the road, when I think they're best window is (or was at the time).

 

That riles up the super fans and those who can't separate their emotions for specific players (or the team) from the bigger picture.  Keeping Miller and, to a lesser degree, Boeser is better for the short term, something I never denied.

 

So, I get tagged by the maga style fan here for hating or being negative, when, really, all om trying to do is look at the bigger picture or the long game.  When you've been a fan of one team for as long as I have, I think you just get a different perspective on things.

 

 

 

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sid would take this group to the next level we can't even fathom.  Back the truck up for him, PA!

 

More like Sundin than Messier me thinks but with tons of gas left in that ol' V12!

[Coconuts]

58 minutes ago, stawns said:

To me, it's a moo point anyway because I think their d corp us quite good and theyre better shoring up other areas, rather than spending on the d corp, which they've already done

 

Agreed, they'd be better off addressing their second line whether that be via adding a center or a wing 

 

When healthy I'd say our D is less of a concern at this point

 

Tanev, while a solid addition, would probably be a luxury 

[Captkirk888]

10 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I wouldn't say that though, but I do understand that context is hard in text only conversation.

 

I'm pragmatic and objective, or I try to be.  When I discuss what I think the team should do, I try not involve emotion, especially around players.  I try to look at it from a hockey perspective not a fan perspective 

 

Case in point, I'm a miller and boeser "hater", which I definitely am not.  I would, and still would, move away from both players because I think it would have been better for the team 2-3 years down the road, when I think they're best window is (or was at the time).

 

That riles up the super fans and those who can't separate their emotions for specific players (or the team) from the bigger picture.  Keeping Miller and, to a lesser degree, Boeser is better for the short term, something I never denied.

 

So, I get tagged by the maga style fan here for hating or being negative, when, really, all om trying to do is look at the bigger picture or the long game.  When you've been a fan of one team for as long as I have, I think you just get a different perspective on things.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn’t think you are hateful or negative for your opinions on Miller/Boeser…… even tho you’re wrong

[tas]

16 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I wouldn't say that though, but I do understand that context is hard in text only conversation.

 

I'm pragmatic and objective, or I try to be.  When I discuss what I think the team should do, I try not involve emotion, especially around players.  I try to look at it from a hockey perspective not a fan perspective 

 

Case in point, I'm a miller and boeser "hater", which I definitely am not.  I would, and still would, move away from both players because I think it would have been better for the team 2-3 years down the road, when I think they're best window is (or was at the time).

 

That riles up the super fans and those who can't separate their emotions for specific players (or the team) from the bigger picture.  Keeping Miller and, to a lesser degree, Boeser is better for the short term, something I never denied.

 

So, I get tagged by the maga style fan here for hating or being negative, when, really, all om trying to do is look at the bigger picture or the long game.  When you've been a fan of one team for as long as I have, I think you just get a different perspective on things.

 

 

 

 

that's fair. I guess where we ultimately diverge is just on timeline. I truly believe the time is now. 

[Ghostsof1915]

1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

 

nah ,  I cringe at that comparison..

lol

 

Sid is a “driver” type player ,   
 

Messier was opportunistic,.  scoring and with dirty play .   That’s not a “ lead by example “ type player.

 

Crosby is .    and I think his work would polish up JT to his full “ceiling of potential “,

 

as well as others.

Gotta admit if they can make it work and not cripple the team, Sid did pretty good in Rogers Arena in 2010. And he's still a point a game player.

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

that's fair. I guess where we ultimately diverge is just on timeline. I truly believe the time is now. 

 

Don't get me wrong, they are in a window, I agree completely.  I just think they're at the start of that window and, imo, history tells us a couple of things. 

 

One, Cinderella runs are rare.....most teams try and fail several times before they get there and, once they get there, the real contenders are able to stay there by looking ahead. 

 

Two, teams that go "all in" every rarely win and end up depleted and Cupless .........TO have gone in several times now and it looks like their window is closing and once it is, they are f***cked Gillis style.  

 

I'm all for smart moves using later picks and lesser, older prospect to find under the radar players, even rentals.  But, I also think this team is good enough, as is, to make a good shot at it this year without making any kind of substantial move. 

 

The front office and coaching staff has created a culture and I think the chemistry as such that you don't need to mess with it much.  I'm always of the mind that you make your real moves in the off season, not the tdl.......unless you're a seller.

 

So, I agree, they are in win mode, but that doesn't mean you throw caution to the wind because you're going to end up like TO in a hurry, imo.

[IBatch]

12 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I wouldn't say that though, but I do understand that context is hard in text only conversation.

 

I'm pragmatic and objective, or I try to be.  When I discuss what I think the team should do, I try not involve emotion, especially around players.  I try to look at it from a hockey perspective not a fan perspective 

 

Case in point, I'm a miller and boeser "hater", which I definitely am not.  I would, and still would, move away from both players because I think it would have been better for the team 2-3 years down the road, when I think they're best window is (or was at the time).

 

That riles up the super fans and those who can't separate their emotions for specific players (or the team) from the bigger picture.  Keeping Miller and, to a lesser degree, Boeser is better for the short term, something I never denied.

 

So, I get tagged by the maga style fan here for hating or being negative, when, really, all om trying to do is look at the bigger picture or the long game.  When you've been a fan of one team for as long as I have, I think you just get a different perspective on things.

 

 

 

 

We can all learn from each other Stawns.  You're a good poster and respect your viewpoints.     Nobody had us doing this like we have done this year.     But we are, and that can't be ignored either.    JR has seen and done it all, if he's admitting it, that's all I need to fall in line and support them.     

[Reznor]

41 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Is Tanev still a minute-munching dman that can keep up with Hughes? Hughes - Hronek pairing is such a solid pairing, and with Hronek being the age that he is, he's shown he's able to keep up. 

It's a fair question, and he will only regress from here.

I feel that if we can split the duties a bit more, that we don't HAVE to play Hughes to his breaking point. I feel that although he's an effortless skater, this allows him to play a minute less per game and put that extra responsibility on the 2nd pairing. This keeps him fresher for the playoffs and what we lose in having our 2 most dynamic defensemen on the ice at once we gain in a more balanced, sustainable attack.

 

To further my lack of concern, Tanev has been down in minutes only slightly this year, but if you look at his TOI from year to year, he's been able to sustain about 20 minutes a night without any serious regression yet. Would he regress if we re-signed him? Most likely. Which is why if he were to be re-signed, I hope that would be factored along with his injury history. But despite his age, he's still a very effective player.

[Grandmaster]

1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

If they are going into a rebuild,.  Perhaps they can retain a good portion of Crosby to make it work ?

   Sure would be nice to see more of Crosby on the west coast ,.   There wouldn’t be an empty seat in Rogers or in other arenas out here..

 The West would be lit.

That and send em Kuzy. I don’t care what we give them in picks and prospects. It will be worth the guaranteed Cup. I’m sure Sid would love to a Cup in Canada and win again. 

[tas]

Just now, stawns said:

One, Cinderella runs are rare.....most teams try and fail several times before they get there and, once they get there, the real contenders are able to stay there by looking ahead. 

for me, '94 was Cinderella -- underperforming and sneaking is as 7th or 8th seed. I don't see it as Cinderella when the team tops the league all season, wall to wall, even as unexpected as it has been. 

[stawns]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

We can all learn from each other Stawns.  You're a good poster and respect your viewpoints.     Nobody had us doing this like we have done this year.     But we are, and that can't be ignored either.    JR has seen and done it all, if he's admitting it, that's all I need to fall in line and support them.     

 

I have no doubts that PA knows that depleting their org on its first run is a bad idea.  They're too smart for that and the moves they've made so far reinforce that

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, tas said:

for me, '94 was Cinderella -- underperforming and sneaking is as 7th or 8th seed. I don't see it as Cinderella when the team tops the league all season, wall to wall, even as unexpected as it has been. 

 

Absolutely it was.........they missed.  What was the result over the next 10 years?

 

The Canucks two misses have been followed by a decade of bottom feeding.

[tas]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

 

I have no doubts that PA knows that depleting their org on its first run is a bad idea.  They're too smart for that and the moves they've made so far reinforce that

this is kind of my thing. I don't think I've used the phrase "all in" but for me it's sort of implied that jr and pa aren't going to make any stupid moves. I'm trusting their track record and that they aren't going to screw the team. so when I say they should push their chips in, it's with the understanding that it's with the qualifiers of a) not making a dumb overpayment, b) keeping an eye to the long-term, c) not upsetting chemistry, and d) not making a trade for for the sake of making a trade. 

[Grandmaster]

32 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I wouldn't say that though, but I do understand that context is hard in text only conversation.

 

I'm pragmatic and objective, or I try to be.  When I discuss what I think the team should do, I try not involve emotion, especially around players.  I try to look at it from a hockey perspective not a fan perspective 

 

Case in point, I'm a miller and boeser "hater", which I definitely am not.  I would, and still would, move away from both players because I think it would have been better for the team 2-3 years down the road, when I think they're best window is (or was at the time).

 

That riles up the super fans and those who can't separate their emotions for specific players (or the team) from the bigger picture.  Keeping Miller and, to a lesser degree, Boeser is better for the short term, something I never denied.

 

So, I get tagged by the maga style fan here for hating or being negative, when, really, all om trying to do is look at the bigger picture or the long game.  When you've been a fan of one team for as long as I have, I think you just get a different perspective on things.

 

 

 

 

We’ve had our battles over JT when he was about to turn into a free agent. I get it your argument but you also need to concede how wrong you were as we would not be in the position we are in without Miller in the lineup (yes there are other factors like the coaching, management and other players). We are an actual legit Cup contender right now and both JT and Brock have a lot to do with that.
 

That “window” is now.

[tas]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

Absolutely it was.........they missed.  What was the result over the next 10 years?

 

The Canucks two misses have been followed by a decade of bottom feeding.

and it didn't matter whether it was a Cinderella team or a gradual build into the best team in the league, it was the same result either way. 

[PureQuickness]

1 minute ago, tas said:

this is kind of my thing. I don't think I've used the phrase "all in" but for me it's sort of implied that jr and pa aren't going to make any stupid moves. I'm trusting their track record and that they aren't going to screw the team. so when I say they should push their chips in, it's with the understanding that it's with the qualifiers of a) not making a dumb overpayment, b) keeping an eye to the long-term, c) not upsetting chemistry, and d) not making a trade for for the sake of making a trade. 

 

See the thing is, Gillis' teams did EXACTLY that. They were top of the league, but what most people see are those standings and those playoff runs. When you ACTUALLY looked at what happened behind the scenes:

 

1) Bad drafting, like REALLY bad drafting. Like nothing to show drafting. When your best picks are your high first round picks from your first and last season (Hodgson and Horvat) in five years of GMIng, that's terrible.

 

2) Lots of trades with draft picks. The number of 2nd round trades that we made almost rivalled the Burke/Nonis periods. And at the time, everyone said we were giving up too many picks

 

The combination of these factors led to a depletion of the prospect pool over time. We didn't have anyone to replace the Sedins, or Edler, or Markstrom. Usually you'd have 1 or 2 players that could fill one of these roles, but we had none. Horvat was NOT Henrik. Then again, very few players are Henrik.

 

So the reason I bring up Gillis is to remind ourselves that good season/playoff performances do not necessarily have to give up the futures entirely.

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, tas said:

this is kind of my thing. I don't think I've used the phrase "all in" but for me it's sort of implied that jr and pa aren't going to make any stupid moves. I'm trusting their track record and that they aren't going to screw the team. so when I say they should push their chips in, it's with the understanding that it's with the qualifiers of a) not making a dumb overpayment, b) keeping an eye to the long-term, c) not upsetting chemistry, and d) not making a trade for for the sake of making a trade. 

 

Agreed, and that's why I look at teams like Boston, Colorado, Tampa etc that always seem to manage to be the cream of the crop and, for me, it's because they understand the value of being able to turn over your roster from within.

[5forFighting]

20 hours ago, Rick_theRyper said:

Reported price a 1st round pick. Add a cheap prospect for Calgary to retain a serious % on his contract. 

If that is the ask, not interested. This team has proven they can win against any and all comers. Just pick up some depth and do not give up those firsts or future studs (willander, Leks etc). 

[nux_win]

Hughes is a great player and I think he's a great choice as captain, but I don't think that he should be making suggestions about personnel in public.  Maybe it wasn't intended to go public but it has.  Hughes can have conversations behind the scenes if he wants to but he's not the GM and he needs to keep quiet about player moves publicly.  Go Canucks Go!

[PureQuickness]

Just now, nux_win said:

Hughes is a great player and I think he's a great choice as captain, but I don't think that he should be making suggestions about personnel in public.  Maybe it wasn't intended to go public but it has.  Hughes can have conversations behind the scenes if he wants to but he's not the GM and he needs to keep quiet about player moves publicly.  Go Canucks Go!

 

I hear what you're saying here, but how do we know this isn't some speculation made up by a media member? It's not the first time that there was a rumour made up involving Hughes (the IV rumour during COVID)

[PureQuickness]

1 minute ago, 5forFighting said:

If that is the ask, not interested. This team has proven they can win against any and all comers. Just pick up some depth and do not give up those firsts or future studs (willander, Leks etc). 

 

Yes, no more giving up of 1st or 2nd round picks.

[5forFighting]

1 minute ago, nux_win said:

Hughes is a great player and I think he's a great choice as captain, but I don't think that he should be making suggestions about personnel in public.  Maybe it wasn't intended to go public but it has.  Hughes can have conversations behind the scenes if he wants to but he's not the GM and he needs to keep quiet about player moves publicly.  Go Canucks Go!

I disagree, he is the one player who, if he knows who can make him better I listen to because he knows. 

[stawns]

4 minutes ago, 5forFighting said:

If that is the ask, not interested. This team has proven they can win against any and all comers. Just pick up some depth and do not give up those firsts or future studs (willander, Leks etc). 

 

I agree completely

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, 5forFighting said:

I disagree, he is the one player who, if he knows who can make him better I listen to because he knows. 

 

On that I disagree.  Players are paid to play.......leave managing to management.  Giving players roster influence is never a good idea