Agree or Disagree: The current Canucks, with the addition of Rasmus Andersson (or another #2A defenseman), would

[Jeremy Hronek]

4 hours ago, Sergiomomesso said:

Andersson is not that good. And yes I’d rather have this years Myers than Rasmus Andersson atm. Like I said. We aren’t a top 5 Defence in the league just because of Huggy and Hronek. And the cost to acquire RA will not be cheap. It’s not like we have a bunch of draft picks this summer to give away. 

I looked at NHL line combos and it looks like Andersson is currently playing on the 3rd pairing there and so you’re likely right.

 

Might be better to go after Tanev or someone else.

[Slegr]

I’ve always thought Anderson would be a good pick up. I’d be happy with him or Tanev if the price is right. 
My biggest worry on this team is Myers.. he can be so bad some nights. But on other nights, he looks okay and sometimes will even throw his weight around. But he’s a pretty big wild card.

[Jeremy Hronek]

5 hours ago, TopChed said:

Marginal upgrade for huge cost. I can't see trading for Anderson being a wise move. Realistically I'd be happy if we added another 5/6 guy like Burroughs he's played quite well in SJ.

Why would we need another 5-6 guy?  We already stacked with 4’s through 7’s. 
 

We clearly need another 2A/3 guy even if it’s not Andersson (who I had assumed was that guy).

[TopChed]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Why would we need another 5-6 guy?  We already stacked with 4’s through 7’s. 
 

We clearly need another 2A/3 guy even if it’s not Andersson (who I had assumed was that guy).

 

No we don't.

 

Our D >> Pitt when they won. 

 

We need some starch. A Dorsett Burroughs type we don't need to get fancy w it. 

Edited February 4 by TopChed

[Jeremy Hronek]

19 hours ago, TopChed said:

 

No we don't.

 

Our D >> Pitt when they won. 

 

We need some starch. A Dorsett Burroughs type we don't need to get fancy w it. 

We already have guys like Zadorov and Cole for that type of “starch.”  For 4-7 options, we already have Zadorov, Myers, Cole, Soucy, and Juulsen (and then Friedman).  
 

My biggest concern with our current team is that there’s too big a gap between Hronek and whoever currently qualifies as our 3rd best defenseman.  We don’t have a true #3 calibre dman.

 

If Hughes were to get injured, we would have a non elite top pairing (ie one of the aforementioned guys would have to step above his weight class and play with Hronek on the top pairing).

 

Hence, I’d rather bring in a Chris Tanev type guy instead of bottom pairing depth.

[TopChed]

7 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

We already have guys like Zadorov and Cole for that type of “starch.”  For 4-7 options, we already have Zadorov, Myers, Cole, Soucy, and Juulsen (and then Friedman).  
 

My biggest concern with our current team is that there’s too big a gap between Hronek and whoever currently qualifies as our 3rd best defenseman.  We don’t have a true #3 calibre dman.

 

If Hughes were to get injured, we would have a non elite top pairing (ie one of the aforementioned guys would have to step above his weight class and play with Hronek on the top pairing).

 

Hence, I’d rather bring in a Chris Tanev type guy instead of bottom pairing depth.

If we pay the price and add Tanev and I do love Tanev then one of Cole Soucy goes to the press box and one of Juuls Fried get waiverooni'd. The cost benefit doesn't look good. 

[CanuckMan]

Personally I feel like we need someone else to play the #2 position with Hughes. Hronek would do better with someone like Soucy/Zadorav on our 2nd pairing. Would definitely even out our pairings better. Kind of wasting Hroneks offensive potential on the 1st pairing.

[Jeremy Hronek]

50 minutes ago, TopChed said:

If we pay the price and add Tanev and I do love Tanev then one of Cole Soucy goes to the press box and one of Juuls Fried get waiverooni'd. The cost benefit doesn't look good. 

Not necessarily.  Just do Myers+ for the upgrade to Tanev.

 

Hughes-Tanev

Soucy-Hronek

Cole-Zadorov

 

Juulsen

 

Unless I’m missing something?

[TopChed]

36 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Not necessarily.  Just do Myers+ for the upgrade to Tanev.

 

Hughes-Tanev

Soucy-Hronek

Cole-Zadorov

 

Juulsen

 

Unless I’m missing something?

 

I can't see where the cost benefit to make that move would be worth it. 

[CanuckMan]

Personally I’d rather keep the big body in Myers for the playoffs. Playoffs get physical and Myers is pretty sturdy. I feel like if we get Tanev he’s going to get injured and we’ll end up losing a good piece for him.

[TopChed]

24 minutes ago, CanuckMan said:

Personally I’d rather keep the big body in Myers for the playoffs. Playoffs get physical and Myers is pretty sturdy. I feel like if we get Tanev he’s going to get injured and we’ll end up losing a good piece for him.

This. I think people undervalue Myers. 

I fear we pay a big price to swap Myers for Tanev. Then Tanev blocks a shot w his face and we end up w no Tanev and no Myers. 

[Jeremy Hronek]

On 2/4/2024 at 4:45 AM, The Lock said:

I'm starting to hate these comparisons to 2011. We're not even in the playoffs yet. We haven't even had a run yet.

 

I refuse to compare at this point. I understand the passion but this is stupid.

I understand where you’re coming from but it’s not like I’m the only one doing it.  Many hockey pundits within the city have started to make comparisons given our current point total, rank in the overall league standings, and our roster top to bottom (with the addition of Lindholm).    
 

My personal opinion is that the 2011 team is/was still superior since a long term injury to any one person wouldn’t sink us, while a long term injury to Quinn Hughes would immediately make us middle of the road.  I still think we need another 2A/3 calibre defenseman.

[Jeremy Hronek]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:43 PM, wai_lai416 said:

not really offensively this might be a better squad.. defensively it's not even close.

Can you please further elaborate if possible.

[mmkk]

On 2/2/2024 at 6:49 PM, Elias Pettersson said:

 

From what I remember I don't think Tanev played much in the playoffs.  It was this setup:

 

Hamhuis    Bieksa

Edler          Ehrhoff

Ballard       Salo

 

Ballard, Salo and Hamhuis all got hurt, so Alberts and Rome played some games and I think Tanev played a couple at the beginning.  

 

I also agree that Hronek is at the same level as any of those 6 Dmen in 2011.  He's a top pairing RHD, so the equivalent was Bieksa.  Bieksa was tougher and better defensively, but Hronek is a better offensive Dman who can quarterback a PP.

 

At the end of the day, IMO Hughes makes our 2024 defence overall better than 2011.  I mean it's like adding Coffey to the 2011 team.  It's a night and day difference.  2011 did not have a true #1 guy.  We have a superstar right now.

 

I'd rather have a superstar #1 dman with some 4-5 guys, then a bunch of 2-3-4 guys.  The superstar just elevates the whole dcore so much more.  Most teams who win cups have a true #1 dman.  

That's right. Hughes is like our future HOF quarterback. 

[wai_lai416]

51 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Can you please further elaborate if possible.

malhotra kesler burrows hansen higgins even the sedins with the way they control the puck all the time are way better defensive forwards than what we have.. we are also one of the best faceoff teams in the league that year.. on defence you have hamhuis salo edler bieska tanev ballard alberts rome etc.. one can argue 4 or 5 of those players are better defensively than all of the current canucks defence in terms of defensively ability.. and then you have the goalie tandem of luongo and schneider both have better gaa and sv% stats than the current vezina front runner and miles ahead of demko. 

[Devron]

Andersson is a goof. No thanks 

[Jeremy Hronek]

4 hours ago, mmkk said:

That's right. Hughes is like our future HOF quarterback. 

What does our team and defense look like if Hughes gets injured long term?

 

Hence, why I still believe that this Canucks team needs another defenseman that is at or close to Hronek’s level.  If Hughes goes down with injury, we will still need to have the ability to form an elite defensive pairing that can log big minutes. 
 

Myers + Lekker for Chychrun = 4 inch boner

[CanuckMan]

40 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

What does our team and defense look like if Hughes gets injured long term?

 

Hence, why I still believe that this Canucks team needs another defenseman that is at or close to Hronek’s level.  If Hughes goes down with injury, we will still need to have the ability to form an elite defensive pairing that can log big minutes. 
 

Myers + Lekker for Chychrun = 4 inch boner

Lekkerimaki is one of our untouchables. With the way Boeser is playing he might out price himself on his next contract. Lekki might be his replacement or at the very least a winger for the 2nd line. We’re going to need guys on ELC’s that can step in if we want this ship sailing for 3-4 more years.

[Googlie]

On 2/1/2024 at 9:10 PM, Jester13 said:

I think we might be better already. Hughes - Hronek are on pace for like 160 points, and 2011 had around 170 combined from the back end.  And then you start to compare scoring depth up front, and this year is truly something special. 

 

 

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

I understand where you’re coming from but it’s not like I’m the only one doing it.  Many hockey pundits within the city have started to make comparisons given our current point total, rank in the overall league standings, and our roster top to bottom (with the addition of Lindholm).    
 

My personal opinion is that the 2011 team is/was still superior since a long term injury to any one person wouldn’t sink us, while a long term injury to Quinn Hughes would immediately make us middle of the road.  I still think we need another 2A/3 calibre defenseman.

Your forgetting.   Kesler out, or Luongo out and we'd be in the low 100's or high 90's in points best case.   Who would be our 3rd stringer?  And Kesler more or less did all the heavy lifting on the second line.  Our PP would have dropped.   And it's not like it was amazing either, just tops for that year.    Our PK also would have taken a big hit.    We actually witnessed this in the final.     Take QHs out.   Sure.  But until that happens it's all conjecture.    I'm all for protecting him.   But don't see the need to sell the farm for a D we won't be able to fit under the cap anyways. 

Edited February 5 by IBatch

[IBatch]

On 2/2/2024 at 2:43 AM, wai_lai416 said:

not really offensively this might be a better squad.. defensively it's not even close.

Statistically, we are on pace for 212 goals allowed, compared to 185.      2011, no debate, better goaltending (so far).   

 

The way people talk about Salo, you'd think he was a number one D.  Same with Hamhuis.   It simply wasn't true or the case.    Salo was also made of glass.   That team gets romanticized, heavily.    Yes they had six NHL D's.   We have six NHL D's now too.    Erhoff fell off a cliff.   Edler  didn't "peak", was young,  but couldn't come close to matching his best point total, although he paced that (49 over 82) games.     Tanev doesn't even count.   The Glynn on that team.      Hronek lines up with the next best.   Soucy scored ten goals a couple seasons ago.   How many of those guys scored ten goals on a regular basis?      In case you forgot, here is a screen shot - of that teams defense.    

 

Not sure if Kuzmenko was traded as a minus or around a zero.    Salo at minus 3.   His best days were behind him.   It wasn't as good, as "not even close". 

Edited February 6 by IBatch

[wai_lai416]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Statistically, we are on pace for 178 goals allowed, compared to 185.   If you want to go deeper then that, given how scoring is up, we could allow 195 or so, and still compare (and I hate era adjusted crap, so won't go there).   

 

The way people talk about Salo, you'd think he was a number one D.  Same with Hamhuis.   It simply wasn't true or the case.    Salo was also made of glass.   That team gets romanticized, heavily.    Yes they had six NHL D's.   We have six NHL D's now too.    Erhoff fell off a cliff.   Edler  didn't "peak", was young,  but couldn't come close to matching his best point total.   Tanev doesn't even count.   The Glynn on that team.      Hronek lines up with the next best.   Soucy scored ten goals a couple seasons ago.   How many of those guys scored ten goals on a regular basis?      In case you forgot, here is a screen shot - of that teams defense.    

I dunno where u get ur 178 goals from we are on pace for 212.

im not sure why you are talking about how many goals the defenceman score etc or how healthy or injury prone they are. Fact is the top 4 from that era is superior defensively to our current top 4. Offensively sure it’s not close. The only downside to that team was they live and die on the special team. But they can roll any line any defence pairing out there and not worried too much about getting burned line matching

[IBatch]

18 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

I dunno where u get ur 178 goals from we are on pace for 212.

im not sure why you are talking about how many goals the defenceman score etc or how healthy or injury prone they are. Fact is the top 4 from that era is superior defensively to our current top 4. Offensively sure it’s not close. The only downside to that team was they live and die on the special team. But they can roll any line any defence pairing out there and not worried too much about getting burned line matching

Math is your friend.   127 goals allowed.   We've played 49 games.   We've played 59.79%  ( say 60%) of the season.   127 x 1.40.   We are on pace to allow 178/179 goals.    And with Id agree, a level lower in the goaltending catagory.   A lot of that, has to do with our D-core.    Also, with scoring usually dropping  down the stretch,  won't be shocked to see it get better, or pace it.   AV played a defense first style.   It was a great D-core too.   Just don't think this one, is getting the credit it should.   

 

We've also played without Soucy.   
 

Edit:  The flip side, is we are on pace to score a similar amount of goals.. around 265-266. 

 

 

 

Edited February 5 by IBatch

[DSVII]

I don't think they are better than 2011, but I think the window is larger for this core. It helps when the best core players are 24-25 years old, compared to 2011, where the Sedins, Bieksa, Burrows, Hamhuis, Manny, Lu were all 28-31 years old. 

[iinatcc]

I guess we will never know.

 

But hey at least Vancouver had Sven Bärstschi