[GDT/PGT] Preseason Game 4 | Saturday September 28th | Vancouver Canucks @ Calgary Flames | @6PM | Sportsnet & 650

[DavidGoliath]

2 hours ago, Darius said:

 

Surprised the tv guys never had a comment on this. It looked patently ridiculous. His stick is at his waist and called for “high sticking” when the other guy runs into it.

[CanucksJay]

12 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

Raty has earned a spot plain and simple

Yup

I believe we can make all the cuts now. 

 

13 forwards

 

Petey

Miller

Boeser

Debrusk

Garland

Hogz

Suter

Bleuger

Heinen

Sherwood

Sprong

Raty

13F Joshua - IR

 

7D

Hughes

Hronek

Soucy

Myers

Forbort

Desharnais 

7D- Juulsen

 

2G

Lankinen

Silovs 

 

Demko (IR) 

 

Poolman-IR

 

This basically puts us 90k below cap. We don't dip into LTIR and accrue very little over time. 

 

We could trade poolman so we accrue more space but one injury would derail this plan as one injury forces us to get LTIR relief. 

 

 

[Fan Abroad]

2 hours ago, rmok said:

Not at all happy that nobody went after Klapka. Injured two players with dirty hits and walked away laughing. 

I missed the game. Who got injured?

 

[CaptainCanuck12]

3 hours ago, -dlc- said:

Yep, I feel the same. Tomlinson's so vanilla and doesn't really banter well at all.

I've noticed the same.  Its seems to me to be because Tomlinson is so defensive/insecure.  Anytime Shorty tries to take a playful jab at him, he seems to take it personally and there's an awkward silence for several seconds afterward.  Makes me really miss the playful banter between Shorty and Cheech!

[AnotherCanucksFan]

6 hours ago, NucksFan said:

  He was screened …

 and ….pre season

It's time to panic! hahe

[CaptainCanuck12]

3 hours ago, Darius said:

Ok now I get it, i was wondering why some of you were talking about botox...

 

 

Sorry to tell you boys...I think that might be a she-male!

[CaptainCanuck12]

3 hours ago, Rusty Shackleford said:

 

You hear that woman screaming for nothing too?

Pretty sure that was the one sitting behind Tocchet

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, DeNiro said:

The ref at center should not be allowed to make a call on that play.

 

Two ref system has ruined the game.

 

 

Removing the redline - awesome for the sport, the shoot-out and the second ref, not so much. 

[Ghostsof1915]

37 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Removing the redline - awesome for the sport, the shoot-out and the second ref, not so much. 

You want to go back to ties? I hate shoot outs as well. But I don't like ties either. 

[spook007]

23 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

You want to go back to ties? I hate shoot outs as well. But I don't like ties either. 

Prefer ties to shoot outs... 5min 3 on 3 and then the end.

[filthy animal]

3 hours ago, Outsiders said:

Raty has earned a spot plain and simple

 

I think so too. Raty has had a great audition. I dunno how long he sticks, but he should be in the opening night roster. Lekkeramaki has looked good too, but i think management will lean on the safe side and give him a year to be a stud in Abby

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

You want to go back to ties? I hate shoot outs as well. But I don't like ties either. 

 With the OT the way it's played, most games are decided anyways.   Get why they thought a tie game needed tweaking at the time as teams were cautious to get their one point half-way through the third period (or to start for some teams), thing is it's exact same thing now, both teams are happy to sit back and get the loser point.    Don't see any need for the shoot-out, and every year several teams are boned based on a skill's competition, both in the rankings (where they slot, as in home ice advantage in the first round) and  making the post-season.   Seen too many teams, who didn't get the "extra" 10-15 points that a lot of  teams seem to get, instead maybe 5.   That's huge in a 32 league team, half vying for a spot.    To me the better team should get in.   Tie breakers aren't enough, if actual points (which it is) are what is the difference between post season and golf course.   

 

The other thing that rubs is the stats got thrown out as far as team points and especially goalies stats .   A shoot out win is put in the win column.   Luongo for example, who really wasn't that great at it, has i'm going to guess at least 50 of them.  Lunqvist like 80 or something.   I'm not even sure he'd  have 400 career wins under the old system, something that was like 1500 points for a forward, extremely hard to obtain.    At the very minimum, they should consider recording these in their own column next to tie games.   At the very least.   For street cred or something, it's not a "team" win.    At the start guys were been swapped around and getting paycheques and limited ice time, just for their ability to score in a situation like this.  It also puts undue stress on goalies, both in practice and the shoot-outs themselves, although there are less of them now for sure.  3 x 3 was brought in because too many GMs were getting tired of the shoot-out. 

 

To answer your question, yes I'd like to see them get rid of it.   There's been talk about doing it for awhile.    Think it was LA a few years ago, that had so many extra points they bumped two teams with a better winning percentage.  I don't like the 3 point system either.   Maybe instead give the team that wins 1.5 in OT, the loser .5.    And both .5  point's  if time runs out (or .75 each).   That would promote winning the game.   Or just call it a tie.  And give them one each, which worked fine for a very long time.   More than anything, they need to get rid of 3 point games. 

Edited September 29 by IBatch

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

 With the OT the way it's played, most games are decided anyways.   Get why they thought a tie game needed tweaking at the time as teams were cautious to get their one point half-way through the third period (or to start for some teams), thing is it's exact same thing now, both teams are happy to sit back and get the loser point.    Don't see any need for the shoot-out, and every year several teams are boned based on a skill's competition, both in the rankings (where they slot, as in home ice advantage in the first round) and  making the post-season.   Seen too many teams, who didn't get the "extra" 10-15 points that a lot of  teams seem to get, instead maybe 5.   That's huge in a 32 league team, half vying for a spot.    To me the better team should get in.   Tie breakers aren't enough, if actual points (which it is) are what is the difference between post season and golf course.   

 

The other thing that rubs is the stats got thrown out as far as team points and especially goalies stats .   A shoot out win is put in the win column.   Luongo for example, who really wasn't that great at it, has i'm going to guess at least 50 of them.  Lunqvist like 80 or something.   I'm not even sure he'd  have 400 career wins under the old system, something that was like 1500 points for a forward, extremely hard to obtain.    At the very minimum, they should consider recording these in their own column next to tie games.   At the very least.   For street cred or something, it's not a "team" win.    At the start guys were been swapped around and getting paycheques and limited ice time, just for their ability to score in a situation like this.  It also puts undue stress on goalies, both in practice and the shoot-outs themselves, although there are less of them now for sure.  3 x 3 was brought in because too many GMs were getting tired of the shoot-out. 

 

To answer your question, yes I'd like to see them get rid of it.   There's been talk about doing it for awhile.    Think it was LA a few years ago, that had so many extra points they bumped two teams with a better winning percentage.  I don't like the 3 point system either.   Maybe instead give the team that wins 1.5 in OT, the loser .5.    And both .5  point's  if time runs out (or .75 each).   That would promote winning the game.   Or just call it a tie.  And give them one each, which worked fine for a very long time.   More than anything, they need to get rid of 3 point games. 

IMHAO the shootout and 3 on 3 OT (no ties) was started to appease the ignorant US based fans in the newer markets. There’s nothing wrong with a regular season game ending in a tie. It’s a good result for a visiting team to earn a tie. It’s up to the home team to push the play if they don’t want the visiting team to take one of the two points. 
Expansion to these southern US markets where the people know nothing about hockey has not only watered down the talent to a point where ECHL level players are in the National League but it also added stupid rules in hopes to appease these new “fans”. The issue is are these really fans? 
How many teams should there really be in the NHL?

Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, (Calgary or Edmonton) Chicago, Detroit, Rangers, Minnesota, Boston.

 

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

IMHAO the shootout and 3 on 3 OT (no ties) was started to appease the ignorant US based fans in the newer markets. There’s nothing wrong with a regular season game ending in a tie. It’s a good result for a visiting team to earn a tie. It’s up to the home team to push the play if they don’t want the visiting team to take one of the two points. 
Expansion to these southern US markets where the people know nothing about hockey has not only watered down the talent to a point where ECHL level players are in the National League but it also added stupid rules in hopes to appease these new “fans”. The issue is are these really fans? 
How many teams should there really be in the NHL?

Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, (Calgary or Edmonton) Chicago, Detroit, Rangers, Minnesota, Boston.

 

I'd be all over retraction.   It's taken decades to catch up to expansion and maintain a suitable talent level.   24 teams would be ideal.   There's enough talent for that.    I absolutely hear you on this.   Aside from the goon squad that came in with expansion in the 90's, after the scouts brought in the best of Europe and post USSR things were amazing.   That level wasn't sustainable unfortunately.    And yes, not just ECHLer's but also guys who normally would have to wait until 20-22 to get a shot, are inserted into cap strapped lineups just to make it work.   And guys who can still play, decide to retire instead of going back to the league min.    Bettmans "plan" for world domination and stuffing cash in franchise fees into owners pockets is plain as day.   And we as fans for sure have suffered.    A decade with no playoffs is ridiculous.   Five years should be the norm for a rebuild, then a decade of "window" rinse and repeat.    It's also ridiculous to create more jobs at AHL level positions.   We've finally got a great group of players, watch them go ruin it by adding another team.   They for sure are aiming for a 40 team league.  

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I'd be all over retraction.   It's taken decades to catch up to expansion and maintain a suitable talent level.   24 teams would be ideal.   There's enough talent for that.    I absolutely hear you on this.   Aside from the goon squad that came in with expansion in the 90's, after the scouts brought in the best of Europe and post USSR things were amazing.   That level wasn't sustainable unfortunately.    And yes, not just ECHLer's but also guys who normally would have to wait until 20-22 to get a shot, are inserted into cap strapped lineups just to make it work.   And guys who can still play, decide to retire instead of going back to the league min.    Bettmans "plan" for world domination and stuffing cash in franchise fees into owners pockets is plain as day.   And we as fans for sure have suffered.    A decade with no playoffs is ridiculous.   Five years should be the norm for a rebuild, then a decade of "window" rinse and repeat.    It's also ridiculous to create more jobs at AHL level positions.   We've finally got a great group of players, watch them go ruin it by adding another team.   They for sure are aiming for a 40 team league.  

Has Betman pretty much created one of those pyramid schemes with all this expansion? At some point, because there is no actual base of support, it will all crash down? But the owners of the scheme make fortunes on the backs of others along the way? 

[DrJockitch]

It is kind of preseason etiquette that you bring the crappy team on the road for the early games. Last couple you bring majority of lineup. 
 

Raty seems to have taken the third C spot with Garland. Not sure if Hogz will rock the other wing or not. 
Sprong is so enticing to put in the top 6 if he can play Tocch’s game. Feels like him and Heinen will fill out the top 6 to start. 
Reallly nice to see Hogz coming in and really claim his spot in the top 9 if not top 6. 
Still very unsure of the D after the first pairing. So many penalties for being tall. 
When I see Tolipoli I always feel like watching Demko. About same size, same calm efficiency in everything. He may be the best of our G prospects.

[Fan Abroad]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

 With the OT the way it's played, most games are decided anyways.   Get why they thought a tie game needed tweaking at the time as teams were cautious to get their one point half-way through the third period (or to start for some teams), thing is it's exact same thing now, both teams are happy to sit back and get the loser point.    Don't see any need for the shoot-out, and every year several teams are boned based on a skill's competition, both in the rankings (where they slot, as in home ice advantage in the first round) and  making the post-season.   Seen too many teams, who didn't get the "extra" 10-15 points that a lot of  teams seem to get, instead maybe 5.   That's huge in a 32 league team, half vying for a spot.    To me the better team should get in.   Tie breakers aren't enough, if actual points (which it is) are what is the difference between post season and golf course.   

 

The other thing that rubs is the stats got thrown out as far as team points and especially goalies stats .   A shoot out win is put in the win column.   Luongo for example, who really wasn't that great at it, has i'm going to guess at least 50 of them.  Lunqvist like 80 or something.   I'm not even sure he'd  have 400 career wins under the old system, something that was like 1500 points for a forward, extremely hard to obtain.    At the very minimum, they should consider recording these in their own column next to tie games.   At the very least.   For street cred or something, it's not a "team" win.    At the start guys were been swapped around and getting paycheques and limited ice time, just for their ability to score in a situation like this.  It also puts undue stress on goalies, both in practice and the shoot-outs themselves, although there are less of them now for sure.  3 x 3 was brought in because too many GMs were getting tired of the shoot-out. 

 

To answer your question, yes I'd like to see them get rid of it.   There's been talk about doing it for awhile.    Think it was LA a few years ago, that had so many extra points they bumped two teams with a better winning percentage.  I don't like the 3 point system either.   Maybe instead give the team that wins 1.5 in OT, the loser .5.    And both .5  point's  if time runs out (or .75 each).   That would promote winning the game.   Or just call it a tie.  And give them one each, which worked fine for a very long time.   More than anything, they need to get rid of 3 point games. 

Always thought it should be a 3,2,1,0 point system. 3 for win. 2 for OT win. 1 for OTL. 0 for being a L

[grumpyone]

17 minutes ago, Fan Abroad said:

Always thought it should be a 3,2,1,0 point system. 3 for win. 2 for OT win. 1 for OTL. 0 for being a L

I've said this for years now.

more points awarded for winning the game sooner. This gives the teams incentive to 'go for it' to end the game sooner. 

A team should not be rewarded for losing a game. I feel the same about the CFL awarding 1 point for a missed field goal that isn't run back into play. 

I'd be okay with extending the 3-3 ot to 10 minutes, but ONLY if they removed the shoot-out. 

[Canuck You]

10 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

 

That's exactly the issue. Always has been. I'm from Nova Scotia. Real estate has also gone up too. Small town can be affordable but tough if you need to find work. 

I've been planning my escape there for awhile..Would seem super peaceful away from all the noise..I would suspect that living there would be much cheaper then here anyway.

[Canuck You]

7 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

Yup

I believe we can make all the cuts now. 

 

13 forwards

 

Petey

Miller

Boeser

Debrusk

Garland

Hogz

Suter

Bleuger

Heinen

Sherwood

Sprong

Raty

13F Joshua - IR

 

7D

Hughes

Hronek

Soucy

Myers

Forbort

Desharnais 

7D- Juulsen

 

2G

Lankinen

Silovs 

 

Demko (IR) 

 

Poolman-IR

 

This basically puts us 90k below cap. We don't dip into LTIR and accrue very little over time. 

 

We could trade poolman so we accrue more space but one injury would derail this plan as one injury forces us to get LTIR relief. 

 

 

For whatever reason, Raty seems like he's been in the system forever..Still very young but it's about time we started giving our young guys some pro ice..Seems to be the tradition to baby them..

[Googlie]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

 

 

To answer your question, yes I'd like to see them get rid of it.   There's been talk about doing it for awhile.    Think it was LA a few years ago, that had so many extra points they bumped two teams with a better winning percentage.  I don't like the 3 point system either.   Maybe instead give the team that wins 1.5 in OT, the loser .5.    And both .5  point's  if time runs out (or .75 each).   That would promote winning the game.   Or just call it a tie.  And give them one each, which worked fine for a very long time.   More than anything, they need to get rid of 3 point games. 

 

Or make every game a 3 point game, as in the IIHF

 

3 for a regular win

1 each for a regular tie witn an extra point for an OT win

 

That would dramatically increase the intensity of the last 5 minutes of a game ... teams with a 1 goal lead wouldn't sit on it, as an insurance goal would be huge and giving up the tying goal would cost them a point, maybe 2. Teams tied with 5 minutes to go would be all about offence as the difference between a loser point and an extra OT point pales in comparison to 3 points for an outright win

 

 

 

Edited September 29 by Googlie
Clarity

[Boudrias]

I thought the Canucks hung in quite well against a heavy NHL lineup. Yes, Raty, Hogs and Garland looked really good. Sasson is getting a long look from RT. Lekker plays a 200' game, nice. 2 of the goals againt Siloves were deflected so no panic. Suggestions that the Falmes were shooting long on purpose is overstated IMO. They were taking shots because the Canuck play inside the d-zone was pretty solid. 

 

Lots of cuts coming before the final 2 games. I suspect the rosters in those games will be the opening night players with the exception of Raty who I think will get into 1 more game, maybe Lekker as well. 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I thought the Canucks hung in quite well against a heavy NHL lineup. Yes, Raty, Hogs and Garland looked really good. Sasson is getting a long look from RT. Lekker plays a 200' game, nice. 2 of the goals againt Siloves were deflected so no panic. Suggestions that the Falmes were shooting long on purpose is overstated IMO. They were taking shots because the Canuck play inside the d-zone was pretty solid. 

 

Lots of cuts coming before the final 2 games. I suspect the rosters in those games will be the opening night players with the exception of Raty who I think will get into 1 more game, maybe Lekker as well. 

Raty and Lekkerimaki will be in the opening night lineup. I don’t see any other young guys making the club. If Demko was healthy Silovs would be sent to Abby too. A club defensive system designed to suppress high danger chances can’t have a goalie who struggles stopping (and controlling the rebounds of) long distance shots the club intentionally gives up. 

[Joe King]

1 hour ago, Fan Abroad said:

Always thought it should be a 3,2,1,0 point system. 3 for win. 2 for OT win. 1 for OTL. 0 for being a L

I like this idea as well. But I don't the NHL will do this though.

If they did the better teams will quickly put distance between them and the not so good teams. They want the average teams to stay in the play off race well into the season.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

I thought the Canucks hung in quite well against a heavy NHL lineup. Yes, Raty, Hogs and Garland looked really good. Sasson is getting a long look from RT. Lekker plays a 200' game, nice. 2 of the goals againt Siloves were deflected so no panic. Suggestions that the Falmes were shooting long on purpose is overstated IMO. They were taking shots because the Canuck play inside the d-zone was pretty solid. 

 

Lots of cuts coming before the final 2 games. I suspect the rosters in those games will be the opening night players with the exception of Raty who I think will get into 1 more game, maybe Lekker as well. 

 

Lek looks ok, but he clearly isn't ready yet.  His future looks bright though