Post-Game Talk: 11/26/16 | Canucks 3 @ Avalanche 2

[thepoeticgoblin]

Oh yeah, I forgot that Marky isn't very good or an NHL goalie according to some around here...

Well, they have a point. Look at his stats... .902%, 2.73 GAA , that's AHL-fodder numbers right there.. 6-3? What's that? We need more.

Jokes aside, he was superb! What a show he put on in the 3rd and the OT - finally we got the timely saves as well. Nice that he was rewarded with another W too. Hopefully Willie stops playing him like the average backup now. His GP are misleading due to Miller missing games with injury and flu. Willie still goes to him as often as he can - which is very short sighted.

Very impressed with Stech. I forget he's a rookie at times. The entire D stepped up when needed after Edler got hurt.

Horvat and Burrows are on fire. Sedins, not so much. Nice goal by Loui as well.

 

[tantalum]

In general this was a stolen 2 points thanks to Markstrom.

Horvat and Burrows had a strong game but beyond that I think the Avs really took over the game the last 40 minutes. A few wins doesn't make this a good team unfortunately.

 

[tantalum]

Because he's valuable ... and Stetcher can replace him. You seriously don't get it?

Wow, really?

He only has value if you a GM that can get value. Not even close to convinced Benning can get that value. In which case you keep him.

I understand the reasoning of trading Tanev if you commit to a full rebuild. He'd be 30+ by the time things are turned around so may as well get value now. But that is the other problem...reality. This management team doesn't believe in a full rebuild so the return would likely not be a rebuild type return.

 

[ChilliBilly]

In general this was a stolen 2 points thanks to Markstrom.

Horvat and Burrows had a strong game but beyond that I think the Avs really took over the game the last 40 minutes. A few wins doesn't make this a good team unfortunately.

Really? I know they are not a "good " team, but they got 4 points on this road trip, and only missed the other 2 points because of Niemi.

 

[tantalum]

Really? I know they are not a "good " team, but they got 4 points on this road trip, and only missed the other 2 points because of Niemi.

Really what? You agree they are not a good team. I just said that last night the Avs outplayed them for the better part of 40 minutes. It it wasn't Horvat and Burrows on the ice they weren't doing anything. It was a road trip involving the worst teams in the league...the only thing proven really was that they fit among the worst teams in the league.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Really what? You agree they are not a good team. I just said that last night the Avs outplayed them for the better part of 40 minutes. It it wasn't Horvat and Burrows on the ice they weren't doing anything. It was a road trip involving the worst teams in the league...the only thing proven really was that they fit among the worst teams in the league.

My point was they stole 2 points cuz of Markstrom the same way they lost 2 points cuz of Niemi. thats all.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Bo was awesome but Sutter was still chosen. Markstrom was awesome but Miller will still get the next three starts.

So frustrating.

I would like Bo to have his own pp unit like Kesler use to. Sutter is a Hansen level player not sure why people blame him for Bo's ice time. He is playing the wing there is plenty of ice time for both. I would start Bo's unit on the pp as well, give the Sedin's more urgency when out there. Markstrom seems to be getting his share of starts although Miller has played a bit better overall. Perhaps get Bo's contract done first before pumping his stats but I do agree he is becoming our best forward.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Markstrom has to stop charging out of the net. This isn't the kind of league that you can do that.

Edler gone is the doomsday scenario, like it was last season. Not worried, though, this was kind of expected. Guys that play twenty-five minutes have a better chance of being injured. WD rides his useful defensemen. I think the Canucks should have brought in some NHL calibre depth, after looking over last season but that might be hindsight. Benning probably tried.

Sedins were slowed by high altitude or something but looked way worse than usual. Henrik looked especially bad. It's worrying to see them that slow. There is a significant increase in injury risk, IMO. Sedins used to be deceptively quick and agile. They could spin away from hits. Now, they just absorb the punishment if they have to. It's getting hard to watch. A hitting team that targets them can thump away all game!

 

[Captain Bowie]

Because he's valuable ... and Stetcher can replace him. You seriously don't get it?

Wow, really?

He's valuable because he's good at hockey. We need players who are good at hockey.

Stetcher can replace Tanev? We know those in less than 20 games? Even if he can, are we gonna get by with just one or two good defencemen?

Instead of being an ass, explain to me EXACTLY why and how trading Tanev now would benefit us in 2-4 years. Who are we getting back, and why are we better off with them over Tanev.

 

[kanucks25]

Really what? You agree they are not a good team. I just said that last night the Avs outplayed them for the better part of 40 minutes. It it wasn't Horvat and Burrows on the ice they weren't doing anything. It was a road trip involving the worst teams in the league...the only thing proven really was that they fit among the worst teams in the league.

Yeah, I believe only two of our wins have come against playoff teams. We can swim with the bottom-feeders just fine but unfortunately we don't play bottom-feeders every game.

He's valuable because he's good at hockey. We need players who are good at hockey.

Stetcher can replace Tanev? We know those in less than 20 games? Even if he can, are we gonna get by with just one or two good defencemen?

Instead of being an ass, explain to me EXACTLY why and how trading Tanev now would benefit us in 2-4 years. Who are we getting back, and why are we better off with them over Tanev.

It's really incredible how when a player emerges, some people feel that other players who play his position are automatically expendable. These people need to remember that depth is key, especially when Tanev and Stecher aren't even similar players.

If Tanev is going to be traded it should be because of his age, not because Stecher has "pushed him out."

 

[Soups On]

Hamhuis was pushed out because management pidgeoned Hutton into the top 4 (and Sbisa contracts). Hutton has struggled. If Tanev is moved because Stecher supposedly pushed him out, I would genuinely be surprised if Stecher doesn't struggle next season. Sophomore slumps are real, people.

 

[kanucks25]

Hamhuis was pushed out because management pidgeoned Hutton into the top 4 (and Sbisa contracts). Hutton has struggled. If Tanev is moved because Stecher supposedly pushed him out, I would genuinely be surprised if Stecher doesn't struggle next season. Sophomore slumps are real, people.

Hamhuis was pushed out because of management's idiocy. Like you said, they decided Hutton and Sbisa were good enough on the left side behind Edler for us to not need Hamhuis.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised if they trade Tanev thinking Stecher/Gudbranson/Tryamkin is a good enough right side moving forward.

 

[Pip]

Because he's valuable ... and Stetcher can replace him. You seriously don't get it?

Wow, really?

He's valuable for a reason. I'd listen to offers but Stecher has not replaced Tanev

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Hamhuis was pushed out because management pidgeoned Hutton into the top 4 (and Sbisa contracts). Hutton has struggled. If Tanev is moved because Stecher supposedly pushed him out, I would genuinely be surprised if Stecher doesn't struggle next season. Sophomore slumps are real, people.

Hamhuis wasn't pushed out, he simply wasn't re-signed.

 

[kanucks25]

Hamhuis wasn't pushed out, he simply wasn't re-signed.

He wasn't re-signed because he was essentially pushed out by other players that play his position. Unfortunately neither of them do it as good as Hamhuis.

 

[CherryToke]

I want to see a line of Burrows-Horvat-Hansen when Hansen gets back.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

He wasn't re-signed because he was essentially pushed out by other players that play his position. Unfortunately neither of them do it as good as Hamhuis.

Meh, gotta give the young guys a shot! I didn't want sad Hamhuis around for another year, watching his face grow more and more sad as we approached trade deadline...

 

[kanucks25]

I want to see a line of Burrows-Horvat-Hansen when Hansen gets back.

If Horvat and Burrows keep playing the way they are, I rather have Hansen on a different line that he can drive. Horvat and Burrows don't "need" him, so it's probably better that Hansen ignites a different line.

Perhaps Erikksson - Granlund - Hansen?

Or maybe put Eriksson back with the Sedins and reunite the Granlund - Sutter - Hansen line that looked great early in the season.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah, I still like Baertschi's chemistry/talent with Horvat too much to take him off that line, and I don't think he'd be a good fit with Eriksson.

Ideally, if the Sedins would just click with Eriksson like you know they could, this would really be something:

Sedin - Sedin - Eriksson (Sutter/Hansen)
Baertschi - Horvat - Burrows
Granlund - Sutter - Hansen (Eriksson)
[Never play this line]

I think they're on the right track in terms of line combinations right now.

I do wonder how long Burrows can really keep this up, though. Seems like an almost unnatural burst of great play.

I do want to try Burrows - Horvat - Hansen as well, though-- Burrows and Hansen are dynamite together and that could perform like a legitimate 1st line.

Burrows - Horvat - Hansen
Sedin - Sedin - Sutter
Baertschi - Granlund - Eriksson
[Never play this line]

 

[Shareefruck]

What is the point of rebuilding if we trade away our best players just as they enter their primes? No one is every gonna win with a team depending only on 22-26 year olds.

I see absolutely no reason to trade Tanev. There is no reasonable, logical deal you could name that would make more sense to do than not do. If our plan is to be competitive in 3-4 years, we have our rock solid vet on the backend that EVERY team needs to be a contender.

You say "You have to give up something to get something." While true in general, I can't possibly see how trading Tanev would NOT opening up just a big a hole, if not bigger, in his absence.

Help me out here, I simply don't understand the purpose of trading him.

Justification for being against trading Tanev at some point sort of relies on the expectation that you think this team can be a contender in 3-4 years, or if you're okay with them simply being lukewarm competitive in 3-4 years. Personally, I think that window is ludicrous given the current state of the team. It probably won't be a contender until Tanev is past his prime.

Personally, I would wait a year before considering trading Tanev, but I would want to trade him at that point (unless you can trade Edler and get reasonable value for him instead). I think it would be a disaster to trade Tanev before the group (Hutton, Juolevi, Gudbranson, Stecher, and Tryamkin) convincingly looks like they can somewhat competently handle the load by themselves. I think it's way premature to do that right now.

 

[arttk]

Hamhuis was pushed out because management pidgeoned Hutton into the top 4 (and Sbisa contracts). Hutton has struggled. If Tanev is moved because Stecher supposedly pushed him out, I would genuinely be surprised if Stecher doesn't struggle next season. Sophomore slumps are real, people.

Sophomore slump won't be a thing if Hutton is splut between 3rd and 2nd paring minutes. Play Stecher like a top4 next season and it's more likely that he will struggle.

Too much too soon is bad for young D.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Justification for being against trading Tanev at some point sort of relies on the expectation that you think this team can be a contender in 3-4 years, or if you're okay with them simply being lukewarm competitive in 3-4 years. Personally, I think that window is ludicrous given the current state of the team. It probably won't be a contender until Tanev is past his prime.

Personally, I would wait a year before considering trading Tanev, but I would want to trade him at that point (unless you can trade Edler and get reasonable value for him instead). I think it would be a disaster to trade Tanev before the group (Hutton, Juolevi, Gudbranson, Stecher, and Tryamkin) convincingly looks like they can somewhat competently handle the load by themselves. I think it's way premature to do that right now.

Exactly. You can't take Tanev for granted. We have 3 more years of his play and then he can become a free agent if he wants to. I don't think we will be competitive during those 3 years even with Tanev, so I am willing to let him go now if it returns a major haul.

You could hang onto him until that last year and deal him as a pending UFA but you will get much less for him then and you've wasted some prime years while the team is a dog's breakfast

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Tanev is someone we need to keep, not fire off into the sunset. That constant assumption that one young player doing well makes a vet expendable is the big reason we're so short on depth. And both the NHL and AHL teams suck.

I really don't get how people got so stuck on this ridiculous idea that somehow there's such a thing as too many good players on one team. Worst case scenario you get the Blackhawks. Sure, they keep having to lose support players and reload with the young guys on ELCs, but hey. They also did win 3 cups doing that, and are still competitive now. You just need good scouting and development to keep that steady stream of good young talent coming to your team, and a good manager to juggle cap space and get value for outgoing players...oh yeah. Right. That kinda rules out the Canucks.

nvm.

Anyhoo, actually watched part of the game. Marky was a man possessed, Horvat and Burr continue to rule, Stecher and Tryamkin continue to rise, and even Sbisa was notably not horrible in Edler's absence. Although Colorado's a team you look at and just wonder how they can be so bad with that roster, we can't lose them all.

 

[The Drop]

I want to see a line of Burrows-Horvat-Hansen when Hansen gets back.

Won't happen. They need Hansen to prop Granlund and Sutter.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Justification for being against trading Tanev at some point sort of relies on the expectation that you think this team can be a contender in 3-4 years, or if you're okay with them simply being lukewarm competitive in 3-4 years. Personally, I think that window is ludicrous given the current state of the team. It probably won't be a contender until Tanev is past his prime.

Personally, I would wait a year before considering trading Tanev, but I would want to trade him at that point (unless you can trade Edler and get reasonable value for him instead). I think it would be a disaster to trade Tanev before the group (Hutton, Juolevi, Gudbranson, Stecher, and Tryamkin) convincingly looks like they can somewhat competently handle the load by themselves. I think it's way premature to do that right now.

Are you saying the play should be to rebuild and target being good in over 5 years? 3-4 years is not ludicrous for a timeline to start contending again. To be clear, I am talking about the 19/20 and 20/21 seasons to start being a contender again.

This is what our core could look like in 4 years:


C's
Bo Horvat, 25,
Brandon Sutter, 31
Markus Granlunbd, 27

W's
Loui Eriksson, 34
Sven Baertschi, 27
Jake Virtanen, 23
Brock Boesser, 22

D's
Chris Tanev, 31
Erik Gudbranson, 28
Ben Hutton, 26
Troy Stetcher, 26
Nikita Tryamkin, 25
Ollie Jouelevi, 22

G's
Jacob Markstrom, 30
Thatcher Demko, 24

While no one is going to argue there isn't some holes, especially up front, would you look at the defence and say there is one too many rock solid vets with tons of experience? A large number of defencemen don't even play their best hockey until the age of 30. The fact that we are looking at Tanev and saying he can't be a part of the teams future is absolutely insane.

If the position of strength at that time is defence, then we can deal from that point as the others might make one of Jouelevi, Stetcher, Tryamkin, Hutton expendable.