Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.

[Roy Baby*]

A young player/prospect core of

Connor Nylander Horvat Larkin
Boeser McCann Shinkaruk
Joulevi Provorov Hutton Tryamkin
Demko

Veterans
Sedin Sedin
Hansen Richardson Matthias
Tanev Hamhuis

Add Baertschi and other draft picks.
As some big spend on UFAs

Now that would have been a good job, that is what Benning should have delivered. When you see what we have instead it you see how weak a job he has done.

Ummmmmm wth?

Yeah, this is why we leave it to experienced people lmao

 

[The Extrapolater]

If you exclude Gudbranson and Sutter from being good pieces for the team to move forward with it certainly makes Jim's retool look really bad.

Sutter and Gudbranson aren't even better than the players they've replaced or are replacing.

Hamhuis, 50% CF, on his old man legs is still a better defender, both defensively and in his all-around play, than the man ten years younger, 46% CF, and Hamhuis was on the lesser team, defensively (and that's not even mentioning how the Canucks are in the better conference, overall). And if anyone tries to argue that's because Gudbranson played much of this last season with Willie Mitchell, lemme say that Hammer played most of this past season with noted anchors Weber and Bartowski. And his stats still come out looking better. (Not to mention, Gudbranson's other main partner, Campbell, played even better without Gudbranson stapled to him. And Campbell had a hell of a season, even playing with Gudbranson.)

In terms of the eye test, Hammer's still the better defender. He's fully capable of retrieving the puck, and passing it out in an instant. He can also skate it out, if necessary. And that pushes the fore-checkers past the blue line, which makes a huge difference. There's room for Hamhuis to make the best play. Whereas with Gudbranson, he looks for his defensive partner to make the play out of the zone. The reason is simple. The opposing team will place two fore-checkers on him all game long. And they'll camp out in the Canucks zone, every time dumping the puck into Gudbranson's corner. They'll take away his foreward pass, trying to force him into the backhand pass to his defensive partner. And this doesn't even have to work every time. It's only important to keep doing it, because fatigue plays a huge role during winning time, which is basically the last ten minutes of the game.

As for Sutter and Bonino... Sutter can skate, score, and defend, but Bonino can make his teammates better, score, and defend. And he's getting paid $2.5 million less. I'd like to compare their CF%, but it's honestly skewed due to Sutter playing so little this season. But if we were to take the previous season into account, it can be argued Bonino can be trusted to take a larger role on any team he's playing on, and kill it. He played 200 less minutes this season, and was just as, if not even more, effective with the Pens as he'd been with the Canucks.

In terms of the eye test... Bonino knows what he's doing on the ice. He can be trusted by his teammates to be in the right position, every shift. And he'll make the best possible play, even under pressure. As for Sutter, he relies entirely on his athleticism. Because he's so athletic, he can generally break up plays defensively, but he can only play one direction offensively. He can only play north, attacking on the rush. He's like a winger, offensively. He had some early success playing with the Sedins, because they'd generally try to spring him open on breakaways from their own blue line. It was the same basic strategy they had while playing with Hansen, but Hansen can play in the cycle, and Sutter looks absolutely lost in the cycle. He killed half the Sedin's chances. That experiment didn't last very long, once teams started sitting back, forcing the line to grind it out.

 

[WTG]

If you exclude Gudbranson and Sutter from being good pieces for the team to move forward with it certainly makes Jim's retool look really bad.

Gudbranson is a good enough top 4 piece. However I think Sutter is a anchor on our capspace and needs to be traded for a cheaper option.

 

[alternate]

t we need a pure puck mover with that top pairing potential as well... and lacking that number 1 offensive centre.

probably 20 teams in the league need at least one of these just like we do. Thing is, you don't typically have these players until you do. What I mean by that is you don't have a Crosby spending 3 years in the AHL, or a blue chip defender playing out his NCAA eligibility. Maybe they get a draft +1 or +2 season as a "prospect" but if you're talking #1 C/D they have a tendency to become NHL vets very quickly.

The surrounding pieces are being put in place though so the table will be set if/when we find the Sedin replacements or a Norris calibre defenseman. But unless we are picking top 2, odds are you won't know we have this player until he explodes.

 

[alternate]

Gudbranson is a good enough top 4 piece. However I think Sutter is a anchor on our capspace and needs to be traded for a cheaper option.

In the UFA thread the expectations for guys like Brouwer, Ladd, Boeker, etc are >$5m with term. As long as Sutter is contributing around 20 goals--which he was on pace for last season--his contract is fine.

 

[Scurr]

Sutter and Gudbranson aren't even better than the players they've replaced or are replacing.

Hamhuis, 50% CF, on his old man legs is still a better defender, both defensively and in his all-around play, than the man ten years younger, 46% CF, and Hamhuis was on the lesser team, defensively (and that's not even mentioning how the Canucks are in the better conference, overall). And if anyone tries to argue that's because Gudbranson played much of this last season with Willie Mitchell, lemme say that Hammer played most of this past season with noted anchors Weber and Bartowski. And his stats still come out looking better. (Not to mention, Gudbranson's other main partner, Campbell, played even better without Gudbranson stapled to him. And Campbell had a hell of a season, even playing with Gudbranson.)

In terms of the eye test, Hammer's still the better defender. He's fully capable of retrieving the puck, and passing it out in an instant. He can also skate it out, if necessary. And that pushes the fore-checkers past the blue line, which makes a huge difference. There's room for Hamhuis to make the best play. Whereas with Gudbranson, he looks for his defensive partner to make the play out of the zone. The reason is simple. The opposing team will place two fore-checkers on him all game long. And they'll camp out in the Canucks zone, every time dumping the puck into Gudbranson's corner. They'll take away his foreward pass, trying to force him into the backhand pass to his defensive partner. And this doesn't even have to work every time. It's only important to keep doing it, because fatigue plays a huge role during winning time, which is basically the last ten minutes of the game.

As for Sutter and Bonino... Sutter can skate, score, and defend, but Bonino can make his teammates better, score, and defend. And he's getting paid $2.5 million less. I'd like to compare their CF%, but it's honestly skewed due to Sutter playing so little this season. But if we were to take the previous season into account, it can be argued Bonino can be trusted to take a larger role on any team he's playing on, and kill it. He played 200 less minutes this season, and was just as, if not even more, effective with the Pens as he'd been with the Canucks.

In terms of the eye test... Bonino knows what he's doing on the ice. He can be trusted by his teammates to be in the right position, every shift. And he'll make the best possible play, even under pressure. As for Sutter, he relies entirely on his athleticism. Because he's so athletic, he can generally break up plays defensively, but he can only play one direction offensively. He can only play north, attacking on the rush. He's like a winger, offensively. He had some early success playing with the Sedins, because they'd generally try to spring him open on breakaways from their own blue line. It was the same basic strategy they had while playing with Hansen, but Hansen can play in the cycle, and Sutter looks absolutely lost in the cycle. He killed half the Sedin's chances. That experiment didn't last very long, once teams started sitting back, forcing the line to grind it out.

Gudbranson replaces Bieksa. Hutton replaces Hamhius. Sbisa replaced Garrison

Gudbranson is a good enough top 4 piece. However I think Sutter is a anchor on our capspace and needs to be traded for a cheaper option.

It works for this team because Sutter's contract lines up with the team control years left for Horvat. He's not likely to make more than 3C money during that time. And even if he breaks out big time he won't get more than low end 2C money.

 

[WTG]

It works for this team because Sutter's contract lines up with the team control years left for Horvat. He's not likely to make more than 3C money during that time. And even if he breaks out big time he won't get more than low end 2C money.

This is hardly a reason to overpay a bottom 6 center.

I mean, downgrade sutter to a richardson and pay him 2 million less and only give him 3 years and you get much more contract flexibility. Which in the long run can greatly benefit you. We've seen the current problems that occur with bad contracts when you need to resign your young players. Look at Carle in Tampa, Bickell in Chicago, Staal in NY, Brown in LA, Richards in LA, ect...

 

[Johnsie19]

I can't believe we didn't flip Gudbranson for Taylor Hall.

 

[F A N]

Sutter and Gudbranson aren't even better than the players they've replaced or are replacing.

Well Hamhuis was arguably the best Canucks Dman last season or at least neck in neck with Tanev. The problem is he's 33 and there are signs of decline. That's really the only reason to replace him.

As for Sutter vs Bonino. Bonino is certainly the better distributor, but I think Sutter is the better matchup C. Look, Bonino had amazing chemistry with Kessel and Hagelin. If you go by stats, Kessel was much better with Bonino than he was with Malkin. Does that mean Bonino is better than Malkin? Of course not. People forget how bad Bonino was before the coaching change and being paired with Hagelin and Malkin.

 

[Addison Rae]

I can't believe we didn't flip Gudbranson for Taylor Hall.

Adam Larsson is much better than Gudbranson...

 

[Johnsie19]

Adam Larsson is much better than Gudbranson...

Based on what?

 

[Rex Banner]

Based on what?

Stats, advanced stats, and the eye test.

 

[Johnsie19]

Stats, advanced stats, and the eye test.

Stats show they are essentially the same player. Eye test haven't seen enough of either but Im sure we're gonna get a full dose of both this year.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Lol @ penciling in Juolevi as a #1 a week after he's drafted.

Might as well pencil in Virtanen and Boeser as 1st liners and call it a day. Playoffs here we come!

 

[WTG]

In the UFA thread the expectations for guys like Brouwer, Ladd, Boeker, etc are >$5m with term. As long as Sutter is contributing around 20 goals--which he was on pace for last season--his contract is fine.

Brouwer, Ladd, Boekder are all better players then Sutter and can actually play 2nd line minutes.

Plus, all FA signings are inflated due to multiple teams bidding on one players.

I really do not understand using it as a justification for a bad contract.


Also, Boedker just signed for around the same that sutter went for while being a much more sought after/better player.

 

[lawrence]

Adam Larsson is much better than Gudbranson...

what a joke. take a hike buddy. "Much better" lol both guys are in the same category. In order for Larrson to be *much* better he needs to up an additional 15 points to be considered "much better"

 

[kanucks25]

Stats show they are essentially the same player. Eye test haven't seen enough of either but Im sure we're gonna get a full dose of both this year.

what a joke. take a hike buddy. "Much better" lol both guys are in the same category. In order for Larrson to be *much* better he needs to up an additional 15 points to be considered "much better"

Larsson's goals for and shot attempts for ratios relative to his teammates were a lot better than Gudbranson's despite Larrson receiving some of the toughest minutes in the entire NHL (played against other team's top line every night and had the absolute highest D-zone face-off ratio of any D-man in the NHL).

Larsson was a stud last year and Gudbranson was his usual #4/5 self.

 

[Shareefruck]

Larsson is significantly better than Gudbranson. I would think of him as being a core building block piece on this team, whereas I think Gudbranson is only a secondary piece.

I'm skeptical but hopeful that Gudbranson is going to become a legit #4 D for this team. I don't expect him to ever be much more than that. I think Larsson has a decent shot of becoming a #2/3 guy.

 

[YeahHeDid]

Bumping this "Borrows, do we need him" thread.

 

[PG Canuck]

Funny how the defense is exactly the same projection as what we are projecting now but just with Hughes because we have still sucked since this was posted.

 

[geebaan]

Some of the posts from classic posters defending the defense acquired by this regime have not aged well.

 

[WTG]

Some of the posts from classic posters defending the defense acquired by this regime have not aged well.

I remember I defended the Gudbranson trade and Gudbranson for a while right when the Canucks acquired him.
I think I even got in an argument with Y2K defending Gudbranson while Y2K was spot on saying he's trash

I was dead on about Richardson and Sutter though.
Wrong about Juolevi, again, defended him when the Canucks got him. I guess I have a tendency to defend newly acquired players, even when it isn't warranted.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

What is a realistic projection for Juolevi at this point? Wasn't able to see many highlights of his play in the AHL before his injury, but he did manage 13 points in 18 games.

 

[TruKnyte]

I remember I defended the Gudbranson trade and Gudbranson for a while right when the Canucks acquired him.
I think I even got in an argument with Y2K defending Gudbranson while Y2K was spot on saying he's trash

I was dead on about Richardson and Sutter though.
Wrong about Juolevi, again, defended him when the Canucks got him. I guess I have a tendency to defend newly acquired players, even when it isn't warranted.

I think the important part is that you at least are able to acknowledge when you are wrong about a player when presented with enough evidence. Some never make that first step.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Best post ITT:

Benning hasn't changed ****.

All our good D-men now are products of the previous regimes.

He doesn't get credit for Tanev or Hutton. He gets credit for Sbisa and Bartkowski. Tryamkin is still TBD. Gudbranson is also TBD and it'll be hard for him to ever live up to the value we gave up for him.

Not to mention he's now lost Garrison and Hamhuis (two guys that were top-4 D-men when he took over and are still top-4 D-men right now) for nothing.

This thread is really confusing because it's more like he butchered the defense.

Oh wait...he's added Stecher! That's in 3 years. 3 years, and Benning's managed to add one good (if limited) dman to this roster.

Yeah, there's some gold buried here.