Waived: Canucks place F Sven Baertschi on waivers (Dec 15)

[Horse McHindu]

The absolute worst way to evaluate these moves is by limiting it to who the other team used their pick on. Like if I was the Canucks, I wouldn't be basing it on who the other team selected, I'd be analyzing it against the teams list and I'd also be looking at who was available.

The 2nd for Vey became McKeown, but they also could've drafted Christian Dvorak, Brandon Montour, Warren Foegele or the guy I wanted - Brayden Point.

By that logic, I should buy a lottery ticket every week because I “could possibly” win a million dollars.

Drafts don’t work that way. Drafting in the later rounds is one of the most difficult things to do and one of the most difficult things to predict.

You cite the idea that a team “could have had” Dvorak, Montour, Point, etc. all in succession. Is there an actual team in NHL history that has drafted with that much efficiency in such a short time? Not even the 90’s Redwings came close to that level of ridiculous efficiency and even with the Wings, it had far more to do with the kids selected being drafted and developed and “rubbing shoulders” with great players in the organization as opposed to their scouts having some kind of magic eye.

 

[Intangibos]

I'd like to say I'm surprised our management and coaching thinks Schaller is a better option than Baertschi but I'm not.

 

[Cogburn]

I'd like to say I'm surprised our management and coaching thinks Schaller is a better option than Baertschi but I'm not.

Schaller isn't my issue. Baertschi shouldn't be playing on the fourth line.

Anyone out side of the big four, except maybe Roussel and his 3 gp or what ever we're at now, should be pushed down to make room for Baertschi. Playing him in a shutdown role with weak offensive players and saying he hasn't performed is a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Intangibos]

Schaller isn't my issue. Baertschi shouldn't be playing on the fourth line.

Anyone out side of the big four, except maybe Roussel and his 3 gp or what ever we're at now, should be pushed down to make room for Baertschi. Playing him in a shutdown role with weak offensive players and saying he hasn't performed is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well first of all, what I meant was moving everyone down the lineup. No reason we can't have Pearson/Roussel in the bottom 6 with Baertschi with Horvat and Boeser where he has shown chemistry.

However, why can't we have Baertschi on the 4th line? Has anyone ever explained why you can't have skill players in the bottom 6? The reason you don't want guys like Baertschi there is because you use your bottom 6 to ice guys who can take defensive matchups and play the PK so your top guys don't have to. Our bottom 6 sucks big time. I don't see any actual argument for why guys like Baertschi can't be on the 4th line. People just say "well he's a skill player he needs to be in the top 6" and that's that.

 

[RobertKron]

Well first of all, what I meant was moving everyone down the lineup. No reason we can't have Pearson/Roussel in the bottom 6 with Baertschi with Horvat and Boeser where he has shown chemistry.

However, why can't we have Baertschi on the 4th line? Has anyone ever explained why you can't have skill players in the bottom 6? The reason you don't want guys like Baertschi there is because you use your bottom 6 to ice guys who can take defensive matchups and play the PK so your top guys don't have to. Our bottom 6 sucks big time. I don't see any actual argument for why guys like Baertschi can't be on the 4th line. People just say "well he's a skill player he needs to be in the top 6" and that's that.

you think the Canucks’ braintrust is going to deploy their 4th line in a way that will make good use of Baertschi’s abilities?

 

[Intangibos]

you think the Canucks’ braintrust is going to deploy their 4th line in a way that will make good use of Baertschi’s abilities?

No, but I would argue a player like Baertschi being deployed poorly would still do better in that deployment than poor players who specialize in playing that role poorly.

 

[Cogburn]

Well first of all, what I meant was moving everyone down the lineup. No reason we can't have Pearson/Roussel in the bottom 6 with Baertschi with Horvat and Boeser where he has shown chemistry.

However, why can't we have Baertschi on the 4th line? Has anyone ever explained why you can't have skill players in the bottom 6? The reason you don't want guys like Baertschi there is because you use your bottom 6 to ice guys who can take defensive matchups and play the PK so your top guys don't have to. Our bottom 6 sucks big time. I don't see any actual argument for why guys like Baertschi can't be on the 4th line. People just say "well he's a skill player he needs to be in the top 6" and that's that.

I see the league changing too, but our roster still built as a top 6/bottom six kind of team. If we had other skilled bottom six players we could fashion a scoring third line or an aggressive, offensive minded fourth. But we don't have these players, or at least not without playing too many in our "top six". Playing Baertschi with Beagle or Schaller or Eriksson is an absolute waste. Leivo, Gaudette, Virtanen, Motte and/or Pearson is better, but that doesn't strike me as an offensive minded line behind Pettersson and Horvats line, even if Horvat has Eriksson and whoever glued to him.

Just my thoughts, I don't think he should play in OUR bottom six, especially when we lack consistent scoring that Baertschi has shown he can provide. I think I maybe phrased that as more of an attack and a little hazier then I had meant to, sorry for that.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

By that logic, I should buy a lottery ticket every week because I “could possibly” win a million dollars.

Drafts don’t work that way. Drafting in the later rounds is one of the most difficult things to do and one of the most difficult things to predict.

You cite the idea that a team “could have had” Dvorak, Montour, Point, etc. all in succession. Is there an actual team in NHL history that has drafted with that much efficiency in such a short time? Not even the 90’s Redwings came close to that level of ridiculous efficiency and even with the Wings, it had far more to do with the kids selected being drafted and developed and “rubbing shoulders” with great players in the organization as opposed to their scouts having some kind of magic eye.

Lots of your post is wrong/misguided but I'll just point out that having a list of players with commas separating them and then the word 'or' means only picking one of them. He's not saying we could have drafted all of those names, but just one of them with our 2nd, which is a fair stance to take. Especially for Benning the draft guru, remember?

 

[Intangibos]

Playing Baertschi with Beagle/Schaller/Eriksson is an absolute waste. Not playing Baertschi at all in favour of "bottom 6 types" is an even bigger waste.

How come bottom 6 players can move up and play with top 6 players, but the opposite isn't even regarded as a possibility? Why can Pearson or Leivo get time with Pettersson but Baertschi can't play with Leivo on the 3rd line? In fact hasn't Baertschi played with Leivo in the top 6 before? Sutter played with the twins, but if we had enough depth that the Sedin-Sedin-Sutter line was considered the "3rd line" suddenly we would have to waive them to plant Pearson and Leivo next to Sutter instead? Why?

It's just an accepted hockey thing with no actual basis as far as I can tell.