Recalled/Assigned: Canucks recall D Jack Rathbone (Apr 16)

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Finally a good take from you. Although i personally think Olli could have the makings of an atleast decent dual threat D.

Thanks for the backhanded compliment...Anyway,..I still think Juolevi has room to grow as a player.(considering the adversity of his injuries)...His ceiling is probably that of a second pairing D man if everything goes right.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I would be furious if Rathbone gets dealt.

i agree with you.

i am just looking at how this organization behaves with young players and, unfortunately, it occurred to me they might be showcasing rathbone. the alternative is they rate him as highly as special cases like hughes and pettersson. which could be the case, but i have not seen the usual imac "special player" treatment for rathbone.

 

[VanJack]

Blowing up their young corps to acquire someone like Jack Eichel is so 'Canuck' and 'Aquilini'.

They've spent the last seven years trying to short-circuit 'the rebuild' with ill-advised UFA signings of veterans on the decline....and trades for 'foundational players', who only provided the 'foundation' for more mediocrity.

So I could see Horvat, Rathbone and a couple of first rounders going out the door for Eichel who will be coming off spinal disc surgery.

 

[mriswith]

as i was watching last night and reflecting upon the minutes and pp time they gave rathbone, i began to worry. it comes down to whether they see rathbone and hughes as a viable top 4 left side combo in the future. if not, they will be thinking about trading rathbone now or in the future, and looking hard at how they can play shutdown defence next year with both in the lineup. if they don't see that as viable, they will want to trade rathbone now. i don't see hughes as suited to shutdown and i see no way they will gamble that rathbone can do it as a rookie.

they also have decisions to make about edler and juolevi.

i think they will want to re-sign edler for a hometown discount in a tight cap, because they need that kind of player and out of respect. but they will not count on him as the only match up dman on the left side. they also do not have the cap space to replace edler with a better player. they need him next year.

so i can see them moving at least one of juolevi and rathbone in the offseason, and maybe putting the other guy in the 4 slot while adding a conventional physical dman, i think they will want to make a trade to do that. no way will a ufa good enough to have options sign for that situation with elder and hughes secure and a young touted prospect right behind him breathing down their neck.

so rathbone or juolevi may both be available in return for a left side dman they see as a long term fit plus whatever else is needed to make the deal work.

I've been thinking the same ever since they let Stecher walk because he was too short and they don't think you can have two short dmen on the team.

 

[Blue and Green]

I dont see an issue with having two identical smallish PMD's...but they would definitely have to be insulated with steady defensive minded D men...Juolevi is a different type of player, and I still dont think they know what they have in him..

I would like to see the team build around these players.

Rathbone is pretty clearly going to be a player in the NHL, just a question of what level based on how his defence comes along. The skating, puck skills and offensive instincts are certainly there. Because he and Hughes are both left shots, I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard.

The way Juolevi's been handled this season, I doubt that they expect anything more than a third-pair guy. His mobility is not good and Green doesn't trust him.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Would be nice experience for Rathbone if it happens.

 

[bossram]

Rathbone is pretty clearly going to be a player in the NHL, just a question of what level based on how his defence comes along. The skating, puck skills and offensive instincts are certainly there. Because he and Hughes are both left shots, I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard.

The way Juolevi's been handled this season, I doubt that they expect anything more than a third-pair guy. His mobility is not good and Green doesn't trust him.

I get that the buffoons in the front office would consider this...

But why should they? Why is it a crime to have two good, mobile, left-shot offensive defensemen? Look at Colorado, they just slot Makar, Toews, Girard, and Jacob McDonald (and Byram when he was healthy) interchangeably, without much deference to defensive preference.

 

[Blue and Green]

I get that the buffoons in the front office would consider this...

But why should they? Why is it a crime to have two good, mobile, left-shot offensive defensemen? Look at Colorado, they just slot Makar, Toews, Girard, and Jacob McDonald (and Byram when he was healthy) interchangeably, without much deference to defensive preference.

Point out where I said it was.

 

[F A N]

I've been thinking the same ever since they let Stecher walk because he was too short and they don't think you can have two short dmen on the team.

You wonder how much of that has to do with Green though. Stecher was utilized as a bottom pairing Dman any time the Canucks D were healthy. Last season he averaged less ice time than Benn and Fanta.

It doesn't look like things have gotten a whole lot better for Stecher either. While he is 3rd in average even strength ice time, he gets no PP or PK time so he's actually 6th in overall ice time before Merrill got traded away.

 

[bossram]

Point out where I said it was.

You said, "I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point."

Implying that the Canucks shouldn't really keep both Hughes and Rathbone if both can't be a defensive presence.

 

[Blue and Green]

You said, "I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point."

Implying that the Canucks shouldn't really keep both Hughes and Rathbone if both can't be a defensive presence.

Both? I implied no such thing. Direct quote: "I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard."

 

[bossram]

Both? I implied no such thing. Direct quote: "I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard."

And I don't think whether either of them can become a high-leverage defensive player should really have any bearing on trading them. This is my point. Why does one of them have to be able to handle big defensive minutes?

Unless there is some can't miss package out there...let's just not.

 

[JimmyJiveJones]

Both? I implied no such thing. Direct quote: "I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard."

The way i read it, it seemed like u implied 1 of them needed to be traded. Sorry but im unbiased in your little debate here.

Anyways i would have no problem having Hughes, Rathbone, and Joulevi on the left side. It just makes sense to me in every facet. Cap reasons, getting younger, ect. I dont think our defence is bad as we think, Baumgartners system just sucks. How many breakaways and odd man rushes did this team give up in the beginning of the season? I think its more cause of the system that was employed not the players itself.

 

[Blue and Green]

The way i read it, it seemed like u implied 1 of them needed to be traded. Sorry but im unbiased in your little debate here.

"I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard."

"Consider" doesn't mean must do... "would" and "at some point" both imply future, not immediate... and the "unless" part is a condition which might be met in the future and would render a different outlook and course.

I liked Rathbone as a prospect and as per my initial post I think he will have a career in the NHL. But in my opinion the biggest weakness among the Canucks' defencemen is defensive play rather than offensive abilities and puck moving, and there's little in the organizational pipeline to fix it. Thus at some point there might be an exchange of one type of asset for another that is needed more, unless the defensive improvement does come internally and/or gaps can be filled successfully in free agency.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

"I think the Canucks would need to consider a trade at some point unless one of them can really step up defensively and take on a bigger role in that regard."

"Consider" doesn't mean must do... "would" and "at some point" both imply future, not immediate... and the "unless" part is a condition which might be met in the future and would render a different outlook and course.

I liked Rathbone as a prospect and as per my initial post I think he will have a career in the NHL. But in my opinion the biggest weakness among the Canucks' defencemen is defensive play rather than offensive abilities and puck moving, and there's little in the organizational pipeline to fix it. Thus at some point there might be an exchange of one type of asset for another that is needed more, unless the defensive improvement does come internally and/or gaps can be filled successfully in free agency.

Agreed that the Canucks are going to have to find suitable players to play alongside two smallish PMD's...Somebodys got to muscle that forward off the puck on the PK..someone has to clear the crease.

 

[Blue and Green]

Agreed that the Canucks are going to have to find suitable players to play alongside two smallish PMD's...Somebodys got to muscle that forward off the puck on the PK..someone has to clear the crease.

I'm concerned more with overall ability to defend rather than size.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Agreed that the Canucks are going to have to find suitable players to play alongside two smallish PMD's...Somebodys got to muscle that forward off the puck on the PK..someone has to clear the crease.

i don't think right side help is a long term plan

even if they do that, teams will deliberately load up on the right wing and come at rathbone and hughes. at least one and preferably both need to be able to play solid defence and cover their side without help. i am not saying they cannot do that. i am saying it is open to doubt and i suspect the canucks doubt they can do that next year with rathbone as a rookie and hughes coming off the season he has just had.

so it must be something they are at least thinking about.

 

[VanJack]

Would be nice experience for Rathbone if it happens.

Rathbone getting on the roster for the USA in the upcoming WHC would be absolutely awesome!......it might actually make up for all the time he spent cooling his heels on the taxi squad, while Benn and Edler got all his minutes this year in Vancouver.

 

[AppleHoneySauce]

Rathbone getting on the roster for the USA in the upcoming WHC would be absolutely awesome!......it might actually make up for all the time he spent cooling his heels on the taxi squad, while Benn and Edler got all his minutes this year in Vancouver.

He wasn't even on the taxi squad though when Benn was on the team though?

 

[JimmyJiveJones]

He wasn't even on the taxi squad though when Benn was on the team though?

He was on the taxi squad in the beginning of the season and 21 games later then they sent him to Utica to get games in cause all he did was twiddled his thumbs when he was here. Guys like Chatfield and Sautner got games in but he did not.

 

[AppleHoneySauce]

He was on the taxi squad in the beginning of the season and then they sent him to Utica to get games in cause all he did was twiddled his thumbs when he was here.

I see. Maybe he just didn't show this promise in training camp. Him being sent down was for the best then so he could show it in utica.

 

[PavelBure10]

I'm sorry but this thread needs to be revised. Jack Rathbone is slipping through the cracks this off-season. I feel that this kid will be one of the positive stories this year, and the Canucks will probably give him every opportunity to succeed this season in the NHL. Was Poolman brought in as this young man's linemate?!?, we shall see, but I have this "Very" positive feeling with Rathbone. There is no way this thread should be buried 6 pages deep on the Canucks forum, when the Canucks D has so many questions marks. I feel like Benning is banking on a solid season from Rathbone with a defense full of questions marks. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens this year with the Canucks defense.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I'm sorry but this thread needs to be revised. Jack Rathbone is slipping through the cracks this off-season. I feel that this kid will be one of the positive stories this year, and the Canucks will probably give him every opportunity to succeed this season in the NHL. Was Poolman brought in as this young man's linemate?!?, we shall see, but I have this "Very" positive feeling with Rathbone. There is no way this thread should be buried 6 pages deep on the Canucks forum, when the Canucks D has so many questions marks. I feel like Benning is banking on a solid season from Rathbone with a defense full of questions marks. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens this year with the Canucks defense.

I'm absolutely excited about Rathbone. But where's he going to play? 3rd pairing with...Poolman? Schenn? With OEL here now, he's got exactly zero chance of seeing any PP time, so...yeah. I don't see him getting much opportunity even though he absolutely should.

 

[logan5]

I've seen a few posters lump Rathbone in with Juolevi, but Rathbone is miles ahead of him. Rathbone I think can establish himself as a top 4 for this team quite quickly. As a bottom pairing guy, he is a huge upgrade on Stecher.

 

[m9]

I've seen a few posters lump Rathbone in with Juolevi, but Rathbone is miles ahead of him. Rathbone I think can establish himself as a top 4 for this team quite quickly. As a bottom pairing guy, he is a huge upgrade on Stecher.

Rathbone and Stecher play different sides, so he's not a direct replacement for Stecher.

Agreed on Juolevi. Different tier of prospect right now.