Canucks' Training Camp Thread

[RobertKron]

Can't risk losing a player like Barker to waivers right?

Canucks used 9 defensemen last year. There was a lockout this year. Aside from Tanev and Barker, nobody on the Canucks D has played a game since last spring. I don't really think it's a bad idea to retain as much depth as they can.

 

[David71]

too many dman. 1 of them will probably play forward

 

[PhilMick]

Canucks used 9 defensemen last year. There was a lockout this year. Aside from Tanev and Barker, nobody on the Canucks D has played a game since last spring. I don't really think it's a bad idea to retain as much depth as they can.

No kidding. Out of our top 4, I'll be shocked if more than 1 plays a full 48 games.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Canucks used 9 defensemen last year. There was a lockout this year. Aside from Tanev and Barker, nobody on the Canucks D has played a game since last spring. I don't really think it's a bad idea to retain as much depth as they can.

Frankly, I don't see Barker much of an upgrade (if any) over any of the usual waiver wire defensemen made available throughout even a shortened season.

 

[RobertKron]

Frankly, I don't see Barker much of an upgrade (if any) over any of the usual waiver wire defensemen made available throughout even a shortened season.

The thing is that you can't assume that a guy will happen to be available when they need him. Also the new guy will be totally unfamiliar when he arrives.

 

[Barney Gumble]

The thing is that you can't assume that a guy will happen to be available when they need him. Also the new guy will be totally unfamiliar when he arrives.

Again, I hope I'm proven wrong but I don't think any amount of time will acclimate Barker to the Canucks system.

 

[RobertKron]

Again, I hope I'm proven wrong but I don't think any amount of time will acclimate Barker to the Canucks system.

I'm not thrilled on Barker, either, but they clearly see something in him so I can at least understand their logic.

 

[David71]

barker/vandameer=spares along with alberts/

 

[Barney Gumble]

I'm not thrilled on Barker, either, but they clearly see something in him so I can at least understand their logic.

Normally I might give them the benefit of the doubt but some of our pro scouting seems to be spotty at best. Hopefully the same scouts that recommended Sturm aren't the same ones that scouted Barker.....

 

[Outside99*]

For each of the last 4 years, Canucks have seen 8 to 9 dmen play AT least 25 games; of course, we had that one year where they had to reach deeep and 12 d were employed if memory serves (but only for a few games in case of depth d #10,11,12)

Which means, Alberts, Barker and Vandermeer are probably going to play 25+ games on defence each. Just like teams like the Hawks used to send players like Toews and kane out when our 4th line jumped on the ice (circa Ryan Johnson and Hordichuk), same thing going to happen when those D are out there.*

* this btw, is the explanation why the Sedins don't fare any better offensively when they get the O zone face-off. its because the other team gets to send their best defensive players against them (unless its an icing). Always better for them to change on the fly, IMO.

 

[Barney Gumble]

^

And we let go a D that missed a grand total of 5 games in his two seasons as a Canuck.

(oddly enough, same player ends up missing 16 games in his first season with his new team).

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

For each of the last 4 years, Canucks have seen 8 to 9 dmen play AT least 25 games; of course, we had that one year where they had to reach deeep and 12 d were employed if memory serves (but only for a few games in case of depth d #10,11,12)

Which means, Alberts, Barker and Vandermeer are probably going to play 25+ games on defence each. Just like teams like the Hawks used to send players like Toews and kane out when our 4th line jumped on the ice (circa Ryan Johnson and Hordichuk), same thing going to happen when those D are out there.*

* this btw, is the explanation why the Sedins don't fare any better offensively when they get the O zone face-off. its because the other team gets to send their best defensive players against them (unless its an icing). Always better for them to change on the fly, IMO.

You mean 10-15 games? (short season)

 

[Outside99*]

You mean 10-15 games? (short season)

Right

 

[stevecanuck16]

No time to read through the thread, but I still maintain that something else is in the works here. Stay tuned.

EDIT: Just realized how little the thread had progressed. Read it. Still maintain something else is in the works here. Maybe a trade. Maybe for whatever reason Gilman feels putting Barker on waivers tomorrow is safer. I trust his judgement. Schroeder won't be down for long.

 

[Shareefruck]

Ugh. People are honestly counting on Volpatti as some necessary physical element of our fourth line? Gross.

The guy's awful, IMO.

 

[Samzilla]

Ugh. People are honestly counting on Volpatti as some necessary physical element of our fourth line? Gross.

The guy's awful, IMO.

If only Pinizzotto could stay healthy.

 

[timw33]

Ugh. People are honestly counting on Volpatti as some necessary physical element of our fourth line? Gross.

The guy's awful, IMO.

This right here.

The upside is just not there, turning 28 soon.

He's a reserve 4th line forward at best.

 

[serge2k]

No kidding. Out of our top 4, I'll be shocked if more than 1 plays a full 48 games.

Given the compressed schedule I'd prefer we started sitting guys as soon as clinching.

 

[stevecanuck16]

If only Pinizzotto could stay healthy.

Dunno if you watched many Wolves games, but Pinizzotto quickly became my favourite player down there. His energy is infectious, and not many players have that. He would be a great addition to the lineup, and I hope he gets his shot this year.

 

[Shareefruck]

Dunno if you watched many Wolves games, but Pinizzotto quickly became my favourite player down there. His energy is infectious, and not many players have that. He would be a great addition to the lineup, and I hope he gets his shot this year.

He's the Wolves' very own Burrows.

 

[stevecanuck16]

He's the Wolves' very own Burrows.

A great comparison. I watched a fair amount of the Moose during the last lockout and I was similarly impressed with Burrows at that time.

One difference is that Pinizzotto can actually fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Golden Boy]

Look at that. Alberts isn't a team player, he boarded Rainman! Trade him for scraps

But in all seriousness, wtf Alberts? Are you Pejorative Slured? It's an inter squad scrimmage...

 

[pahlsson]

Look at that. Alberts isn't a team player, he boarded Rainman! Trade him for scraps

But in all seriousness, wtf Alberts? Are you Pejorative Slured? It's an inter squad scrimmage...

haha saw a couple people mentioning this in the scrimmage thread and was wondering what happened

 

[Canucker]

Look at that. Alberts isn't a team player, he boarded Rainman! Trade him for scraps

But in all seriousness, wtf Alberts? Are you Pejorative Slured? It's an inter squad scrimmage...

Ain't nothing wrong with that...if Alberts isn't playing hard he isn't going to play at all. Looked to me that if he really wanted to crush Raymond he could have.

 

[Golden Boy]

Ain't nothing wrong with that...if Alberts isn't playing hard he isn't going to play at all. Looked to me that if he really wanted to crush Raymond he could have.

True, but a hit like that could easily injure a player. Especially someone of Raymond's stature, especially since he broke his back. And if Raymond gets injured, then our forward lineup would look pretty bad. It's a risk/reward thing and that was a pretty high risk hit. It's probably why Raymond swung back.