GDT: [EX GM 4] Vancouver Canucks @ Seattle Kraken | 6:30PM PST | SNET

[kanucks25]

It’s so weird of spending years making fun of Burke for taking Schenn and now to read the below quote, as an example, and my first thought is he’s nearly untradeable.

Let Bo walk and give Schenn the C.

 

[rypper]

@Peen did you try the bone marrow or other weird foods options?

 

[Shareefruck]

Lammiko was nicknamed “the invisible man” until Motte joined the lineup.

Motte is the guy we miss the most on the 4th line. He drove that line.

The number one thing you want from your 4th line in a hard cap league is to be cheap so I’m glad that Lazar and Joshua barely put a dent into our cap and can be waived and sent down without consequence

And I disagreed with that nickname, as well as this narrative. It took a bit to get going, yes, but personally, I thought it was a really solid 4th line strictly on the strength of Lammikko and Highmore alone even before Motte got put with them, personally, after which it became arguably the strongest 4th line in the league, quite often being played like a borderline 3rd line (not even necessarily out of necessity-- we had three near-scoring lines ahead of it that all looked pretty good on paper, but the 4th line was often just playing better and more reliably).

Motte was the best player on the line, but the other two were more than capable on their own and pulling their weight as well.

For the life of me, I do not understand why most fans are more intrigued by a heat-seeking missile tough guy who can't actually play basic hockey over guys who have strong fundamentals all around (decent hockey sense/skill in addition to being high energy grinders). Feels like we've gone back to the 90s or something. Is it just a revisionist "be happy with what you have" thing? It's not like we've been lucky enough with fourth liners in the past to warrant taking something like that for granted-- our fourth line has sucked most years.

As for the cap hit, Lammikko signed in Switzerland and Highmore signed a two-way contract. It's not like they would have put any more of a dent in our cap.

 

[Peen]

@Peen did you try the bone marrow or other weird foods options?

I ate a salmon sandwich with chips.

The cut I had was huge.

They just make them, you pick it up and self pay. Their whole arena’s processes are so quick. Lots of bathrooms. Wide concourses.

I think Drance alluded to it last year - Rogers Arena is now one of the older buildings in the league.

I think it really shows as well. You feel it. I’m a big fan of moving the arena out of DT into the QE or Burnaby areas. Such a pain to get in and out of town.

Always wonder if the financials would indicate it would semi-make sense for them to build more towers on that plot.

They need a practice facility as well. They talked it up big last summer but they haven’t done it yet.

And I disagreed with that nickname, as well as this narrative. It took a bit to get going, yes, but personally, I thought it was a really solid 4th line strictly on the strength of Lammikko and Highmore alone even before Motte got put on it, personally, at which point it became arguably the strongest 4th line in the league, quite often being played like a borderline 3rd line (not even necessarily out of necessity-- we had three near-scoring lines ahead of it that all looked pretty good on paper).

Motte was the best player on the line, but the other two were more than capable on their own and pulling their weight as well.

Look at their stats without Motte

 

[rypper]

I ate a salmon sandwich with chips.

The cut I had was huge.

They just make them, you pick it up and self pay. Their whole arena’s processes are so quick. Lots of bathrooms. Wide concourses.

I think Drance alluded to it last year - Rogers Arena is now one of the older buildings in the league.

I think it really shows as well. You feel it. I’m a big fan of moving the arena out of DT into the QE or Burnaby areas. Such a pain to get in and out of town.

Always wonder if the financials would indicate it would semi-make sense for them to build more towers on that plot.

They need a practice facility as well. They talked it up big last summer but they haven’t done it yet.


Look at their stats without Motte

One of the best games I went to was against Florida last year while covid restrictions were still in effect.

You could actually move around the concourse and not have it feel like a mosh pit. No lines for beers food etc.

I get that's not really something they can help with Rogers even with big time renovations but hopefully if the ever build a new arena it's considered.

 

[Peen]

Teams with older arenas:

Rangers - imo doesn’t count because it’s MSG
Calgary - far and away the worst and most outdated.

Then you have four other arenas built within three years - Anaheim, SJ, Chicago, STL.

We are part of the non-calgary tier of older buildings.

 

[rypper]

It's weird that the Honda center was built before the Staples center, but I've been to both on the same road trip and the staples center felt way dumpier then the Honda center.

 

[Shareefruck]

Look at their stats without Motte

I'd expect them to be skewed by their rough play early on acclimatizing. The stretch they played right before Motte joined them was really solid, as I recall. I think it was more of an incidental snowball effect than it was "Motte making them good". If you could point me in the direction of how to pull out those numbers specifically, I'd be happy to.

 

[Shareefruck]

His ask was far higher here.

The better question is why did Vancouver not circle back in the summer and make a push for him when it was clear he would be taking far less than expected?

Maybe he actively resented being traded and just wasn't interested? Who knows. Players generally don't return to teams after being traded away, right?

 

[Ruthervin]

A suggestion:

I haven't watched too much of the pre-season/training camp so far (I'm still not quite engaged since I've got my baseball and football cap on), but I'll make one suggestion:

Rutherford needs to down it a bit in terms of being obsessed with our terrible zone exits. Yes we're bad at this but Boudreau did a terrific job last year of covering up this weakness to a large extent. Was it a perfect situation? Of course not. However - if the Canucks are planning to improve their zone exits at the expense of team defense, and have intentions of winning games 7-5 and 6-4, then I highly advise against it. We aren't the Edmonton Oilers and we're not going to outscore our problems.

If our lack of zone exit prowess bugs Rutherford so damn much, then make the trade for Chychrun, use Chychrun-Hughes as our top pairing, and place OEL-Myers in a more ideally placed 2nd pairing.

 

[me2]

Tell me about it. Can barely stay on key. I honestly think he could be a much better singer if he just didn't do the stupid inflections. Just sing normally.

He's in preseason form.

 

[credulous]

A suggestion:

I haven't watched too much of the pre-season/training camp so far (I'm still not quite engaged since I've got my baseball and football cap on), but I'll make one suggestion:

Rutherford needs to down it a bit in terms of being obsessed with our terrible zone exits. Yes we're bad at this but Boudreau did a terrific job last year of covering up this weakness to a large extent. Was it a perfect situation? Of course not. However - if the Canucks are planning to improve their zone exits at the expense of team defense, and have intentions of winning games 7-5 and 6-4, then I highly advise against it. We aren't the Edmonton Oilers and we're not going to outscore our problems.

If our lack of zone exit prowess bugs Rutherford so damn much, then make the trade for Chychrun, use Chychrun-Hughes as our top pairing, and place OEL-Myers in a more ideally placed 2nd pairing.

it's really hard to be an effective team without being effective at zone exits/entries. if you can't move the puck from your own end to the offensive end in a controlled manner your only real alternative is dump and chase and -- spoilers ahead -- it's not the mid 90s anymore; no effective teams rely solely on the forecheck to drive offense. almost every goalie in the league is an effective puck handler and defenseman are by and large as fast and nimble as the forecheckers they are competing against

rutherford isn't critical of the canucks zone exits/entries because of a personal preference. he's critical because he's reasonably competent and understands that it's a critical element of the modern game

 

[Ruthervin]

it's really hard to be an effective team without being effective at zone exits/entries. if you can't move the puck from your own end to the offensive end in a controlled manner your only real alternative is dump and chase and -- spoilers ahead -- it's not the mid 90s anymore; no effective teams rely solely on the forecheck to drive offense. almost every goalie in the league is an effective puck handler and defenseman are by and large as fast and nimble as the forecheckers they are competing against

rutherford isn't critical of the canucks zone exits/entries because of a personal preference. he's critical because he's reasonably competent and understands that it's a critical element of the modern game

Don't get me wrong - I understand the importance of zone exits but my argument is that you CANNOT force this Canucks team to be something that they are not. Rutherford either needs to bring in another top pairing D man so that we can play that style of game, or we need to go back to the way we were playing last year when Boudreau got here (i.e. covering our weaknesses and maximizing our potential with whatever players we had).

With our current players, I think this team will be in for a rude awakening if we try and open things up from the back-end........and this organization can no longer afford any rude awakenings. Either bring in Chychrun and play this current style we are attempting, or go back to the way we were playing last year post Green/Benning.

 

[VanJack]

Sometimes coaches and management need to send a message to the players. I'd put both Poolman and Dickinson on waivers, and if unclaimed (which is almost inevitable) I'd assign them to Abbotsford.

Dickinson has been outplayed by Aman, and Burroughs is a far better option than Poolman on the right side. It might be embarrassing to have close to $6m in salary tied up in two veteran players in the AHL. But that's on Benning and these players, not Allvin.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Sometimes coaches and management need to send a message to the players. I'd put both Poolman and Dickinson on waivers, and if unclaimed (which is almost inevitable) I'd assign them to Abbotsford.

Dickinson has been outplayed by Aman, and Burroughs is a far better option than Poolman on the right side. It might be embarrassing to have close to $6m in salary tied up in two veteran players in the AHL. But that's on Benning and these players, not Allvin.

I’m not sure the new regime has permission to show up the old one if it’s going to financially upset the child beater.

 

[credulous]

Don't get me wrong - I understand the importance of zone exits but my argument is that you CANNOT force this Canucks team to be something that they are not. Rutherford either needs to bring in another top pairing D man so that we can play that style of game, or we need to go back to the way we were playing last year when Boudreau got here (i.e. covering our weaknesses and maximizing our potential with whatever players we had).

With our current players, I think this team will be in for a rude awakening if we try and open things up from the back-end........and this organization can no longer afford any rude awakenings. Either bring in Chychrun and play this current style we are attempting, or go back to the way we were playing last year post Green/Benning.

this is loser thinking. you can't consistently win playing dump and chase hockey particularly not against top competition. if the goal is to be a winning team then you need to play a winning system. trying to grind out wins with a losing system is just admitting you aren't competitive

rutherford is problematic for not addressing the key reason the canucks can't play modern hockey (their lack of talent) but he's not wrong that they can't build a winning program playing losing hockey

 

[sting101]

His ask was far higher here.

The better question is why did Vancouver not circle back in the summer and make a push for him when it was clear he would be taking far less than expected?

Yes having Motte back and Michayev Kuzmenko could have helped the speed and quickness component nicely. Was hoping they would circle back also

 

[andora]

A couple positives from the two periods i saw last night

- aman - has improved consistently in a defensive center type role, quick on the puck carrier and good with his stick, a bit faster than i thought he was initially.. i am liking him more and more

- joshua, one play in the first he caused a turnover, or someone else did i dont remember but without looking he softly touched it from the board at the blueline out a few feet for rushing player. He needs to be on this teams 4th line, he has been good, very subtle smart plays consistently

- dickinson's first steps looks quicker .. thats it

- rathbone is getting better and you can see the skill and offensive sight.. work to be done in his own end, but i am liking him a bit more


Mmm.. i think thats it,

 

[Ruthervin]

this is loser thinking. you can't consistently win playing dump and chase hockey particularly not against top competition. if the goal is to be a winning team then you need to play a winning system. trying to grind out wins with a losing system is just admitting you aren't competitive

rutherford is problematic for not addressing the key reason the canucks can't play modern hockey (their lack of talent) but he's not wrong that they can't build a winning program playing losing hockey

Don't get me wrong - I get what you're saying. My whole argument is that we currently do not have the personnel to play like that. Boudreau would likely agree with me which is why we played the style we did last season. Boudreau literally maximized every bit he could with the team that we had/have and we had a very good record after that (34-16-10 in our last 60)........which goes back to my point.

-If you want to implement a winning system, try and acquire the Brent Seabrook to Quinn Hughes' Duncan Keith and push OEL-Myers to the 2nd pairing.

-If Rutherford does not want to bring in this "Brent Seabrook," then attempting to implement a "winning system" as you say could have an adverse effect in terms of the Canucks attempting to win games 7-5 and 6-4...........which is unsustainable (especially when you consider that playoff hockey is much tighter).

 

[VanJack]

I know some people around the NHL and some of the beat writers are trying to whip up sentiment that the Kraken are destined to be our bitter regional rivals. Just can't see it. Until these teams actually meet in the playoffs--which is unlikely for a lot of seasons yet--as far as I'm concerned the Kraken are just another Pacific Division team.

Canucks natural rivals will always be the Flames and Oilers. It's going to be a long time before the Kraken and the Canucks reach the same level of passion as the Whitecaps and Sounders, if ever.

 

[Bubbles]

I know some people around the NHL and some of the beat writers are trying to whip up sentiment that the Kraken are destined to be our bitter regional rivals. Just can't see it. Until these teams actually meet in the playoffs--which is unlikely for a lot of seasons yet--as far as I'm concerned the Kraken are just another Pacific Division team.

Canucks natural rivals will always be the Flames and Oilers. It's going to be a long time before the Kraken and the Canucks reach the same level of passion as the Whitecaps and Sounders, if ever.

I agree that rivalry comes from the playoffs, I don't agree that the Oilers and Flames are going to be any more bitter than with the Kraken. Flames, yeah back in the 2000s when we always played them in the playoffs but that has obviously died down considerably. Oilers would always dominate us in the 80s so that wasn't even a rivalry.

The most heated one was obviously the Blackhawks. But even that one has died down (no playoffs, no rivalry)

 

[Aphid Attraction]

A rivalry could be manufactured with ease. All you need is senior players from one team to talk shit about senior players of the other team.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

this is loser thinking. you can't consistently win playing dump and chase hockey particularly not against top competition. if the goal is to be a winning team then you need to play a winning system. trying to grind out wins with a losing system is just admitting you aren't competitive

rutherford is problematic for not addressing the key reason the canucks can't play modern hockey (their lack of talent) but he's not wrong that they can't build a winning program playing losing hockey

Well. We aren't competetive.

So there is that.

 

[Hit the post]

I ate a salmon sandwich with chips.

The cut I had was huge.

They just make them, you pick it up and self pay. Their whole arena’s processes are so quick. Lots of bathrooms. Wide concourses.

I think Drance alluded to it last year - Rogers Arena is now one of the older buildings in the league.

I think it really shows as well. You feel it. I’m a big fan of moving the arena out of DT into the QE or Burnaby areas. Such a pain to get in and out of town.

Always wonder if the financials would indicate it would semi-make sense for them to build more towers on that plot.

They need a practice facility as well. They talked it up big last summer but they haven’t done it yet.


Look at their stats without Motte

Would Aquaman want to foot most/all of the bill for a new arena? That's alot on money (think Loui Eriksson multiple times over). Doubt there would be any stomach from the general public to help pay for a new arena (essentially corporate welfare for the owners who already make a good chunk of money).

 

[Peen]

Would Aquaman want to foot most/all of the bill for a new arena? That's alot on money (think Loui Eriksson multiple times over). Doubt there would be any stomach from the general public to help pay for a new arena (essentially corporate welfare for the owners who already make a good chunk of money).

No, there’s no chance they would foot that bill. We don’t need a new stadium tomorrow, but again, we are closing in on 30 years and there’s only two teams with stadiums more than a few years older. It’s been noticeable the last few years. It’s also going to become noticeable to players - no practice facility either.

My dream would be new owners come in and buy CSE but exclude Rogers Arena from the purchase. Then just tenant that while the new owners build a new facility, and the Aquilinis can plan out residential/commercial development on that plot.