Speculation: Gary Mason on the Canucks and the Offseason

[Bourne Endeavor]

Man I remember in 2010 thinking "I can't wait for the Sochi Olympics, Myers is going to be awesome!" Who broke him!!?

Ruff played him like a #1 following his supposed breakout season. While initially understandable, he continued to rely on him heavily despite it becoming increasingly obvious the kid could not handle the pressure and was by no means ready to play the role thrust on him. As I said above, I doubt Myers will ever amount to a top tier defenseman and merely overachieved. Fortunately for his sake, he is young enough to defy those estimations.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

think the $12m includes the signing bonus.

Capgeek says $12M salary AND $10M bonus for this past year.

If I am not mistaken, it was 2 mil salaray, 10 mil bonus year 1, and another 10 mil bonus July first last year. But that is just from memory, so I could be really wrong.

It's possible. Capgeek isn't providing sufficient detail to completely discount that.

Salary on capgeek means salary + signing bonus. So it's $2m salary and $10m signing bonus.

my bad, it's $12 million total, including the signing bonus. misread capgeek. that math on all the other years adds up to $38.5 million.

still, on a salary that goes $12m, $6m, $5m, $5m, $4m, $3.5m, $3m, hard to see buffalo trading him when they've already paid off the first year.



as a player though, myers is a lot like bieksa. higher ceiling, obviously. but when you pair myers with a stalwart steady guy (like henrik tallinder his rookie year), he's awesome. but he needs that guy. we don't need a second RD that needs to be babysat, even though between hamhuis and garrison, we have the babysitters. because what happens when someone goes down? who wants to see an alberts/myers pairing in the playoffs, or whatever bargain basement bottom pair LD we get to replace alberts/ballard?

 

[Alflives*]

my bad, it's $12 million total, including the signing bonus. misread capgeek. that math on all the other years adds up to $38.5 million.

still, on a salary that goes $12m, $6m, $5m, $5m, $4m, $3.5m, $3m, hard to see buffalo trading him when they've already paid off the first year.



as a player though, myers is a lot like bieksa. higher ceiling, obviously. but when you pair myers with a stalwart steady guy (like henrik tallinder his rookie year), he's awesome. but he needs that guy. we don't need a second RD that needs to be babysat, even though between hamhuis and garrison, we have the babysitters. because what happens when someone goes down? who wants to see an alberts/myers pairing in the playoffs, or whatever bargain basement bottom pair LD we get to replace alberts/ballard?

Meyers playing with Hamhuis in his 5 on 5 shifts would be excellent. With Hamhuis (as you say babysitting; I would prefer teaching) Meyers would have an excellent partner to learn the finer parts of D-zone play from. Meyers and Garrison on the points on the PP would provide an excellent puck mover (both with his feet and passing) and a guy with a cannon shot.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Meyers playing with Hamhuis in his 5 on 5 shifts would be excellent. With Hamhuis (as you say babysitting; I would prefer teaching) Meyers would have an excellent partner to learn the finer parts of D-zone play from. Meyers and Garrison on the points on the PP would provide an excellent puck mover (both with his feet and passing) and a guy with a cannon shot.

but then who will babysit bieksa? having two is too much, i think.

 

[Alflives*]

but then who will babysit bieksa? having two is too much, i think.

I see what you're saying. Maybe the D needs to get overhauled even more, and Bieksa is traded too? Would he waive his NTC if he knew that he was going to be in the bottom pair, and was going to play his minutes against the other team's fourth line knuckle draggers? I wonder if he has much value in trade? Could he return a big and younger forward?
That would allow Tanev to play in the second pair with Garrison. Corrado plays bottom pair with Alberts?

 

[Cogburn]

My thoughts would be to roll 3 solid pairings. Ballard-Tanev, to start the year, was our best pairing. Hamhuis-Bieksa has historically been very good, the prototype for a lot of our combos (ie Ohlund-Jovo, Mitchell-Bieksa, Edler-Salo). But then, assuming we get Myers via trade, we have a choice of dropping Ballard for Edler or Garrison, and my vote would be a split of Garrison-Myers and Edler-Tanev.

If we buy out Ballard we lose him for nothing. If we move Edler, we will get some serious futures or a top forward back, likely +.

Assuming we have Hamhuis-Bieksa and Garrison-Myers set, I'd rather see Ballard-Tanev plus a big name forward compared to the Edler-Tanev getting as many minues, but with no fowards.

It's just what the cost would be in acquiring Myers, who's only a year off his break out year.

 

[crazyforhockey]

think there will be some need for a ballard(ie trade).....dont think he will be bought out..

defenceman are hard to find that can play regular minutes


return may be meh..... but still dont think him or booth would be bought out.

 

[Royal Canuck]

If we keep Ballard and move Edler I'm going to lose my ****.

You're not alone.

 

[DadBod]

You're not alone.

It's not like Canuck brass will choose between Edler and Ballard. If we do end up trading Edler it will have nothing to do with trying to keep Ballard. They will be two separate decisions. If Edler is traded it will be to greatly improve our top 6. Once that decision is made the will likely decide if they're going to keep Ballard..