Player Discussion Jay Beagle

VC

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,503
203
Vancouver Island
Visit site
Actually, Benning is on record saying he thinks this signing will 'free Sutter to be more offensive. But it's up to Green.'

I know that Benning said that and the Green does like to ride his veterans. I can only hope that Green recognizes that Sutter's offense comes in the form of counter-striking goal scoring. We know he isn't a playmaker, doesn't cycle or able to find the soft spot for a one-timer. I'm not really a Green fan but so far I think he is capable of not trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Fingers crossed.
 

Jay Cee

P4G
May 8, 2007
6,151
1,229
Halifax
I know that Benning said that and the Green does like to ride his veterans. I can only hope that Green recognizes that Sutter's offense comes in the form of counter-striking goal scoring. We know he isn't a playmaker, doesn't cycle or able to find the soft spot for a one-timer. I'm not really a Green fan but so far I think he is capable of not trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Fingers crossed.

That's all fine and good to say, but who is going to play on the 2nd line that isn't going to get eaten alive by better 2nd line centers? When Sutter is in situations like that it is not because we have better options and we are holding back it is because this is what we have. Its not just about vague ideas like "playing tge right way, and " knowing how to play defense in the NHL." It is real issues, like you don't play as good of a complete game as the guys you usually face so you are going to get destroyed even though you show some promise in being "skilled".

Brandon Sutter is a better choice in these cases. Not because he is good offensively, but because he seems to be our best 2 C option right now given the options.
 

VC

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,503
203
Vancouver Island
Visit site
That's all fine and good to say, but who is going to play on the 2nd line that isn't going to get eaten alive by better 2nd line centers? When Sutter is in situations like that it is not because we have better options and we are holding back it is because this is what we have. Its not just about vague ideas like "playing tge right way, and " knowing how to play defense in the NHL." It is real issues, like you don't play as good of a complete game as the guys you usually face so you are going to get destroyed even though you show some promise in being "skilled".

Brandon Sutter is a better choice in these cases. Not because he is good offensively, but because he seems to be our best 2 C option right now given the options.

The 2nd line/2nd offensive line is a waste as his skill set is being wasted. The line that I'm talking about would be getting the soft o-zone starts after the Horvat line. Being the 2nd best centre, which he might actually be, doesn't mean he should be playing in an offensive role. He should be playing a key role, not an offensive one but a defensive one. With Horvat, Sutter and Beagle down the middle, a 2nd line/offensive soft position should be open for the likes of Petterson/Gaudette/Granlund/Gagner. That is the way the roster is built, I hope Green can see that.
 

Jay Cee

P4G
May 8, 2007
6,151
1,229
Halifax
The 2nd line/2nd offensive line is a waste as his skill set is being wasted. The line that I'm talking about would be getting the soft o-zone starts after the Horvat line. Being the 2nd best centre, which he might actually be, doesn't mean he should be playing in an offensive role. He should be playing a key role, not an offensive one but a defensive one. With Horvat, Sutter and Beagle down the middle, a 2nd line/offensive soft position should be open for the likes of Petterson/Gaudette/Granlund/Gagner. That is the way the roster is built, I hope Green can see that.
I don't necessarily disagree but who plays as 2nd C that doesn't get dominated by the usually deep 2nd line of most teams?
 

VC

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,503
203
Vancouver Island
Visit site
I don't necessarily disagree but who plays as 2nd C that doesn't get dominated by the usually deep 2nd line of most teams?

I higue whoever the put with Eriksson and Pettersson will more or less get beat at ES. My guess Granlund gets the start with them. ES wise that likely wouldn't be the 2nd though it would be the 2nd offensive line. O-zone starts against the weakest possible competition should be the lines role, a complete waste of Sutter.
 

Mr. Canucklehead

Kitimat Canuck
Dec 14, 2002
39,961
29,757
Kitimat, BC
There's nothing this fanbase loves more than old, slow, unproductive, overpaid players!

Even if he's effective in his role he won't be popular.

Amongst HFBoards? No. But Dorsett was reviled here and always got big cheers from the in-house crowd at Rogers Arena.

I’m inclined to think that Beagle and Roussel will appeal to those same fans with their style this season. The issue I foresee is how they hold up over the lengthy terms of their deals.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Amongst HFBoards? No. But Dorsett was reviled here and always got big cheers from the in-house crowd at Rogers Arena.

I’m inclined to think that Beagle and Roussel will appeal to those same fans with their style this season. The issue I foresee is how they hold up over the lengthy terms of their deals.

Roussel maybe. Beagle isn't really like Dorsett.
 

Mr. Canucklehead

Kitimat Canuck
Dec 14, 2002
39,961
29,757
Kitimat, BC
Roussel maybe. Beagle isn't really like Dorsett.

No, that wasn’t a direct comparison I was going for. I meant that Beagle’s blue collar workman-type game might endear him to fans in a similar way that it did for Dorsett with his effort level and willingness to drop the mitts.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
No, that wasn’t a direct comparison I was going for. I meant that Beagle’s blue collar workman-type game might endear him to fans in a similar way that it did for Dorsett with his effort level and willingness to drop the mitts.

I doubt it.

Dorsett got cheers because he fought and acted like a clown on the ice. Nobody is going to care about Beagle.

Roussel, maybe. He's a clown as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter10 and timw33

Wo Yorfat

dumb person
Nov 7, 2016
2,961
3,924
Amongst HFBoards? No. But Dorsett was reviled here and always got big cheers from the in-house crowd at Rogers Arena.

I think the vast majority of negative Dorsett posts were contract related. And he won a lot of people over w his hustle and (to me at least) unexpected contributions. Beagle and Roussel will deal w the same thing, but all it takes is jumping in to protect Boeser/Pettersson and they're golden.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
I think the vast majority of negative Dorsett posts were contract related. And he won a lot of people over w his hustle and (to me at least) unexpected contributions. Beagle and Roussel will deal w the same thing, but all it takes is jumping in to protect Boeser/Pettersson and they're golden.

Unless the Canucks' injury curse strikes, I think Beagle will be good next season. The question is how many good years will we get out of him. I do like the Roussel signing.
 

Wo Yorfat

dumb person
Nov 7, 2016
2,961
3,924
Unless the Canucks' injury curse strikes, I think Beagle will be good next season. The question is how many good years will we get out of him. I do like the Roussel signing.

I'm fine w Beagle the player, but I hate the signing. Part of it of course is the 4 yrs. I think that's crazy for a 4th liner in his 30s. And it isn't like we got some discount for surrendering the 4th yr. Nobody would've expected Beagle to get the $ or term he got. The other issue is that our centers could easily end up being Horvat Sutter Gaudette Beagle.

That's an ok playmaker, a rookie, and 2 guys who wingers cannot really produce with. Signing a C made a ton of sense, but we needed to sign a middle 6 playmaking C. I'll happily admit I don't know if one was available. But our team composition makes him a really bad fit imo. We all hope Pettersson will be a C, but who knows. Even Gaudette being a contributing C this yr is iffy.

That said, my opinion of Beagle's game is based more on reading other opinions than seeing him play, so maybe he brings more than I think. Shrug.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
Hmm. I see that Daniel Winnik remains unsigned; a very similar player to Jay Beagle. In fact I think I prefer Winnik to Beagle. I wonder how much Benning could have saved in salary by choosing Winnik over Beagle. Or did he deliberately overpay for a fourth line center just to drive up the team salary cap numbers to satisfy Mr Aquilini?



Browse - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,044
14,075
Apparently Beagle is stand-up guy; good in the room; and a natural leader. But then that's the same thing they said about Gudbranson and Sutter. It's just too bad they aren't better hockey players.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
Apparently Beagle is stand-up guy; good in the room; and a natural leader. But then that's the same thing they said about Gudbranson and Sutter. It's just too bad they aren't better hockey players.

They are good hockey players. It comes down to expectations and utilization. Beagle has been one of the best 4th line Cs for quite a few years. You can win with him as your 4th line C who can kill penalties and win faceoffs. Utilize him as such and he's a real good 4th line C to have on your team.
 
Feb 24, 2017
5,094
2,865
Apparently Beagle is stand-up guy; good in the room; and a natural leader. But then that's the same thing they said about Gudbranson and Sutter. It's just too bad they aren't better hockey players.
I’m not one to claim I know anything, but I get the impression for some reason that beagle is going to be better at this than the other two.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,044
14,075
Yeah, this has to be it, as it’s unlikely that Benning trades away an acquisition like that.
How Beagle and his agent managed to wrangle a four-year contract out of the Canucks is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Supposedly other NHL teams were prepared to step up with the same offer. But of course we only have Jimbo's word for that. Just can't see it myself. But I suppose they can live with the first couple years of his contract....but the last couple could be ugly....I'm not liking the optics of Beagle and Eriksson playing for the Canucks as 37-year olds!
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
How Beagle and his agent managed to wrangle a four-year contract out of the Canucks is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Supposedly other NHL teams were prepared to step up with the same offer. But of course we only have Jimbo's word for that. Just can't see it myself. But I suppose they can live with the first couple years of his contract....but the last couple could be ugly....I'm not liking the optics of Beagle and Eriksson playing for the Canucks as 37-year olds!

I'm not sure about other teams willing to step up with the same offer, but there are multiple reports of multiple teams being interested in Beagle. I have a hard time believing that Beagle couldn't get a 3 year contract from at least one other team other than the Canucks. Maybe the Canucks had to add an extra year to get it done. Or maybe there were other teams who stepped up with a similar length offer.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->