Yeah, they will sign someone who's half the player Kuzmenko is...
Kuzmenko's hat-trick
- Thread starter Kshahdoo
- Start date
Yeah, they will sign someone who's half the player Kuzmenko is...
- Oct 13, 2018
- 3,616
- 3,857
HarrySPlinkett
Not a film critic
Hes shooting 26% because he’s almost single handedly elevated a powerplay that has been bottom-3 for two years into 24% efficiency.
16.14 GF/60 on the man advantage.
xGF/60 is still 11.11.
Maybe the guy who scored 39 goals last year is actually really good.
- Oct 13, 2018
- 3,616
- 3,857
Pettersson was already signed a contract extention that used pretty much all of the Kuzmenko money after factoring a replacement player. I doubt the Canucks re-sign Lindholm unless it's cheap.
Frankie Blueberries
Allergic to draft picks
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,200
- 10,672
I think the Canucks are more likely to look to free agency to sign a more offensive top 6 forward like Reinhart, Guentzel, or Toffoli (if any of them make it to free agency).
Aww yeah it's started again. Also if 16.14 xGoals is 26% efficiency, that means 11 goals is about 19%, or below average.
Last edited:
Some Other Flame
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2010
- 7,428
- 8,814
Miles better than signing him to a 6+ year extension at 6M+ or whatever he'll likely be able command.
HarrySPlinkett
Not a film critic
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but you’re using those numbers wrong.
The point is once again, short term ridiculous production over chance generation has fans convinced of something that isn't true.
I did mix up the order.
16.14 goals leading to 26%.
But in terms of actual chance generation, it lags completely behind.
Sykur
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 951
- 1,228
- Oct 13, 2018
- 3,616
- 3,857
There's so many people who's knowledge of the Canucks starts in 2011, and the team has made way worse trades. OEL, Gudbranson, Forsling, for some easy ones.
MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2005
- 5,475
- 7,850
Wait, what? I literally can't discern what you mean?
Also, he scored tons against shit teams when we were irrelevant and playing out the string last year too.
But again, I'm not shitting on Kuzmenko, I like Kuzmenko. But moving him wasn't a bad move for us by any metric.
Given he started to score points since the begining of the season last year, do you mean Vancouver was irrelevant from day 1?
And "shity teams" are San Jose, Anaheim, Arizona. Now look at the group Vancouver is in... oh, well, it's San Jose, Anaheim, Arizona...
MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2005
- 5,475
- 7,850
Last year we were a team with less than zero structure, no goaltending, and bad coaching until Tocchet came in.
Kuzmenko is a wonderful pond hockey player, nobody denies that.
And to the second point, I again don't get it. I thought you meant the same division for a second but Arizona isn't in our division.
We're literally like 40 points above the best team in that list and 60 above the worst so I'm not sure what you're saying.
Last year it was the same team that won tons of games in the second part of the season before that. And the team had the same goalie who looked so great this season. So does it mean if Demko sucks again next season, Vancouver will become irrelevant again?
Yeah, my bad, Arizona is from different group, but two of the worst teams are still in Vancouver's division. And then teams like Calgary and Seattle, which aren't great either. And then the conference where teams like Arizona and Chicago play. It's a lot of games vs "shity teams".
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2003
- 8,719
- 982
