Player Discussion Waiver wire

[Melvin]

Sorry, but future 30 or 40 goal scorers are not the kind of players that are "on waivers all the time". And it is not because such players fail to get picked up off waivers. It is because players on waivers by and large are not good enough to play in the NHL. Players that clear waivers generally get a chance to play in the AHL. Any player that can pot 30 plus goals in the big show should be able to dominate in the minor leagues and would eventually get called up again. But most waiver wire fodder does not dominate in the AHL. They are waiver wire fodder because they suck.

Come on man, that is not what I said and you know it.

When I said "Guys like Karlsson" I was talking about the player he was before he went to Vegas. A youngish guy with some talent who had mostly struggled to put up any points on the board and had run out of time with his club. Karlsson had scored 25 points in 81 games as a 24 year old and almost certainly would have been waiver-bound had Vegas not come around, and he almost certainly would have cleared.

These guys do go through waivers all the time and you are right, the vast majority of them do suck, but if you are willing to give enough of them a chance then the odd one will break out. Most of them never really get that chance and most of them end up sucking.

I'm not saying the odds are in your favor, I am saying that when the odds are NOT in your favor, you pretty much need to play as much as possible, when there is basically no cost to doing so.

We can swap Granlund for someone new and sure, that player will probably suck, but then we swap him for someone new and that player will probably suck too, so then swap him for someone new. Why not? Or we can just keep on running Granlund out there to watch him do the same damn thing he's done for the past 100 games.

 

[nuck luck]

Agreed.... Granlund is a player who scored 19 G and 32 Pts a year ago would be snapped up in a heartbeat on the waiver wire.(probably by Nashville or Pittsburgh)..He's a useful player when given the opportunity....Although the' experts' on here who thought that Brendan Gaunce was the 'end all,be all' might beg to differ.

Most recently, Granlund is a player who has proven to be useless when not given priority ice time alongside our top players.

Meanwhile, Gaunce has proven to be defensively useful when not given any opportunity alongside our worst players.

Although the 'experts' on here only account for goals scored and blame the lack of scoring for the team on a young prospect playing on the 4th line, with awful non-scoring vet linemates who have difficulties capitalizing on goal scoring chances. These 'experts' will beg to differ...

Scoring goals alone will not win us games. We need to also prevent other teams from scoring goals too. Why do 'Experts' want to rid this team of a young prospect they drafted, a prospect that has proven to suppress goals while given the most defensive minutes (avg) against the toughest matchups? Let's not forget being paired with non-scoring linemates...

Let's also ignore the contracts because the same 'experts' can't comprehend the advantages of having extra cap space.

Yeah...Gaunce is to blame. That's 'expert' advice

 

[nuck luck]

No,he's not...He can't hit ,he's not physical,he can't make a play,and he can't score....the dream is over...

Yes, he can only suppress goals against.

I guess we should see a dramatic increase in goals and decrease in goals against with Gaunce in Utica.

We now have one of the most expensive 4th lines in the NHL. Dreams really do come true...

 

[orcatown]

This is pretty simple - There are players on waivers that are better than players presently on the Canucks. So you pick those players up and dump the Canuck. Moreover, there are players on waivers that have more trade value than those on the Canuck roster, So, once again, pick up the player with more trade value so you have more trade-able players at the deadline.

You'd think this would be so obvious that even Canuck management could get it.

 

[F A N]

We can swap Granlund for someone new and sure, that player will probably suck, but then we swap him for someone new and that player will probably suck too, so then swap him for someone new. Why not? Or we can just keep on running Granlund out there to watch him do the same damn thing he's done for the past 100 games.

I am in favour of swapping an average player with little to zero upside for someone new when the right player comes along (as in a player you have liked and targeted for a while). I'm not in favour of doing that for the sake of giving someone new a shot. If you pick up a guy who blossoms into a useful player for your team that's a great addition. But I think if you leave room for waiver wire pickups every year like Gillis did, it takes away the meritocracy at camp aspect. In the Gillis era, you do your best at camp and you think you earned a spot and then Gillis would pick someone up from waivers just before opening night and he automatically makes the opening night roster and you get sent down. Say what you will about the Benning era, he has allowed guys who earned a spot at camp to be on the opening night roster whether you're a young player who is waiver exempt or a guy on a PTO. Sometimes I don't think it's good for asset management purposes but at least you're not paying lip service to competition at camp.

 

[Fire Benning]

There were some players on waivers yesterday who are better than players on the Canucks but unfortunately there are too many bums crowding up the bottom of the lineup.

 

[Fire Benning]

Dimitri Jaskin claimed by Washington which means the Canucks did not put a claim in on him.

Jaskin outscored Granlund at even strength last year 16-5..

Elie might've been an upgrade too but he was claimed by Buffalo which were before the Canucks on the waiver order.

 

[Melvin]

Gustav Olfosson put on waivers today by Minnesota. 23 year old defender. . I don't know much about him. Anyone?

 

[M2Beezy]

Gustav Olfosson put on waivers today by Minnesota. 23 year old defender. . I don't know much about him. Anyone?

Not sure

 

[Melvin]

Not sure

Thanks m2b

 

[tyhee]

Dimitri Jaskin claimed by Washington which means the Canucks did not put a claim in on him.

Jaskin outscored Granlund at even strength last year 16-5..

Elie might've been an upgrade too but he was claimed by Buffalo which were before the Canucks on the waiver order.

Jaskin is the player from this season's waiver wire that irks me. He's 25 years old with good size (though like fellow Russian Tryamkin not mean,) 4 years in the league on a good team, on the + side of the +/- ledger those four years and consistently positive possession stats despite starting more often in the defensive zone than the offensive zone.

If the Canucks hadn't taken their splurges on 4th liners in the off-season they could have had Jaskin at $1.1 million for this season instead of overpaying for older multi-year free agents.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Most recently, Granlund is a player who has proven to be useless when not given priority ice time alongside our top players.

Meanwhile, Gaunce has proven to be defensively useful when not given any opportunity alongside our worst players.

Although the 'experts' on here only account for goals scored and blame the lack of scoring for the team on a young prospect playing on the 4th line, with awful non-scoring vet linemates who have difficulties capitalizing on goal scoring chances. These 'experts' will beg to differ...

Scoring goals alone will not win us games. We need to also prevent other teams from scoring goals too. Why do 'Experts' want to rid this team of a young prospect they drafted, a prospect that has proven to suppress goals while given the most defensive minutes (avg) against the toughest matchups? Let's not forget being paired with non-scoring linemates...

Let's also ignore the contracts because the same 'experts' can't comprehend the advantages of having extra cap space.

Yeah...Gaunce is to blame. That's 'expert' advice

In todays NHL,just being able to play in one zone is not enough...Granlund is no scream in hell,but at least can be deployed up and down the lineup,wing and centre...Versatility is the key,even Archibald brings more to the table than Gaunce.

He's not a young prospect anymore..If Gaunce played for an American team,nobody would take a blind bit of notice he passed through waivers.

Using 'cap space' as a reason to retain him is absurd......I look forward to more of your 'hot takes' if Gaunce isn't re-signed after this year (his contract expires after this season).

Nobody is 'blaming' Gaunce for anything..He's a character kid,but his limitations completely outweigh the positives.

 

[VanJack]

Nisholas Baptiste from Buffalo was on waivers...a guy I was mildly interested in. But looks like he's been traded to the Preds for Jack Dougherty, a young right shot d-man. Sigh!

 

[adamzilla]

In todays NHL,just being able to play in one zone is not enough...Granlund is no scream in hell,but at least can be deployed up and down the lineup,wing and centre...Versatility is the key,even Archibald brings more to the table than Gaunce.

He's not a young prospect anymore..If Gaunce played for an American team,nobody would take a blind bit of notice he passed through waivers.

Using 'cap space' as a reason to retain him is absurd......I look forward to more of your 'hot takes' if Gaunce isn't re-signed after this year (his contract expires after this season).

Nobody is 'blaming' Gaunce for anything..He's a character kid,but his limitations completely outweigh the positives.

Hockey hasn't changed. In "today's NHL" you need to defend as well.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Hockey hasn't changed. In "today's NHL" you need to defend as well.

Obviously you have to defend,but since the introduction of the obstruction rule..the game has sped up.

 

[biturbo19]

Come on man, that is not what I said and you know it.

When I said "Guys like Karlsson" I was talking about the player he was before he went to Vegas. A youngish guy with some talent who had mostly struggled to put up any points on the board and had run out of time with his club. Karlsson had scored 25 points in 81 games as a 24 year old and almost certainly would have been waiver-bound had Vegas not come around, and he almost certainly would have cleared.

These guys do go through waivers all the time and you are right, the vast majority of them do suck, but if you are willing to give enough of them a chance then the odd one will break out. Most of them never really get that chance and most of them end up sucking.

I'm not saying the odds are in your favor, I am saying that when the odds are NOT in your favor, you pretty much need to play as much as possible, when there is basically no cost to doing so.

We can swap Granlund for someone new and sure, that player will probably suck, but then we swap him for someone new and that player will probably suck too, so then swap him for someone new. Why not? Or we can just keep on running Granlund out there to watch him do the same damn thing he's done for the past 100 games.

William Karlsson wasn't really some guy who had "run out of time with his club" though. He was a guy who had established himself as a pretty decent quality bottom-6 player with some good versatility. A guy the Jackets would've surely kept on their roster if not for the expansion draft, where he was part of that whole package CBJ sent to Vegas with a 1st and 2nd round pick, in exchange for taking Karlsson instead of one of the other quality players they had to expose, along with eating that monstrously bad David Clarkson contract.

Sure, nobody saw him nearly quadrupling his point totals, or scoring more goals in one year than his previous high point total. But i don't recall him being viewed as waiver fodder. He was seen as a decent young quality NHL bottom-sixer, who exploded in Vegas in a pretty unprecedented way. That's something very different. It's comparable a guy like Erik Haula, who also clearly wasn't going on waivers, and also totally exploded in point production.

Most recently, Granlund is a player who has proven to be useless when not given priority ice time alongside our top players.

Meanwhile, Gaunce has proven to be defensively useful when not given any opportunity alongside our worst players.

Although the 'experts' on here only account for goals scored and blame the lack of scoring for the team on a young prospect playing on the 4th line, with awful non-scoring vet linemates who have difficulties capitalizing on goal scoring chances. These 'experts' will beg to differ...

Scoring goals alone will not win us games. We need to also prevent other teams from scoring goals too. Why do 'Experts' want to rid this team of a young prospect they drafted, a prospect that has proven to suppress goals while given the most defensive minutes (avg) against the toughest matchups? Let's not forget being paired with non-scoring linemates...

Let's also ignore the contracts because the same 'experts' can't comprehend the advantages of having extra cap space.

Yeah...Gaunce is to blame. That's 'expert' advice

I don't really know who "the experts" are exactly, but i know i certainly don't blame the bottom-6 for this teams complete scoring ineptitude. But like i said earlier, the problem isn't one you're going to rectify on the waiver wire. The problem is our Top-6F, and our Top-4D. We just don't have any elite talent. We've got Boeser emerging as one, but far from proven in the crucible of 1st line defensive focus. We've got Horvat who is a good supporting Top-6C. And we've got Pettersson looking like he could be a future stud, but hardly proven. Other than that...we've got no horses. The guys that really drive NHL scoring at the top of the lineup and elevate lesser players on a line with them.

You don't just fix that on the waiver wire though. That's the natural ebb and flow of the NHL. Right now, we're in the gutters drafting toward the top, where you tend to find those special scoring players. Guys like Gaunce aren't the reason the Canucks were bad last year...but they're not the solution either.

 

[biturbo19]

Getting someone better than Pouliot shouldn't be hard. At the very least, someone like Pouliot that hasn't been tried and failed. The depth on this team isn't exactly good, Motte made the team and he'd be on waivers in STL, he will probably be our 3rd line.

Absolutely. Pouliot is trash. There hasn't been a ton of quality defensive depth hitting the waiver wire this season, but there are plenty who would be an upgrade on Pouliot. I suggested Lernout, who doesn't have the same "offensive" chops, but is a more effective player and can actually defend properly. But as much as i'd rather see a guy like Lernout there in place of Pouliot...that's not going to make a dent in the grand scheme of our season. And clearly our coach has an unhealthy love for the Derrick Pouliot Project.

The bottom-of-roster tinkering just isn't the problem with this team. The fact we're all so invested in these plugs, is a byproduct of being a fundamentally bad team where the Top-4D are bad enough that a guy like Pouliot can somehow sneak in there at times. You get 4 quality defencemen in here, and Pouliot doodling around doing stupid crap on the 3rd pairing doesn't matter so much. Just like say...Yannick Weber being awful and badly exposed here. Put him in Nashville and it really doesn't matter much what he does in 10 sheltered minutes a night behind the Top-4D they have who play 50 minutes a night between their top two pairings.

 

[Melvin]

I can't really disagree with you but I also don't disagree with myself.

 

[nuck luck]

In todays NHL,just being able to play in one zone is not enough...Granlund is no scream in hell,but at least can be deployed up and down the lineup,wing and centre...Versatility is the key,even Archibald brings more to the table than Gaunce.

He's not a young prospect anymore..If Gaunce played for an American team,nobody would take a blind bit of notice he passed through waivers.

Using 'cap space' as a reason to retain him is absurd......I look forward to more of your 'hot takes' if Gaunce isn't re-signed after this year (his contract expires after this season).

Nobody is 'blaming' Gaunce for anything..He's a character kid,but his limitations completely outweigh the positives.

Yes, Granlund has been deployed up and down the lineup, but he hasn't been good! Defensively, Granlund is not equal to Gaunce and on offence, Granlund has been awful when not paired with our top players or on the top PP. Gaunce has never been gifted these opportunities to succeed, so I think it's ignorant to compare the two. Here's what we do know, Granlund has been awful when playing his role and not gifted prime minutes with top players. Gaunce has been effective in his role playing against the toughest matchups with mostly defensive starts.

Versatality playing wing and centre? check for Gaunce. Up and down the lineup...he's only been given the heavy lifting on the 4th. Granlund is nowhere near Gaunce's ability on the 4th and according to 'experts' like you that praise benning...we don't need Gaunce to move up and down the lineup because we're drowning in depth . Didn't you watch the preseason?

bennbrod and green said they want the 3rd & 4th to be a checking line and Gaunce brings that and proven to be much better at it than Granlund. Gaunce could play on any of these two lines if necessary. You tell me one player on the canucks that is playing on the 4th that can move into the top two lines? Is this 'versatality' only defined for Gaunce's role or is it a prerequisite for all 4th liners in the NHL? Or is this just your 'expert' opinion? I don't know many 4th liners in the NHL today that can play in the top two lines...do you? and if so, give me names. Considering we have one of the most expensive 4th lines in the NHL, it might be smart for you to name canuck 4th liners first.

And Archie does deserve to be on this team too...he also brings more than 3 or 4 other players do.

If Granlund played on an American team you think they would have another revolution? What's your point? There are 4 other players on this team that would have as much reaction as a silent fart if they got sent down, and even less so on an American team. Unfortunately, there are more hockey-minds in Canada so you will inevitably have more thinkers. Maybe you should consider cheering for an American team? They voted trump in so you won't have problems finding people with like minds.

Again...what's your argument about an American team have to do with Gaunce? Is this your 'expert' reasoning?...FFS.

I won't delve too much into cap space cause the subject is far too complicated and 'experts' like you think cap space doesn't produce goals, so who cares. However, if you compound (insert 'add' if you're confused) the ridiculous salaries of bennbrod's acquisitions and traded these players or got rid of these players who are underperforming, we would have enough cap space to take on other team's bad contracts and stack our draft picks. Yes, Granlunds contract won't hurt us alone, but you compound these contracts and the sum is an advantage we could be maximizing. It's our opportunity costs that I'm getting at. Keep players who are equally good on the lower contracts, get rid of those acquisitions that are marginally better players or worse players that have high salaries.

Overall, this team would be in the same position at the end of the year, near the bottom because the guys acquired won't win us any games. EXCEPT, our prospects development has been improved with the NHL experience, our young guys will have a stonger bond fighting through the 'tough' years together and we can acquire more draft picks with the cap space saved.

I look forward to reading your trump logic when you realize that this team has not improved this year after acquiring one of the highest paid 4th lines in the NHL, for multiple years to come. Oh...I forgot about trump logic, Gaunce didn't produce, he's to blame for our scoring issues.

Are we really better off sending down our prospects who worked hard over the summer for these older guys who need mentors themselves?

 

[nuck luck]

William Karlsson wasn't really some guy who had "run out of time with his club" though. He was a guy who had established himself as a pretty decent quality bottom-6 player with some good versatility. A guy the Jackets would've surely kept on their roster if not for the expansion draft, where he was part of that whole package CBJ sent to Vegas with a 1st and 2nd round pick, in exchange for taking Karlsson instead of one of the other quality players they had to expose, along with eating that monstrously bad David Clarkson contract.

Sure, nobody saw him nearly quadrupling his point totals, or scoring more goals in one year than his previous high point total. But i don't recall him being viewed as waiver fodder. He was seen as a decent young quality NHL bottom-sixer, who exploded in Vegas in a pretty unprecedented way. That's something very different. It's comparable a guy like Erik Haula, who also clearly wasn't going on waivers, and also totally exploded in point production.





I don't really know who "the experts" are exactly, but i know i certainly don't blame the bottom-6 for this teams complete scoring ineptitude. But like i said earlier, the problem isn't one you're going to rectify on the waiver wire. The problem is our Top-6F, and our Top-4D. We just don't have any elite talent. We've got Boeser emerging as one, but far from proven in the crucible of 1st line defensive focus. We've got Horvat who is a good supporting Top-6C. And we've got Pettersson looking like he could be a future stud, but hardly proven. Other than that...we've got no horses. The guys that really drive NHL scoring at the top of the lineup and elevate lesser players on a line with them.

You don't just fix that on the waiver wire though. That's the natural ebb and flow of the NHL. Right now, we're in the gutters drafting toward the top, where you tend to find those special scoring players. Guys like Gaunce aren't the reason the Canucks were bad last year...but they're not the solution either.

The 'experts' was a reference to pom who tried to claim something...stupid is...whatever, it's not worth mentioning.

Agreed with most of your post. Last bit too, as Gaunce is not the solution...but I'm glad you recognize that he's not the problem. He deserves a chance over others for his development and the future of this team. Don't read too much in the last statement, my point is every little bit helps.

At the worst, we finish the year in the same spot. At best, Gaunce developes into a prime Beagle, we acquire more draft picks, we aren't loaded with multi -year contracts and have extra cap space to maximize. Oh...and this includes other prospects like Archie.

I just finished replying to pom about Gaunce and it explains most of it there if you care to know more of my thoughts, it's right above. Just to lazy to repeat...

 

[F A N]

Dimitri Jaskin claimed by Washington which means the Canucks did not put a claim in on him.

Jaskin outscored Granlund at even strength last year 16-5..

? Jaskin had 6 goals total last season. How did he outscore Granlund 16-5 at even strength when he scored 6 goals total?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Yes, Granlund has been deployed up and down the lineup, but he hasn't been good! Defensively, Granlund is not equal to Gaunce and on offence, Granlund has been awful when not paired with our top players or on the top PP. Gaunce has never been gifted these opportunities to succeed, so I think it's ignorant to compare the two. Here's what we do know, Granlund has been awful when playing his role and not gifted prime minutes with top players. Gaunce has been effective in his role playing against the toughest matchups with mostly defensive starts.

Versatality playing wing and centre? check for Gaunce. Up and down the lineup...he's only been given the heavy lifting on the 4th. Granlund is nowhere near Gaunce's ability on the 4th and according to 'experts' like you that praise benning...we don't need Gaunce to move up and down the lineup because we're drowning in depth . Didn't you watch the preseason?

bennbrod and green said they want the 3rd & 4th to be a checking line and Gaunce brings that and proven to be much better at it than Granlund. Gaunce could play on any of these two lines if necessary. You tell me one player on the canucks that is playing on the 4th that can move into the top two lines? Is this 'versatality' only defined for Gaunce's role or is it a prerequisite for all 4th liners in the NHL? Or is this just your 'expert' opinion? I don't know many 4th liners in the NHL today that can play in the top two lines...do you? and if so, give me names. Considering we have one of the most expensive 4th lines in the NHL, it might be smart for you to name canuck 4th liners first.

And Archie does deserve to be on this team too...he also brings more than 3 or 4 other players do.

If Granlund played on an American team you think they would have another revolution? What's your point? There are 4 other players on this team that would have as much reaction as a silent fart if they got sent down, and even less so on an American team. Unfortunately, there are more hockey-minds in Canada so you will inevitably have more thinkers. Maybe you should consider cheering for an American team? They voted trump in so you won't have problems finding people with like minds.

Again...what's your argument about an American team have to do with Gaunce? Is this your 'expert' reasoning?...FFS.

I won't delve too much into cap space cause the subject is far too complicated and 'experts' like you think cap space doesn't produce goals, so who cares. However, if you compound (insert 'add' if you're confused) the ridiculous salaries of bennbrod's acquisitions and traded these players or got rid of these players who are underperforming, we would have enough cap space to take on other team's bad contracts and stack our draft picks. Yes, Granlunds contract won't hurt us alone, but you compound these contracts and the sum is an advantage we could be maximizing. It's our opportunity costs that I'm getting at. Keep players who are equally good on the lower contracts, get rid of those acquisitions that are marginally better players or worse players that have high salaries.

Overall, this team would be in the same position at the end of the year, near the bottom because the guys acquired won't win us any games. EXCEPT, our prospects development has been improved with the NHL experience, our young guys will have a stonger bond fighting through the 'tough' years together and we can acquire more draft picks with the cap space saved.

I look forward to reading your trump logic when you realize that this team has not improved this year after acquiring one of the highest paid 4th lines in the NHL, for multiple years to come. Oh...I forgot about trump logic, Gaunce didn't produce, he's to blame for our scoring issues.

Are we really better off sending down our prospects who worked hard over the summer for these older guys who need mentors themselves?

Last season,Green deployed Granlund in a shutdown role with Brandon Sutter..62% of Granlunds starts were in the D-zone..Also,Granlund had an injury riddled season last year,he had surgery to his wrist and ankle in the off season.

Gaunce was never awarded (gifted in your words) an opportunity to play in the top 6,because he obviously lacks offensive vision,and skills..Most of his goals (5 in career)) have just deflected off of his body or stick (after 114 games in the NHL,..odds are that the puck is going to deflect off any inanimate object in front of the net after so many games)

Schaller had 12 goals last season,Beagle had 7 (13 the year previous)..There has to be 'some' production from the 4th line,especially on a team like the Canucks who are starving for goals...Gaunce brings zero in this regard,which is a big handicap for him (versatility?).

I don't think anybody would care if Granlund was waived,but the bellyaching of Gaunce clearing waivers is amusing.

I'm totally aware of the Canucks cap situation,.. Sutter will most likely be traded,Edler moved..MDZ's contract expires after this year..so does Granlunds....Other than Horvat and Erikkssons pink elephant,we don't have any real superstar salaries ...Cap space is not a concern at this point.

 

[pgj98m3]

Last season,Green deployed Granlund in a shutdown role with Brandon Sutter..62% of Granlunds starts were in the D-zone..Also,Granlund had an injury riddled season last year,he had surgery to his wrist and ankle in the off season.

Gaunce was never awarded (gifted in your words) an opportunity to play in the top 6,because he obviously lacks offensive vision,and skills..Most of his goals (5 in career)) have just deflected off of his body or stick (after 114 games in the NHL,..odds are that the puck is going to deflect off any inanimate object in front of the net after so many games)

Schaller had 12 goals last season,Beagle had 7 (13 the year previous)..There has to be 'some' production from the 4th line,especially on a team like the Canucks who are starving for goals...Gaunce brings zero in this regard,which is a big handicap for him (versatility?).

I don't think anybody would care if Granlund was waived,but the bellyaching of Gaunce clearing waivers is amusing.

I'm totally aware of the Canucks cap situation,.. Sutter will most likely be traded,Edler moved..MDZ's contract expires after this year..so does Granlunds....Other than Horvat and Erikkssons pink elephant,we don't have any real superstar salaries ...Cap space is not a concern at this point.[/QUOTE]
I know you follow this team so your comments don't come a place of ignorance.
When has Benning displayed any ability to move players or resist re-upping players with ridiculous salaries???????

 

[tantalum]

There were some players on waivers yesterday who are better than players on the Canucks but unfortunately there are too many bums crowding up the bottom of the lineup.

I said it before but if the team were able to waive 8 guys and replace them with other teams waiver fodder the canucks improve...and likely at a reduced cost. That's how bad this team has been built.

 

[nuck luck]

Last season,Green deployed Granlund in a shutdown role with Brandon Sutter..62% of Granlunds starts were in the D-zone..Also,Granlund had an injury riddled season last year,he had surgery to his wrist and ankle in the off season.

Gaunce was never awarded (gifted in your words) an opportunity to play in the top 6,because he obviously lacks offensive vision,and skills..Most of his goals (5 in career)) have just deflected off of his body or stick (after 114 games in the NHL,..odds are that the puck is going to deflect off any inanimate object in front of the net after so many games)

Schaller had 12 goals last season,Beagle had 7 (13 the year previous)..There has to be 'some' production from the 4th line,especially on a team like the Canucks who are starving for goals...Gaunce brings zero in this regard,which is a big handicap for him (versatility?).

I don't think anybody would care if Granlund was waived,but the bellyaching of Gaunce clearing waivers is amusing.

I'm totally aware of the Canucks cap situation,.. Sutter will most likely be traded,Edler moved..MDZ's contract expires after this year..so does Granlunds....Other than Horvat and Erikkssons pink elephant,we don't have any real superstar salaries ...Cap space is not a concern at this point.

First of all, green uses sutter to shelter other players because of their defensive issues. While I'm not a big fan of sutter, he is definitely better than the plugs Gaunce got stuck with.

Now, you made a lot of excuses for Granlund...are you trying to say Grandlund is also fragile or injury prone? That excuse wouldn't fly with you if I was talking about Gaunce and injuries, so spare me the sob story.

When you say 'awarded' you are implying that Granlund earned his spots on the top line and PP. Are you insinuating that he actually deserved that ice time? Does being a coach's pet validate top line minutes or the PP? Wording is important so saying Granlund was 'awarded' prime ice time means he earned it and you know he sure as hell didn't play well enough to warrant top line minutes and PP. He was 'gifted' the ice time because Willie liked him. I'm not the biggest fan of Green, but I think he's definitely a tier above WD. I think you'd have to agree with this, so why hasn't Green given Granlund prime minutes after he started coaching this team? He watched the tapes and had a chance to see him in preseason, throughout all the practices and games... we were struggling to score! He had a top line player at his beck and call... Maybe, just maybe, Granlund never actually earned the prime time minutes he was GIFTED under WD.

Adding bennbrod's acquisitions this summer won't do squat in terms of winning and goals for this season. Why waste the cap space and give extended terms for the 4th line role when we already have the same type players in the system? You really think adding Beagle and Schaller will make a difference? We have more importants needs that need to be addressed, upgrading the 4th is like putting a bandaid on a papercut while you're hemorrhaging from a gunshot to the chest.

Give your head a shake! We have one of the most expensive 4th lines in the NHL! This was not an issue for us, scoring from our top 3 lines and D was the main issue... and you want to sit on your blaming throne and point fingers at Gaunce for lack of scoring and ignore his defensive attributes he brought to the games. Preventing goals is just as important to win games... everyone struggled to score last year FFS! Only a few players were able to suppress goals against like Gaunce did.

Your last paragraph shows that you have no clue about maximizing cap space for draft picks. It's not about being under the cap and players contracts running out. It's about loading up on draft picks by acquiring unwanted players with high cap hits on other teams.

And you have no clue if Sutter will get traded, Edler, MDZ, etc. This mgt ALWAYS screws up and makes the wrong decisions. This type of prophecy defense is so blatently weak and futile, it's like your grasping because you got nothing else. Same stupid prophecy defense I heard on cdc about the Miller signing. I doubted Linbenn were qualified for the job and able to do it at a mediocre level. The Miller signing confirmed it and after a load of arguments and bs excuses, everyone...and I literally mean everyone on that site...said it was great because linbenn would trade him for picks later. Guess what happened...

So take your crystal ball elsewhere and look at facts instead of fortune-telling about future hypotheticals.