How about some line combo's?

Daniel Henrik Burrows
Sven Horvat Vrbata
Higgins Bonino Dorsett
Prust Vey Hansen

Kenins,

Edler Tanev
Hamhuis Weber
Sbisa Bartkowski

Corrado, Clendening

Miller
Markstrom

Any room for Cassels, Grenier, Virtanen, Subban...?
- hillbillydeluxe

Clearly we need to alphabetize our lineup. This looks like pure poetry to me:

Baertschi Bonino Burrows
Higgins Horvat Hansen
Sedin Sedin Someone
Virtanen Vey Vrbata

Friedman is a whinging little biatch...

i disliked that guy every since he lost his mind during the heritage classic. Nux fans were booing torts and anyone who didn't let Luo start the game and that idiot starts shooting his mouth off about how the fans were booing Eddie... what an arsehole... cbc and those idiots there deliberately bad mouthing the people of vancity and b.c. more generally with those kinds of stupid/ ignorant comments...

Friedman is a whinging little biatch...

i disliked that guy every since he lost his mind during the heritage classic. Nux fans were booing torts and anyone who didn't let Luo start the game and that idiot starts shooting his mouth off about how the fans were booing Eddie... what an arsehole... cbc and those idiots there deliberately bad mouthing the people of vancity and b.c. more generally with those kinds of stupid/ ignorant comments...
- kaptaan

Friedman is a bit full of himself but he's one of the very few decent insiders in hockey. If anything, to me he seemed like he liked Gillis, he was definitely more pro-Canuck than most of the top national media guys during the Gillis tenure. Wouldn't be surprised if he seems more like a Canuck hater now that Benning is here since Benning is definitely old school and Friedman believes in advanced stats.

He's one of the best at it.......he just is more dramatic than most....

EDIT: I do like the guy tho.....doesn't get too wound up when people disagree with him unlike some know-it-alls around here....
- chompsey

I can't say I understand all of the grief Vantel has been getting. It's okay to disagree with him, I usually do, but it's not like his word is scripture. He's just another guy stating his opinion. And it just so happens that his opinions generate a lot of discussion, which is something we're short on right now.

Today @ 3:20 PM ET
from last discussion...

Easy to join just as long as you have a sheep's mentality and can follow a herd.
CanuckDon is a bit slow getting the gang jackets made but they have chosen a theme song...


- bloatedmosquito


I guess I am part of that herd.

For next season,

Not sure if we are better off without Bieksa in the lineup, but I don't think we are worse off with him gone.

Without Lack, if Miller stays healthy, the performance in goal should be about the same as last season.

With our forwards, Richardson was hurt for a good chunk of the season, I like him, but don't think we will miss him that much either.

Matthias' goal production will be missed, just wondering if they can be replace by committee and Sven?

I had been part of a group wanting more grit in the lineup. The addition of Prust should help in that department. With Bieksa gone, I don't think the grit on the back end has changed much, Bieksa was perceived to bring it, but we hadn't seen much of it lately anyway so maybe a slight improvement in that area with Prust.

Just hoping there is room for the kids if they make the club out of training camp.

I can understand the disappointment with the return from some of the trades, but it is done. Sbisa is an overpayment. Couldn't care what Dorsett and Prust are making.

I will put on the rose colored glasses and hope that the team has a bit better chemistry, team toughness and identity. If they make the playoffs, watch out.

If the miss the playoffs, hopefully we get a top 10 or better pick.
Spot on, Hillbilly!!

How about some line combo's?

Daniel Henrik Burrows
Sven Horvat Vrbata
Higgins Bonino Dorsett
Prust Vey Hansen

Kenins,

Edler Tanev
Hamhuis Weber
Sbisa Bartkowski

Corrado, Clendening

Miller
Markstrom

Any room for Cassels, Grenier, Virtanen, Subban...?
- hillbillydeluxe

This probably isn't too far off. As for my 2 cents, I hope that they move Vey to the wing. The kid is not a centre, and he's certainly not a fourth line C. I'd rather that 4C spot be used to insert more youth into the lineup, either McCann, Cassels or Gaunce.

This probably isn't too far off. As for my 2 cents, I hope that they move Vey to the wing. The kid is not a centre, and he's certainly not a fourth line C. I'd rather that 4C spot be used to insert more youth into the lineup, either McCann, Cassels or Gaunce.
- CubanBuffet

I think there is a chance we see either Cassels or Gaunce in a call up but more likely Jones or Friesen if we are really stuck for a C this year.

No chance in my mind that McCann, Cassels or Gaunce are able to make the lineup out of camp.

Virtanen will be given every opportunity to make this team but I doubt that ends up being more than 9 games.

Horvat was/is the best young player this team has had in a long time and he was far from a sure thing to stick.

People get "wound up" confused with a good argument/discussion. Just because you don't like the moves the team is making, doesn't make you a hater. Hell, the roles were reversed not too long ago when the popular thing to do was rip Gillis and some of the same guys who complained daily/weekly about Gillis/AV/Torts are now "tired of" the Benning sceptics...talk about a double standard.

I can't speak for the others who get into the debates but I'm not angry when people disagree I just get annoyed when they completely dismiss some numbers/facts with a statement like "it's a rebuild so it's fine" or "Benning knows more than you so you're wrong" instead of responding with a stronger argument supported by hard evidence. I'll admit I exaggerate and don't always do the above either but I feel like some people don't do it at all and instead make things personal or just use random statements that don't contribute to the discussion at all.
- Nucker101

here's my problem with the "stat's" argument, and specifically with the way that you go about it. You made a comment a couple days ago referencing the Canuck Army post about how a monkey could have drafted better than the Canucks over the past how ever many years. I read the article, it was interesting and a bit compelling, but "stats guys" fail to include several important aspects. There is no evidence that any of those players who were better then the once who were picked would have had the same career had they been drafted by the Canucks (or any other organization for that matter). Wayne Gretzky, as great (maybe the greatest) a player as he was, may have never won a Stanley Cup had he not gone to Edmonton. He never managed to wine once after being traded, but the Oilers won two more. Jared Stoll could very well have never played an NHL game had he been drafted by the Canucks, much like how several of their picks ended up being busts. Perhaps it wasn't the scouting department, but the development system? Perhaps it's not Ron Delorme who's head we should all be shouting for but Stan Smyl and Dave Gagne.

So, my point is that until we have a body of work that is more significant, criticizing the job that Linden and Benning are doing suggests you know better. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be critical of them, because they need to be accountable, and they will inevitably make mistakes.

Can we get Vantel back? These threads are beginning to resemble Flames threads: a handful of good posters, but no one to really drive conversation forward. It's a ghost town in here.
- CubanBuffet

Hahahaha I totally agree !! Must be in holidays

I can't say I understand all of the grief Vantel has been getting. It's okay to disagree with him, I usually do, but it's not like his word is scripture. He's just another guy stating his opinion. And it just so happens that his opinions generate a lot of discussion, which is something we're short on right now.
- CubanBuffet

The problem is he thinks it is and takes things to a personal level.

here's my problem with the "stat's" argument, and specifically with the way that you go about it. You made a comment a couple days ago referencing the Canuck Army post about how a monkey could have drafted better than the Canucks over the past how ever many years. I read the article, it was interesting and a bit compelling, but "stats guys" fail to include several important aspects. There is no evidence that any of those players who were better then the once who were picked would have had the same career had they been drafted by the Canucks (or any other organization for that matter). Wayne Gretzky, as great (maybe the greatest) a player as he was, may have never won a Stanley Cup had he not gone to Edmonton. He never managed to wine once after being traded, but the Oilers won two more. Jared Stoll could very well have never played an NHL game had he been drafted by the Canucks, much like how several of their picks ended up being busts. Perhaps it wasn't the scouting department, but the development system? Perhaps it's not Ron Delorme who's head we should all be shouting for but Stan Smyl and Dave Gagne.

So, my point is that until we have a body of work that is more significant, criticizing the job that Linden and Benning are doing suggests you know better. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be critical of them, because they need to be accountable, and they will inevitably make mistakes.


- 1970vintage

Well said.

here's my problem with the "stat's" argument, and specifically with the way that you go about it. You made a comment a couple days ago referencing the Canuck Army post about how a monkey could have drafted better than the Canucks over the past how ever many years. I read the article, it was interesting and a bit compelling, but "stats guys" fail to include several important aspects. There is no evidence that any of those players who were better then the once who were picked would have had the same career had they been drafted by the Canucks (or any other organization for that matter). Wayne Gretzky, as great (maybe the greatest) a player as he was, may have never won a Stanley Cup had he not gone to Edmonton. He never managed to wine once after being traded, but the Oilers won two more. Jared Stoll could very well have never played an NHL game had he been drafted by the Canucks, much like how several of their picks ended up being busts. Perhaps it wasn't the scouting department, but the development system? Perhaps it's not Ron Delorme who's head we should all be shouting for but Stan Smyl and Dave Gagne.

So, my point is that until we have a body of work that is more significant, criticizing the job that Linden and Benning are doing suggests you know better. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be critical of them, because they need to be accountable, and they will inevitably make mistakes.


- 1970vintage

I assume you are referencing the "Sham Sharron" model of drafting which is very tongue and cheek and they do admit it is incredibly flawed.

I do want to point out that most of these draft results only look at whether these players played x amount of games ( 200 is the standard) to be considered an NHL player.

The success of the teams is usually not the point of the exercise and many of these players are drafted by one team but end up playing in the NHL for others.

Whether it is a a good way of judging teams draft records is another question all together but don't confuse the # of players a team successfully drafted with that teams individual success or even the quality of player that was drafted, the only variable looked at generally is how many players drafted reached that 200 game mark.

I also would like to clarify that this has drafting model has nothing to do with advanced stats....it just picked the best forward from the CHL in regards to points and then compared it to teams actual draft. No defense, goalies or any other leagues were used.

Today @ 4:38 PM ET
He's one of the best at it.......he just is more dramatic than most....

EDIT: I do like the guy tho.....doesn't get too wound up when people disagree with him unlike some know-it-alls around here....
- chompsey


People get "wound up" confused with a good argument/discussion. Just because you don't like the moves the team is making, doesn't make you a hater. Hell, the roles were reversed not too long ago when the popular thing to do was rip Gillis and some of the same guys who complained daily/weekly about Gillis/AV/Torts are now "tired of" the Benning sceptics...talk about a double standard.

I can't speak for the others who get into the debates but I'm not angry when people disagree I just get annoyed when they completely dismiss some numbers/facts with a statement like "it's a rebuild so it's fine" or "Benning knows more than you so you're wrong" instead of responding with a stronger argument supported by hard evidence. I'll admit I exaggerate and don't always do the above either but I feel like some people don't do it at all and instead make things personal or just use random statements that don't contribute to the discussion at all.

Nucker101

Well that certainly isn't my take on the situation, everyone has an opinion and a right to voice their opinion. For me personally I got really tired of the Leaf, Oilers, Sensnucksnocups way in which those messages where being posted.

As I said a couple of days ago I used to enjoy your posts and thoughts, but you changed drastically to become super negative with one line stingers.

It's one thing to have healthy debates and differences of opinions, but it's another to through barbs at a teams fan base. If I went into leaf land and started with Shanahan or Babcock, or who ever does their planning and negotiations and called them out I would be attacked by their fan base.

There's lots of healthy debates, but you also need to be cognizant of how you post and what the response is going to be.

And thank you Carol for the blog that outlines stats and fancy stats are A TOOL to be used in conjunction with every other tool in the tool box. And yes Gallagher is a knob, but even knobs have a purpose from time to time.

I assume you are referencing the "Sham Sharron" model of drafting which is very tongue and cheek and they do admit it is incredibly flawed.

I do want to point out that most of these draft results only look at whether these players played x amount of games ( 200 is the standard) to be considered an NHL player.

The success of the teams is usually not the point of the exercise and many of these players are drafted by one team but end up playing in the NHL for others.

Whether it is a a good way of judging teams draft records is another question all together but don't confuse the # of players a team successfully drafted with that teams individual success or even the quality of player that was drafted, the only variable looked at generally is how many players drafted reached that 200 game mark.

I also would like to clarify that this has drafting model has nothing to do with advanced stats....it just picked the best forward from the CHL in regards to points and then compared it to teams actual draft. No defense, goalies or any other leagues were used.
- belcherbd

Yeah, that was the article I was referencing, and my point is that maybe it wasn't the drafting but the developing that was the problem. The model suggests the player that had scored the most in junior, and then says "see, it works, all these players played 200+ game". But it doesn't (Can't) take into account how those players were developed within an organization. Perhaps if Nathan Smith had been drafted by Philly instead of Vancouver he might have had the career that Justin Williams did? Likely not, but you just never know.

The problem is he thinks it is and takes things to a personal level.
- golfingsince

No I don't . You think I am a jack ass and I think you are one . You should have just ignored my posts like I was doing to you , until you would make your personal digs

The problem is he thinks it is and takes things to a personal level.
- golfingsince

I've never found that. I'm pretty sure that he disagrees with nearly everything I post, and he'll tell me so, but he's never even come close to making it personal.

I've never found that. I'm pretty sure that he disagrees with nearly everything I post, and he'll tell me so, but he's never even come close to making it personal.
- CubanBuffet

There are tons of guys on here I have debated with and never make it personal. I only make it personal when someone fires the first shot. If it ever gets personal it is because the other person made it personal .

I enjoy the talks with most on here.

I've never found that. I'm pretty sure that he disagrees with nearly everything I post, and he'll tell me so, but he's never even come close to making it personal.
- CubanBuffet

I think we rarely see things resort to personal attacks, which is why this forum is successful. I've looked at other team's threads and it seems there is a lot more of that sort of thing going on. I think we're lucky that, for the most part, we have some very good discussions and knowledgeable posters (even if they do at times get heated - it just shows that people have a lot of passion when it comes to talking about this team or hockey in general). And I don't think it's fair to single anyone out for any sort of improprieties -whether deserved or not. There are always going to be disagreements, it's just the nature of any sort of open forum.

I think there is a chance we see either Cassels or Gaunce in a call up but more likely Jones or Friesen if we are really stuck for a C this year.

No chance in my mind that McCann, Cassels or Gaunce are able to make the lineup out of camp.

Virtanen will be given every opportunity to make this team but I doubt that ends up being more than 9 games.

Horvat was/is the best young player this team has had in a long time and he was far from a sure thing to stick.
- belcherbd

Cassels and Gaunce won't, but I could see McCann getting his nine games.

I can't say I understand all of the grief Vantel has been getting. It's okay to disagree with him, I usually do, but it's not like his word is scripture. He's just another guy stating his opinion. And it just so happens that his opinions generate a lot of discussion, which is something we're short on right now.
- CubanBuffet

Precisely. I agree with well over 90% of what Vantel says the Canucks need to be doing but still they are all just opinions. Many on here may not like what his posts say or how he posts, but ultimately I think we all want the same thing and that's a championship to come to Vancouver. Forums are what they are and no one is certainly gonna agree on everything.

Off topic, but in light of this week's earlier discussion about Rush...

I just realized that boybanders One Direction are playing at BC Place tonight as well as Rush being at the Arena.

If you're coming down, allow extra time for traffic issues and don't get too weirded out by all the screaming teenage girls. They didn't suddenly develop an appreciation for Neil Peart's drumming!

As soon as we sign Franson...Vantel will show.
- LordHumungous

I don't want Franson, I had thought Canucks wanted him. I want Canucks to save their Cap space and their draft picks. Next year Canucks have 15 mil off the books ( Vrbata Hamhuis Bartowski Weber and Prust) save that money and take a run at a high end UFA . Kings will be in tight to find a way to sign Kopitar, they will need to go all in. Stamkos is another big name . It would be nice for Canucks to have the money to at least try to make a legit offer for an impact player.

Higgins would make a good mentor for Comets and could extend his Career as a player assistant coach in his home state NY.

If Sven signed at 1.5 for two years and Higgins went down the difference would be 600 K .


Adam Ladd would be a great target next year . We are weak on the Left side

I don't want Franson, I had thought Canucks wanted him. I want Canucks to save their Cap space and their draft picks. Next year Canucks have 15 mil off the books ( Vrbata Hamhuis Bartowski Weber and Prust) save that money and take a run at a high end UFA . Kings will be in tight to find a way to sign Kopitar, they will need to go all in. Stamkos is another big name . It would be nice for Canucks to have the money to at least try to make a legit offer for an impact player.

Higgins would make a good mentor for Comets and could extend his Career as a player assistant coach in his home state NY.

If Sven signed at 1.5 for two years and Higgins went down the difference would be 600 K .
- VANTEL

Higgins has a Gillis contract, so he's got some kind of movement protection. Plus he's still got more than enough game to play in the NHL, just not top six minutes. He doesn't make crazy money. Good on the PK, etc.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if he's traded before the season starts, particularly if a couple of the kids look good at the Young Stars.

Here's a question:

If you could only keep one (or maybe I should say if you had to keep one), would you take Higgins or Hansen?

Here's a question:

If you could only keep one (or maybe I should say if you had to keep one), would you take Higgins or Hansen?
- CubanBuffet

Pains me to say it but Hansen. Hansen can work all four lines if need be. Higgins is a bonafide 3rd liner that is good on the PK.