SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Theflash9193

Canucks contenders
Member Since
Jun. 16, 2017
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
Forum Posts
158
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 7, 2018 at 10:25 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 30, 2017 at 4:04 p.m.
Thread: Signing UFA's to replace deadline TEARDOWN
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Theflash9193</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>DelZotto a second rounder? Especially could be 40th overall....C'mon. I doubt if Pittsburg or even the Leafs want those cap hits of Elder and Tanev in 2019. I'm sure the Sedins would only want to go a contender, and it's not the Habs.</div></div>


Gosh ur comment made me laugh

1) if del Zotto plays well next to Tanev which he will. A 2nd rounder at the deadline is realistic. Del Zotto is young as well

2) Edler for a conditional first is quite a nice deal. Its no secret Pittsburgh left side needs another top 4 guy. If they do win that 1st will basically be a 2nd anyways.

3) leafs fans know how good Tanev is and they would love to see Tanev and Reilly togther. Maybe id change the 2nd to conditional. But the first makes sense. Tanevs better than hamonic and Gudbranson and look what they got

4) Sedins would love a contender and since montreal has a Weber and price all they are missing is a top 6 cente and winger. Montreal is closer than u think they are just missing a top 6 centre.

If you don't watch hockey enough to know any of these why respond? ;)</div></div>

Yeah Flash, I don't think you are all that far off with the Toronto deal. Although I think it would have to happen before the start of the season, a first, along with a prospect, (Rychel, Nielsen, Lindberg, etc. ) or a pick (might have to be a 3rd or 4th) is probably about right. I do agree with Pal though, you'll never get a 2nd for Del Zotto, especially on a young team like NJ. Montreal trade is interesting, but I don't see them in the mix at the deadline so that might have to happen early. Aggressive ask!
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 12, 2017 at 1:28 a.m.
Thread: Oilers - Van
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nuxfan</b></div><div>If Vancouver decides to move Sutter it won’t be with retained salary... He put up 34 points playing on the third line, with not so great linemates and on a bad team...

Even without the retained salary this trade doesn’t make sense for Vancouver as trading these guys within the division will come with a steep price... Personally I would stay away from making trades with Edmonton as McDavid is driving up the value of the rest of his team which could have a negative impact on the player when traded as they may not be able to compete the same without McDavid</div></div>

Why do you speak so highly of Sutter. Sutters linemates is the only reason he even looks decent. He's a puck hog as shown thru his abilities to not pass to his team mates and that he barely has any primary assists or even assists in general for that matter. And for someone who hogs pucks, he's got bad shot generation. He's never had more than 19 assists to prove this. As a matter of fact he never had more than 40 pts. The former 1st round pick has played 9 seasons so it's safe to say he's a flop. Canucks a bad team excuse? He was still horrendous on Pittsburgh, which is a good team and won two cups in a row right after booting him. You also try an bring how he was a third liner but he got 2nd line ice time so that's not a valid argument. He's overpaid and would make a great salary dump.
The only reason it's a bad trade is because he included tanev which is canucks best defenseman. Hes a defensive d-man and one of the best because he's one of the best shot suppressors in the league. And defenseman are worth a lot now so he can get good return.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 13, 2017 at 4:23 p.m.
Thread: Oilers - Van
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nuxfan</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MajesticWalrus</b></div><div>

Why do you speak so highly of Sutter. Sutters linemates is the only reason he even looks decent. He's a puck hog as shown thru his abilities to not pass to his team mates and that he barely has any primary assists or even assists in general for that matter. And for someone who hogs pucks, he's got bad shot generation. He's never had more than 19 assists to prove this. As a matter of fact he never had more than 40 pts. The former 1st round pick has played 9 seasons so it's safe to say he's a flop. Canucks a bad team excuse? He was still horrendous on Pittsburgh, which is a good team and won two cups in a row right after booting him. You also try an bring how he was a third liner but he got 2nd line ice time so that's not a valid argument. He's overpaid and would make a great salary dump.
The only reason it's a bad trade is because he included tanev which is canucks best defenseman. Hes a defensive d-man and one of the best because he's one of the best shot suppressors in the league. And defenseman are worth a lot now so he can get good return.</div></div>

Sutter's main linemates this past season were fringe AHLer Megna who WD overplayed the entire season and Eriksson who had a forgettable first year in Vancouver, the twins who have regressed and Granlund who looked good this year... So he's had a mixture of linemates some of which who are good and some who aren't so good... This past season which was his best season in a long time... He came off of an injury plagued season and had an equal amount of goals and assists (7 primary and 10 secondary) (17G, 17A, 34P)... Playing with better linemates or by being utilized in the right situations he probably could have been closer to his career high in points... He might have been horrendous during his tenure in Pittsburgh but he was good during his time in Carolina and seems to be better in Vancouver than in Pittsburgh... On a healthy Canuck roster he is a third liner but he got second line ice-time due to injuries

When put into the right situation Sutter is a valuable hockey player... He shouldn't be on the 1st PP unit as it plays against many of his strengths... He has a hard and accurate shot but its not a quick release making him a poor trigger man... He isn't very effective in cycling the puck so he doesn't contribute to puck movement and quite frankly he's never been particularly good in front of the net... And yet he spent all of last season on that unit finishing third only behind the twins in PP ice-time...

He is effective on the PK however... His unblocked shot attempts when it comes to the PK only Eriksson allowed fewer against than Sutter among Canuck forwards... Among the 114 forwards who played at least 100 minutes at 5-on-4 last season Sutter and Eriksson were 32nd and 33rd in fenwick against per 60 minutes... This doesn't make him one of the best PKer's in the league by any means but suggests that he is good at the job...

Sutter does not look good at 5-on-5 at first glance... Among Canucks forwards with at least 450 5-on-5 minutes last season Sutter is better than only Jayson Megna when it comes to corsi percentage, fenwick percentage, and shots on goal percentage... When Sutter was on the ice, he was frequently stuck in the defensive zone... Even when you take into account that he started a lot of his shifts in the defensive zone, his inability to gain possession of the puck and move it up ice stands out... And yet when you look at the line combos, two of the lines he played on where among the Canucks' best in puck possession last season (that may be a surprise when realize that one of those linemates were Jayson Megna)... When Sutter played with Megna and Markus Granlund, they were an excellent shutdown line in terms of preventing shot attempts, but also put up decent numbers offensively, resulting in a 54.59% corsi percentage in over 118 minutes together as a line... Right behind them is the line of Sutter, Eriksson, and Granlund, who put up a 52.43% corsi percentage in 171+ minutes together...

You might have noticed something about those two combinations, however: Markus Granlund... There’s a strong argument to be made that Granlund drives puck possession... Every Canucks forward that played more than 40 minutes at 5-on-5 with Granlund last season posted a better corsi percentage with him than without him... And yet, Granlund posted his best corsi percentage not with the Sedins, but with Sutter and Megna, despite starting a lot more in the defensive zone with the latter linemates... With that in mind, it seems clear that Sutter can thrive at 5-on-5, but only if he’s matched with a winger that can drive puck possession... That certainly limits his usefulness, but it doesn’t negate it entirely... His ability to win faceoffs, skate with the puck in transition, and shoot off the rush makes him a useful complementary player...

<strong>Sutter was surprisingly effective when it came to passing. He had the second highest rate of primary shot assists behind Henrik Sedin, ie. the pass leading directly to a shot on goal.</strong>

He was also not far behind Bo Horvat when it came to Dangerous Scoring Chances: shots after passes across the slot or from behind the net... Sutter was sixth on the team behind the Sedins, Granlund, Eriksson, and Horvat... That data suggests that Sutter might not be as bad a passer as the eye test might suggest, while also placing him firmly into a third-line role behind the more effective forwards ahead of him... That sounds about right... Essentially, my defence of Sutter is this: if you place him in a possession to succeed — on the third-line with possession-driving wingers, on the penalty kill, and on the bench during power plays — he can be an effective centre... Put him in situations for which he is ill-suited — on the first line with the Sedins, on the top power play unit, or with mediocre wingers — he will look absolutely atrocious</div></div>

What you say is totally inaccurate and just shows that you don't watch the games and look at the stats. First of all granlund played with the Sedins mostly until he got injured then it was always megna and chaput with sedins. Sutter would play with eriksson who desjardin didn't like. AND he didn't even want to put him with the sedins even before the preseason which was basically a big fat rebellious I don't care that you think he'll be good with the sedins to Jim benning. Eriksson had a bad season because like all canucks, he was forced to play strictly defense and the coach didn't like him and he was playing with Sutter. Boucher who is still a well liked prospect by most gms and Goldobin who is also a good prospect also sadly had play with Sutter.

Canucks are better off without him?

Oje of his many issues is he is not a play making center. His unique ability to not pass to his teammates allows him to barely have any primary assists or even assists in general for that matter. And for someone who does this, you'd expect them to take a lot of shots. Although he has bad shot generation. You might feel it is because Canucks were a bad team last year. But he was still playing the same game in Carolina and Pittsburgh which is a good team. Jordan Staal played 6 season with the Pens and went to the Finals twice and won the Cup once. Penguins then traded Sutter for Staal in June of 2012. Sutter and the Pens made the playoffs but never came close to becoming successful in their quest for the Cup. Sutter was then traded in July of 2015 for Bonino. The Pens won two cups in a row after this. Nick Bonino played one season with the Canucks which was in 14-15, where they made the playoffs, unlike the season prior. Since getting rid of Bonino for Sutter,  Canucks have placed 2nd &amp; 3rd LAST IN THE LEAGUE.

He's never had more than 19 assists to prove this. As a matter of fact he has never had more than 40 pts. The former 1st round pick has played 9 seasons so is it safe to say he is a flop? In my opinion, he is A GIANT FLOP. Some might say,  "cut him some slack,  he was a third liner" so maybe a change of scenery could help his value. But how true is this? He averaged 2nd line ice time last year with above average 3rd line ice time in the years prior-- this is partly because he plays on the PK.

Here's a look at how Brandon Sutter, Jordan Staal, and Nick Bonino compare to the average 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line NHL centers

<a href="https://68.media.tumblr.com/68fe2ef6803561c1f922ec9cb950fc96/tumblr_ouleg6q3va1wy2ucno1_400.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://68.media.tumblr.com/68fe2ef6803561c1f922ec9cb950fc96/tumblr_ouleg6q3va1wy2ucno1_400.jpg</a>

He's overpaid and would make a great salary dump. He makes 4.4 million dollars-- a raise given to him by Vancouver for who knows what reason (previosly made 3.3 million). Seemed to be a trend with older canuck contracts like Sbisa, Dorsett, Hutton, and up front paying Erikson 6 million. Good news though is that they seem to have improved by not signing gagner to 6 million or not overpaying Del Zotto or Nilsson and especially not Burmistrov or Gaunce. Bozak makes 4.2 which is probably not the greatest comparison because Bozak is offensive and Sutter is supposed to be defensive. Although I would still compare and say Bozak is better than Sutter because for a defensive guy, Sutter has had horrible shot suppression numbers and seems to only have goal scoring and face off win percentage as his upside. Bozak's best season was in 13-14 where he had a 69 pts pace and he's cheaper than Sutter. Kucherov is on a 4.7 million contract with a season best of 85 pts. Anisimov has a 4.5 million contract with a 57 pts pace as his best season. Nick Bonino makes 4.1 million with a 52 pts pace season best. Sutter's best season for points pace would have got him 45 pts which was his second year in Carolina.