Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 6:41 AM PST Comment 19 comments

With about 50 plus hours to go until the deadline (not that I'm counting), it helps to look back at the colossal fail that was last year's deadline for Vancouver. Granted, the team was sputtering for so many reasons that a Hossa here or a Campbell there may not have saved them, but tossing one third liner for another, in part, ultimately cost Donuts his comfy gig and did nothing to help this team's post season bid.

So as we wait and scour wire services for anything resembling a noteworthy trade, just remember that Vancouver now has one too many defensemen and far too many slumping forwards. Add in a tight playoff race, the pending contract issues with the Sedins, Ohlund and Burrows and the shot in the dark that was the Mats Sundin acquisition and it paints a picture of a team that will do something. Like it or not, you're staring at a Canucks team built to win now and this is the last chance they have at adding a missing piece.

We can only hope that, come tomorrow, that something isn't another a Pettinger-level move. We'd be better recalling half of Manitoba if that's the best that's left out there once the tradeline dust settles.

Also, you still have time to get your ideas in for our deadline contest. Own up.

Some other morning news and notes:

- O'Brien's comment to the ref after his fight with Dorsett last night, "Just hold me up for a second and let me catch my breath."

- It's a shame he's going to leave because Ohlund is now one point shy of tying the franchise record for points by a defenseman (321) currently shared by both Jyrki Lumme and Dennis Kearns.

- Speaking of Ohlund, the HG went on record as saying Mats had the black plague. He set up Kesler's goal a few seconds later (which is totally fine because I do that before every Salo goal).

- A Vancouver win tomorrow night and a Chicago loss would pull the Canucks within five points of fourth place and six points of Calgary (and obviously a Vancouver win will continue to keep the Wild out of the playoffs all together...joy of joys!).

- Tom Benjamin takes a look at Pudge's attitude.

- Tell your mom: net-banging is funny.

- And finally - mining the depths of the CDC for your amusement - comes a question about the third star of last night's game: Is Johnson Bionic?

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What do you define as note-worthy? A top 6? Or a better bottom-6 than Matt Pettinger?

by Sean Zandberg on Mar 2, 2009 7:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well, anything. But I stand by the idea that Kesler and Burrows will be called upon at some point to return to shutdown status so a top 6 guy. Doesn’t have to be the pick of the litter, but I recognize there’s less of a chance of this happening. So if we’re going bottom six and just collecting spare parts, then preferably someone better Pettinger. I recognize he was coming off an injury plagued season but that’s also the same reason I’d stay away from someone like Tim Connolly.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 7:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that rather than trying for a top-6 which is a shot in the dark w.r.t. success, the team should go shopping for defense first type forwards and create a new shut-down line.

The two I’d go for are (note the pie in the sky wishful thinking):
Joel Ward – Nashville
Daniel Winnik – Phoenix

Obviously someone like Mark Recchi is a good option, but it’s still a gamble whether he’ll fit in or not. I think there are fewer potential chemistry issues with a pure shutdown forward than with point producers.

by rsm on Mar 2, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s not a bad idea either (going with a Selke mentality while shopping), but I fear what happens if this team hits a scoring rut. That’s where I don’t mind a bottom six guy who we know is a clear upgrade to the likes of Pyatt. Get an upgrade there coupled with a Ward player and I’d be happy; both are missing pieces, both can be considered upgrades and both beat a Pettinger-esque lateral move.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You can’t guard against scoring ruts. They happen, they are a fact of life. The best way, in my mind, to guard against it is to make sure you don’t have to score too many. If you only have to score two goals a game to win (Louie, shutdown line, no penalties, Sedins with puck possession) then you’re pretty well guarded against ruts.

If you can’t score two goals in a game you are either up against a goalie with hot hands or don’t deserve to win. As LT (and a bunch of people doing number crunching repeatedly like to point out) 1 goal games are essentially random crapshoots as to who wins – luck is such a huge factor when the margin is that small.

by rsm on Mar 2, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you only have to score two goals a game to win (Louie, shutdown line, no penalties, Sedins with puck possession) then you’re pretty well guarded against ruts.

Louie can surrender a bad goal, we have no shutdown line, we do take bad penalties (though it’s getting better) and relying on the Sedins has gotten us in trouble in the past (isn’t that why Sundin is here?). Every team guards against scoring ruts, that’s one of the reasons we hear things like “puck-moving defensemen” thrown around so often before a deadline. This team in particular has to guard against it; if we’re relying on the Sedins cycling that’s scary (and they are far from lights out in the playoffs.)

Also Sammy Pahlsson is a UFA to be and was (obviously) a good shutdown guy in the past. Though he has his own set of injuries, we do have a burgeoning Scandinavian enclave at this point.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I say we let the enclave keep on burgeoning. Remember which countries were in that gold medal game in 2006? Have we ever had a Swede or Finn (or Dane) who didn’t live up to expectations?

by Beantown Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s our goal to make Don Cherry’s head explode.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I likey replying to myself

From the Globe a few moments ago is this piece on Smyth possibly coming to Vancouver. Not that I think it has a snow ball’s chance in hell of happening, but note this paragraph:

In the short term, Smyth would allow the Canucks to either return Ryan Kesler or Alex Burrows to a third-line checking role, or fill it himself. In the top six forwards, Smyth would either play alongside the Sedin twins or Mats Sundin and Pavol Demitra.

That’s more or less what I was getting at. Allowing Kes/Burrows to return to the third line if need be OR have that individual play on the third line but be able to play increased minutes with Sundin or the Sedins if necessary.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll take Ryan Smyth anyday. But I read that he doesn’t want to leave Colorado and has a NTC

by Sean Zandberg on Mar 2, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here is the link to that story. Ryan Smyth is not going anywhere.

by Sean Zandberg on Mar 2, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would avoid Connolly too.
You think Kes and Burr will get demoted? That’s questionable. Burrows has the Sedins cycling less now and he’s clutch. Why change that?
I’m more concerned about Demitra’s ability to stay healthyl

by Sean Zandberg on Mar 2, 2009 8:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see it as a demotion as much as I see it as a tactic. Like see what AV says here…Kes and Burrows are the catalysts. And that’s fine, but Columbus is one thing, the Wings and Sharks of the world are something else. So if they need to return to being shutdown guys for a game (or a series) what happens then? Both the top two lines will be hurt. Or let’s say Kes or Burrows gets injured. etc etc. So it’s not a demotion as much as it’s just another choice for AV or injury insurance. Someone who can play on the third line or jump up to the second (first?) if necessary.

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 8:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not at all worried about Burrows contract. I think that one will be hammered out when it needs to be. The team and player are probably not far apart in the first place. Sedins… we’ll see. I think their agent is more of a problem in the talks than they are. Everything I read about him screams hyperbole and moon shots.

Ohlund… would be nice to see him back, but he’d have to take a significant discount above and beyond the NTC he’d probably get to be able to stay. This is where Vancouver can help out the team because it is a nice place to live… makes that discount a fraction more likely.

by rsm on Mar 2, 2009 8:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I’m down with rebuilding the checking line:
In that case, I’ll take:
Mark Recchi (to shift from line 3 to the top 6 whenever we feel like it, or when Demitra gets injured)
Dominic Moore (to stay in the bottom 6)

by Sean Zandberg on Mar 2, 2009 8:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why Moore? He’s a C, and we’ve got Centers coming out the yin-yang. Also the obvious ironies of having Moore’s brother in a Canucks uniform… I can see that going over real well at family dinners.

by rsm on Mar 2, 2009 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey he’s in Toronto with our old GM and Brad May. How much worse can Vancouver be now that no one (save for Ohlund and the Sedins) are still around from that time?

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.

by Yankee Canuck on Mar 2, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs