Canucks Cut 5 More Players
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 2:25 PM PDT
in Preseason
Email
Print(Tip of the ol' hat to Missy and Beantown Canuck for the discovery)
The following players have been sent to Manitoba:
-Michael Grabner
-Cory Schneider
-Mario Bliznak
-Alexandre Bolduc
-Matt Pope
The CDC article mentions 8 players, but we already knew that Baumgartner, Desbiens and McIver were put on waivers days ago. They have obviously cleared the waiver wire.
Obviously the biggest disappointments there are Grabner and Schneider. I really thought they had a chance to make the jump after their monster seasons in the AHL last year.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So Hodgson survives another round of cuts. Seems like he’s going to start the season up here. Why not make all the necessary cuts now, instead of running them out through the week?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
Maybe they’re still getting drunk and trying to make a decision about him. Maybe they are having a meeting with Hodgson and roughing him up a little.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
If he gets send to the juniors, is he eligible for the AHL in February when he turns 20 or does he have to wait?
I think he’d have to wait, but I have no evidence of that.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
they’re probably still very deep in analysis of hogson right now.
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
haha… the g is the letter you can skip
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, Sean, sending down Baumgartner, McIver and Desbiens IS news. Because before they were waived in order to be able to send them to the Moose. Declaring that they have been assigned to Manitoba means that they have passed waivers without being picked up (I think). So this is good news! We get to hold on to some depth in the farm.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 2:33 PM PDT reply actions
I can’t believe Facepalm is the back-up. My liver is in for a world of hell this year.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
I’m pretty sure who the backup is not a crucial factor as to whether this team will succeed or fail this year!
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
didn't you read
Tom Benjamin’s article on the situation?
It does Schneider no good to sit on the bench for 65-70 games while Luongo plays.
When Luongo needs a rest, Schneider comes up and plays a couple games.
All Suckroft does is open the gate.
"Life is just a place where we spend time between games. Hockey is where we live, where we can best meet and overcome pain and wrong and death." - Fred Shero
by Karina on Sep 28, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I think that may be somewhat of a possibility, but the ball’s in Raycroft’s court now based on preseason performance in my opinion.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
With all due respect to Tom, I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. If Luongo needs a rest, Facepalm is going in. He did have a better preseason than Schneider and AV seems to trust him. If Luongo goes down with a significant injury, that’s something different…but for now Raycroft is a roster player and beat out Schneider, something I don’t think many were anticipating.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions
that is bad.
Very, very bad.
"Life is just a place where we spend time between games. Hockey is where we live, where we can best meet and overcome pain and wrong and death." - Fred Shero
by Karina on Sep 29, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
They have obviously cleared the waiver wire.
Obviously the biggest disappointments there are Grabner and Schneider. I really thought they had a chance to make the jump after their monster seasons in the AHL last year.
You’re starting to sound like a NHL player with the excessive use of the word “obviously”.
haha! yup! Hey at least I avoid cliches
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
http://www.team1040.ca/news/story/?id=2449
The Canucks, as expected, kept Sergei Shirokov, Cody Hodgson, Tanner Glass, and Aaron Rome with the big club, after cutting eight more players Monday.
The move leaves the team with 29 players on their pre-season roster.
A final roster of 23 must be declared by Wednesday, which is the day before the regular season opens. However, the Canucks have four injured players, who don’t count in the 23 players.
The injured Canucks are: Pavol Demitra (shoulder), Jannik Hansen (broken hand) and defencemen Mathieu Schneider (shoulder) and Lawrence Nycholat.
Looks like they only have to cut two more players… unless someone gets injured in the weightroom ;)
i say send hodgson back to brampton and glass to manitoba. rome can be our 7th or 8th defenceman, and shirokov belongs in the top 6.
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
no that’s cutting too many… there is one spot left for glass or hodgson right now, or you can keep both and cut either rome or luko… those are our option i think. i’m trying to figure out who is left that needs to be cut!
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I am starting to feel like I am in the minority here about Hodgson but I think we need to keep him in town. For two reasons actually. First of all I don’t think we know what he can do yet. He isn’t back to his best since the back injury and so we haven’t seen if he can really play at this level. Secondly, I feel like his potential is too high to risk losing him for a whole year. Once he is back in Brampton we don’t see him again. That’s my understanding anyway. If we think we have a team capable of a cup run then a guy with the ability to score 50-60 points as a rookie and perhaps even contribute in the playoffs is too valuable to let go. Someone posted earlier on one of the threads that Hodgson isn’t a 3-4th line type guy. But you would have said the same about Kyle Wellwood. I think Hodgson could do a similar job to what Wellwood does. Playing a good defensive game and being responsible while also chipping in offensively and helping the PP. Maybe I am wrong but that’s how I feel about it right now.
by Section 312 on Sep 28, 2009 4:16 PM PDT reply actions
If we think we have a team capable of a cup run then a guy with the ability to score 50-60 points as a rookie
Yeah, that point range now seems to be asking a lot from Hodgson. It would have to be a complete turnaround for him to get even close to those point totals.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
He was talking not that long ago about not having that explosiveness that he wanted. Maybe once he gets back to 100 percent in terms of his overall game then we will see more from him? I think he is more Jonathan Toews than he is Kyle Turris.
by Section 312 on Sep 28, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed, and to add to that, I think the danger to Hodgson is in losing 2+ years, not just 1.
If we send him down now, then we’re saying that we don’t think it was injuries that held him back (otherwise we wouldn’t have sent him down), it’s just that he’s not good enough.
But down in Brampton he’s not really gonna progress, so come next year we bring him in to camp again, he hasn’t progressed, and he has to go for a year or more to the Moose. That’s really the situation we’re in: if Cody ain’t ready he probably ain’t ready for at least two years. So we better be sure it wasn’t just an injury that held him back this year, esp a short-term one.
10-12 minutes a game sounds like enough to see what he can do, or at least to see if he’s improving, as one would expect as an injury heals.
I still suspect he had an injury that slowed him down but that now is turning into a mental block. I guess we’ll see, cuz I expect that Gillis will want to be as sure as he can be before making a decision, and will give CH some more games to sink or swim.
I couldn’t agree more casual. I made the same point on this site a couple weeks ago. I compared it to Luc Bourdon who regressed a lot when he went back to junior. The problem is they dominate and don’t really have to try so not only are they not developing as fast because they aren’t playing against better players but they are also developing bad habits. The junior route costs us Hodgson for 2 years. The thing is, if we are legitimate cup contenders we might need a guy who can score a bit and help the PP a 60 point guy and since we can’t have Hodgson fill, or try to fill, that role we will need to trade for it. And guess what? If Hodgson is 2 years away and we are threatening a cup this year then he becomes trade bait. I would trade Hodgson for a cup but I would rather keep him and win one (obviously). I don’t want to see the Canucks screw this prospect up and right now my gut tells me sending him down would do more harm than good.
by Section 312 on Sep 28, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I am totally behind you Section 312
I say keep Cody sit him in the press box for a few games and let him fully recover. Then give him a real tryout if you fails that off he goes. His record coming into camp has earned a good long look. It is in the best interest of the team.
I think that makes Glass the odd man out for now.
Sedin-Sedin-Burrows +
Sammy-Kes-Shirok+
Bernier-Welly-Raymond+
Hordi-Johnson-Ripper+
Bieksa-Mitchell+
Salo-Edler+
SOB-Erhoff+
Luongo+
Raycroft
=20 player starting roster
+three of the following four:
Rome, Lukowich, Glass, CoHo
=23 player active roster
+Hansen
+M Schneids
+Nycholat
+Demo
=27 players we can keep around as a result of injuries
leftover is:
-the player left out from above
-Funk
=29
So the ONLY real issue left is:
Get rid of CoHo or get rid of Glass. Unless you want to keep 7 d-men and two extra forwards. Which could be an option, but I don’t think it will be. In which case the issue is Rome or Luko.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 4:22 PM PDT reply actions
…or MG could have some trade up his sleeve, of course.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s what I think has to happen yet.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
A trade is possible but doubtful
I think it is pretty obvious at this point that being over the cap and working the Injury Reserve rule is way that Gillis has intended to go from the start. I mentioned this about 10 days ago ………………….. but hey eventually there will be trade and you claim victory Nucks and Bean :)
Well yeah, he just bought himself an extra month with Schneider and Demitra
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions
And Hansen injured too was the surprise. With Hansen healthy, someone was definitely going to be lost to waivers. Without Hansen, the only player at risk is Glass, and that’s only if the team chooses CoHo over him.
And I’m starting to agree with the argument to keep CoHo. You pro-CoHo folks have convinced me! Because Glass quite frankly is not important to this team once Hansen and Demo are back (again barring trade). CoHo definitely is important to the future of this team. Keep him as a 13th man. Rest him the first 2-3 games. Whomever from our top 3 lines is under performing at that point, make them sit in the press box and put CoHo in for a few games. Reassess at the 9 game mark, and presumably then he will be sent down. At which point Demo or Hansen may be close to being back, so we’re back to 13 forwards shortly.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
This
http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=72654
is the guy some want to give the shot to over Hodgson?
Don’t we have enough borderline NHLers in the lineup?
I’ll give the chance to a potential difference maker every time.
Thank you for posting that. I do not understand the obsession with Glass at all. He’s (as far as I can tell) a limited pedigree version of Jannik Hansen.
Don’t we have enough borderline NHLers in the lineup?
Hold on now. I don’t see a single borderline player in the lineup any more at all. Everyone deserves to be there and in the NHL. This is not Dave Nonis Canucks circa 2006. We don’t have mediocre crap like Steve McCarthy or Rory Fitzpatrick or Marc Chuinard or Tommy Santala or Jan Bulis or Brad Isbister or Byron Ritchie anywhere in this lineup.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Really?
You’re saying it would shock you to see any of the following (from the projected lineup) end up in the AHL/the 4th line of any NHL team over the course of the next season or so?
Johnson
Hordichuk
Rypien
Raymond
Hansen
Wellwood
Bernier
Shirokov
To me, each of those guys has either not yet earned the title of bonafide NHLer, or has as much a chance of being a 4th liner as anything else, and for me that defines borderline NHLer.
Point being that for sure none can be considered a sure top 6 forward, or even have more of a reasonable chance of ever being one than Hodgson does, based on trajectory alone, probably only Shirokov has as good potential.
That’s what I mean.
I’m willing to bet that any of those players would be picked up if we waive them. They are all easily better than other players on some of the weaker team, and all better than each of the past players I mentioned. What does anyone else think? I really think there is no one on this team who would be out of the NHL if it the Canucks would let them go.*
*Rypien and Hordi are bruisers, mind you, and all teams need bruisers. I don’t really count bruisers as real players. They have one purpose and are not to be confused with players who are meant to contribute in some sort of skill aspect (whether it be defensive or offensive).
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions
No, not one of those guys is going to Manitoba
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Raymond, Wellwood, Shirokov could be top 6 guys
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s a really big “could”. Sorry Sean but there is no way that Raymond or Wellwood are ever top 6 guys in this league. Bernier doesn’t make the grade in my opinion either and I don’t think any of them will get to that level.
by Section 312 on Sep 28, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not saying they couldn't ever be top 6 guys
I’m saying it’s not real likely at this point, just based on trajectory of each’s career.
So
if you had to bet money that each of those guys would be full-time NHLers (assuming they stay healthy) for the next 2 years, how much would you put on it?
Would you have bet the start of two seasons ago that Markus Naslund would be out of the league today? Two years is a long time in hockeyland, I don’t see the value of such speculation within the context of this discussion. I don’t think it has any impact on the central argument. My point is that every player on the Canucks current roster (with the agreed upon possible exception of hordi who is just a generic bruiser) would not be able to pass through waivers and would probably have at least a half dozen other teams willing to open up roster spots for them.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:05 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
…and I don’t think that has been true for the Canucks in many-a-year if ever before.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:06 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think you are
overestimating the abilities of some of those borderline NHLers.
This team has no more depth up front than most other Nuck teams, and more to my point, the depth of quality top 6 forwards is actually lacking.
Big deal
that doesn’t make them not borderline NHLers.
Decent players get waived all the time, some even don’t get picked up. I’m not saying they aren’t decent players, I’m saying decent players are a dime a dozen, blue chip prospects are anything but.
hahaha
@yoata: Give me the odds. That’s a lot of names. Take Hordichuk off and I may bet my left nut you fucker :)
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions
ha!
Only when they are banging off your chin!
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 28, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Again, not my point
Point is, none, except perhaps Shirokov, who has played as many NHL games as Hodgson, is likely to be a top 6 forward, that Hodgson should be.
And btw, Nonis is hardly alone in longshot lottery projects, Davison, Krog, Vaananen, Ouellet ring any bells?
Not a single one of those was signed to be a first string player. Benchwarmers all. Compare to the list I gave you.
Next point please.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 28, 2009 11:57 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
lol, you remember these guys being signed as first stringers???
Steve McCarthy or Rory Fitzpatrick or Marc Chuinard or Tommy Santala or Jan Bulis or Brad Isbister or Byron Ritchie
Definition of first stringer: somebody signed to be a part of your line up when everyone is healthy. So, yes.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:08 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Borderline?
To me, each of those guys has either not yet earned the title of bonafide NHLer, or has as much a chance of being a 4th liner as anything else, and for me that defines borderline NHLer.
Just to be clear: you think a 4th liner is the definition of a borderline NHLer? That is flat-out wrong. A “borderline” NHLer is one that can’t quite stick, and spends time going back and forth throughout their career. You know – a player that straddles the border between the NHL and AHL.
Johnson = 609 NHL games since 1997-1998, would be claimed immediately if placed on waivers.
Hordichuk = 375 NHL games since 2000-2001. I DARE you to tell me Hodgson should take his job… 8)
Rypien = Borderline NHLer, though as much for personal demons as anything else.
Raymond = 121 NHL games in 2 seasons as a 24 year old. Would be claimed by 29 teams if placed on waivers.
Hansen = Borderline player on Vancouver, starter on at least a dozen other teams.
Wellwood = 262 NHL games in last 4 seasons.
Bernier = 258 NHL games in 5 seasons.
Shirokov = Send him to the minors and be fired within the hour.
None of the players there would make it down to the AHL if waived. None. In what possible way are they to be considered “borderline” players?
If you'd read
anything I’d said you’d know in what way I meant them as “borderline NHLers”
To me, anybody you wouldn’t bet on being a full-time NHLer for the next 2 seasons is borderline, and I wouldn’t bet money on any of those guys I listed.
Only reason one might with Bernier is because of the deal Gillisgan gave him but I think it’s quite possible he’ll regret it.
And you’re damn right I’d give Hordichuk’s spot to Hodgson, I’d give it to Hansen too.
You'd give Hordichuk's spot to Hodgson,
…but not his job. That requires rather different talents than the young man possesses.
Hate to disagree on a whole other level
but yes, 4th liners are in fact borderline NHLers, their hold on an NHL roster is tenuous at best and they are the most likely to lose their job to the next gen of talent, some may be there on their way up, but any that languish too long at that level are typically not long for the big league, therefore, borderline NHLer.
I disagree.
I think their status for this year is far more important than what may or may not happen next year. Anyone who is a better player this year, and is playing this year, and will play for the entire year, is an NHLer by any definition. I think a better definition of a borderline player is one that is a 7th defenseman/13th forward.
I think our disagreement is as much a matter of tense as anything else: future vs. present. 8)
Problem with line 4 is that they only play 5:00 per game.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
