It's About Time We Start Talking about Ryan Stanton

Dimitri Filipovic
November 04 2013 11:52AM


Ryan Stanton is loving life right now, and making Mike Gillis look real smart. [Image via Timothy Ludwig]

If you live in or around Vancouver you know that the majority of the summer around here was spent verbally eviscerating the job Mike Gillis was doing running their favourite team. It wasn't fair for the most part given the way the lowered cap had tied his hands, but still, it was hard not to look around and see teams getting better while the Canucks were standing pat. That anger was only exacerbated by the four game sweep at the hands of the Sharks that had put a bow on a rather miserable lockout shortened campaign. 

By hook or by crook the Canucks had lost Derek Roy, Mason Raymond, Max Lapierre, Keith Ballard, and Andrew Ebbett (all of whom had contributed to the team in some way, shape, or form). They ultimately replaced those guys with the following list of players, which I mockingly tweeted out back on September 30th. It's safe to say that I wasn't overly optimistic about the way the roster was constructed heading into opening night.

Obviously five weeks later, myself and many others have been made to look silly by a team that has managed to go 10-5-1 despite a series of unfortunate events. Even Lemony Snicket couldn't have made this stuff up. Their best players can be thanked for the success, no doubt, but it's hard not to appreciate what three of the players on that aforementioned list - Mike Santorelli, Brad Richardson, and Ryan Stanton - have brought to the table. We all know about Santorelli's accomplishments by now. And Richardson has done a fine job moving around the bottom-6 and contributing on the penalty kill. 

But it's quite possible that the best acquisition of the summer was the one that Mike Gillis made just a day before the preseason, and that was bringing in undrafted AHL veteran Ryan Stanton. Read on past the jump for more on the unsung defenseman that will finally get his due.

Let's get to know Ryan Stanton, first. Here are some fun facts about him that you may not have known:

a) He may or may not have played a supporting role in the Harry Potter franchise, portraying Neville Longbottom. I'd go into more detail in explaining that character, but I have this weird hunch that a large chunk of our readers are more than aware of who he is.

Fine.. he didn't actually appear in that movie, but it's pretty clear that we've found his celebrity doppelganger. It's actor Matthew Lewis, shown below:


(s/t to @wholegrainne)

b) When you search all people for "Chicago Blackhawks" on Twitter, Stanton's Twitter is the 24th account to come up on the list. He doesn't really tweet that much, but he did deliver this gem back in June of former teammate Andrew Shaw doing, well, Andrew Shaw things (if you feel nauseous following the viewing of this image, don't blame me!). In case you're wondering about the 4 at the end of his handle, it's the number he wore back in his Junior and AHL days. 

c) He's not the only Ryan Stanton born in the 80's that plays hockey professionally. If you're ever in England, get away from the rain by going to the rink for an English Premier Ice Hockey League involving the Telford Tigers. Think of all of the Ryan Stanton references you can make that absolutely no one around you will get!

d) It's hard not to get behind a guy that has mixed it up with both Ben Eager and Zack Stortini in the past. The shit-eating grin he's sporting towards the end of that Stortini clip is amazing. I honestly had no idea that Stanton had the ability to tussle that he does until I went on Youtube, but he does. Check out this clip of him feeding Brayden Schenn back in their WHL days.

e) According to Stats.HockeyAnalysis.com, Ryan Stanton's most common partner at 5v5 is Kevin Bieksa. They've only played just over 57 minutes together, but the evidence is beginning to stack up that they've been, against all odds, the team's most effective defensive pairing. I'm not joking. Check out the numbers of the most commonly used pairings for the Canucks through 16 games:

Pairing GF/60 GA/60 CF%
Ryan Stanton & Kevin Bieksa 5.253 0.00 57.9
Dan Hamhuis & Chris Tanev 4.293 2.862 55.1
Alex Edler & Jason Garrison 0.825 4.125 43.4

Good god, the Garrison/Edler pairing has been a trainwreck. Let's pretend that I didn't write a long piece towards the end of the summer suggesting that John Tortorella should use them together, okay? Dan Hamhuis struggled quite mightily (even though the numbers may not have suggested as much) early on, but since being paired with Tanev he has really started to find his game again. Just ask the Maple Leafs

The Bieksa/Stanton pairing has been simply remarkable, though. After a really forgettable season last year, Bieksa seems to have found a good fit for his style in Stanton, who seems to hardly ever make a mistake. Despite having started just 41.6% and 46.8% of their shifts in the offensive zone, respectively, the pair has yet to be on the ice for a goal against at 5v5!

As a result they're both sporting rather high on-ice save%'s - and therefore, high PDOs - and that'll probably regress, but even if it does the way in which the team is controlling possession and generating offense while they're out there leads me to believe that they're kind of for real. 

A 6th defenseman doesn't initially seem to be that important, but after having sat through a season which featured the stylings of Andrew Alberts and the artist formerly known as Cam Barker, I think Canucks fans can surely appreciate the value of a defenseman that won't hurt the team's cause. Especially one that's making $550k, and allows the team's best defense prospect - one Frank Corrado - to spend some time logging big minutes in the AHL. Look around the league and you'll see plenty a depth defenseman that has no business being in the NHL routinely playing.

I have to give credit where it's due, because Kyle was one of the only people I personally saw that liked Ryan Stanton before it was cool. Maybe he should be writing about the Canucks, because he obviously saw something that your favourite blogs certainly didn't

7482b25b962fb1661ea9028fb4e0db36
Dimitri Filipovic writes about hockey on the internet, and is the Managing Editor of Canucks Army. You can follow him on Twitter @DimFilipovic, and email him at dimitri.filipovic@gmail.com.
Avatar
#1 PB
November 04 2013, 12:06PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
7
props

Stanton is an outstanding find. I'm surprised that another team didn't jump the Canucks on the waiver wire claim. But I'm not sure how this works before the season begins -- I know once it's started it's based on standings on number of points earned versus possible. I wonder if it was having seen Stanton play with Rockford vs the Wolves that allowed the Canucks to get a read on him. I'd take him over Kostka (the reason he was waived) any day. And while Stanton is an AHL "veteran", he's still only 24, so a nice possible transition piece as Bieksa gets older.

Avatar
#2 Matt
November 04 2013, 12:50PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

Wow, Edler / Garrison's numbers are shockingly bad. Maybe we'll be seeing Hamhuis/Garrison and Edler/Tanev pairings in the near future?

Avatar
#3 5mintuesinthebox
November 04 2013, 01:04PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

@PB

Nice one Kyle. He literally sits right behind me at work (Kyle not Ryan Stanton), and is probably the only one here who knows the Canucks like I do. Kyle is also an expert in all things Warhammer 40k related, has more hair than any person probably should, and has lost almost as many pounds as I weigh.

Quality individual...

Avatar
#4 NM00
November 04 2013, 01:32PM
Trash it!
26
trashes
Props
5
props

"If you live in or around Vancouver you know that the majority of the summer around here was spent verbally eviscerating the job Mike Gillis was doing running their favourite team. It wasn't fair for the most part given the way the lowered cap had tied his hands"

I must have missed the addendum in the new CBA that stated "the salary cap will only going down $6 million for the Vancouver Canucks."

"By hook or by crook the Canucks had lost Derek Roy, Mason Raymond, Max Lapierre, Keith Ballard, and Andrew Ebbett (all of whom had contributed to the team in some way, shape, or form)."

I assume Cory Schneider was left out by accident...

"Obviously five weeks later, myself and many others have been made to look silly by a team that has managed to go 10-5-1 despite a series of unfortunate events."

Please. The record is a mirage that will be corrected in the next 5 intradivision games.

11 of the 16 games have been played against the inferior conference and the Canucks are not the only western team beating up on the east...

Don't be surprised if the team is 5th in the division in two weeks and battling for the playoffs with Anaheim & Phoenix for the rest of the year.

Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli have all been stellar.

And I'll gladly give the GM I wanted fired credit for finding 3 good bullpen pieces.

But let's not go insane.

These 3 players are not going to scare LA or SJ in the 1st round.

And that's if the Canucks don't get squeezed out of a playoff spot by Anaheim or Phoenix.

The Gillis apolgists would do well to point out the contributions of Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli without losing touch with reality...

Avatar
#5 GeezMoney
November 04 2013, 02:19PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
6
props

@NM00

Did you think they were going to beat St. Louis shorthanded at the end of a long road trip? No. I would suggest that the fait accompli that they will lose five of their next six is a little on the pessimistic side.

Stanton has been a gem. You won't count on him to lead the defense in the playoffs (if he is, just turn off you TV and take in some amazing spring activities) but he is exactly what you want from a #6: no nonsense, easy passing and tough to play against.

That is proper depth.

Avatar
#6 NM00
November 04 2013, 02:50PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
4
props

@GeezMoney

I never said the Canucks will lose 5 games in a row.

But expect the control of play and W-L record to look a lot different against the good intradivision teams specifically and the western conference in general.

I agree that Stanton has been a solid #6 defenseman.

But Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli don't need to be an after the fact "I told you so!" about Gillis and his competence as general manager...

Let's not forget about Ballard, Alberts & Barker as #6 dmen.

And let's not forget about Hodgson, Schroeder, Pahlsson, Lapierre & Roy as 3lCs since Manny went down...

The best part about these 3 players is that the Canucks (hopefully) won't waste assets on another rental in March.

However, there still isn't a logical reason to expect the Canucks to get out of the 1st round this season...

Avatar
#7 Ted
November 04 2013, 03:03PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
2
props
NM00 wrote:

"If you live in or around Vancouver you know that the majority of the summer around here was spent verbally eviscerating the job Mike Gillis was doing running their favourite team. It wasn't fair for the most part given the way the lowered cap had tied his hands"

I must have missed the addendum in the new CBA that stated "the salary cap will only going down $6 million for the Vancouver Canucks."

"By hook or by crook the Canucks had lost Derek Roy, Mason Raymond, Max Lapierre, Keith Ballard, and Andrew Ebbett (all of whom had contributed to the team in some way, shape, or form)."

I assume Cory Schneider was left out by accident...

"Obviously five weeks later, myself and many others have been made to look silly by a team that has managed to go 10-5-1 despite a series of unfortunate events."

Please. The record is a mirage that will be corrected in the next 5 intradivision games.

11 of the 16 games have been played against the inferior conference and the Canucks are not the only western team beating up on the east...

Don't be surprised if the team is 5th in the division in two weeks and battling for the playoffs with Anaheim & Phoenix for the rest of the year.

Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli have all been stellar.

And I'll gladly give the GM I wanted fired credit for finding 3 good bullpen pieces.

But let's not go insane.

These 3 players are not going to scare LA or SJ in the 1st round.

And that's if the Canucks don't get squeezed out of a playoff spot by Anaheim or Phoenix.

The Gillis apolgists would do well to point out the contributions of Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli without losing touch with reality...

Ah yes. How I've missed Sh!tStain00. I really wish you'd become a 'fan' of another team. Also, have you done anything about getting a life yet? Working on it?

Anyway, some nice little surprises and adds by Gillis. I like a lot of what Gillis has done but he has made a few too many big mistakes and non-moves. Gillis should not deal with the Panthers anymore! I also think he should have dealt Burrows at the deadline to Washington for prospects Forsberg and Kuznetsov; I love Burr but we needed more prospects that could become top 6 players.

Having said all that, we're off to a good start. Torts is doing a solid job. It may all come apart or it may not. I'll enjoy the ride in either case.

Avatar
#8 markusnaslund19
November 04 2013, 03:07PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
5
props

@ NMOO

You confuse me. You seem to know your hockey pretty well, and you cite some interesting stats, so I assume that you're a long time fan.

Yet you seem to have this entitlement to presidents trophies/the stanley cup that I mainly see in people who became a fan in 2011.

Other than the rarest of cases, you just don't get to be a top 3 contender indefinitely. The Canucks had their shot for a couple of years, and are now rearranging things for another shot. They're rebuilding on the fly with Shinky and Bo (although I still hate that we traded Schneids). They brought in a new coach.

The team is doing really well. Really showing some guts. That win over St. Louis had me feeling more proud of the team than I think I did at any point during the lockout shortened year.

We're doing well right now and I think we're a decent team. Are we the cup favorite? Christ no. But we're a top 7 team in the league, and we have a shot. Enjoy it. That doesn't mean don't be analytical or afraid to criticize. But don't make that your 'thing' either.

Avatar
#9 NM00
November 04 2013, 03:45PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
3
props

@markusnaslund19

"Yet you seem to have this entitlement to presidents trophies/the stanley cup that I mainly see in people who became a fan in 2011."

Based on what exactly?

"They're rebuilding on the fly with Shinky and Bo"

What about their 2008-2012 draft picks?

"They brought in a new coach."

Why is a new middle manager particularly noteworthy?

"The team is doing really well. Really showing some guts. That win over St. Louis had me feeling more proud of the team than I think I did at any point during the lockout shortened year."

Proud that they won a game in which they were outplayed?

The team has won a disproportionate number of one goal games and have played a disproportionate number of games against the inferior conference.

"But we're a top 7 team in the league, and we have a shot."

This is not one of the top 7 teams in the league and that will be quite clear once the schedule evens out...

The window has closed.

Avatar
#10 NM00
November 04 2013, 03:46PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
6
props
Ted wrote:

Ah yes. How I've missed Sh!tStain00. I really wish you'd become a 'fan' of another team. Also, have you done anything about getting a life yet? Working on it?

Anyway, some nice little surprises and adds by Gillis. I like a lot of what Gillis has done but he has made a few too many big mistakes and non-moves. Gillis should not deal with the Panthers anymore! I also think he should have dealt Burrows at the deadline to Washington for prospects Forsberg and Kuznetsov; I love Burr but we needed more prospects that could become top 6 players.

Having said all that, we're off to a good start. Torts is doing a solid job. It may all come apart or it may not. I'll enjoy the ride in either case.

We are all Canucks Ted.

Sometimes I think you forget...

Avatar
#11 Ted
November 04 2013, 04:51PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
6
props
markusnaslund19 wrote:

@ NMOO

You confuse me. You seem to know your hockey pretty well, and you cite some interesting stats, so I assume that you're a long time fan.

Yet you seem to have this entitlement to presidents trophies/the stanley cup that I mainly see in people who became a fan in 2011.

Other than the rarest of cases, you just don't get to be a top 3 contender indefinitely. The Canucks had their shot for a couple of years, and are now rearranging things for another shot. They're rebuilding on the fly with Shinky and Bo (although I still hate that we traded Schneids). They brought in a new coach.

The team is doing really well. Really showing some guts. That win over St. Louis had me feeling more proud of the team than I think I did at any point during the lockout shortened year.

We're doing well right now and I think we're a decent team. Are we the cup favorite? Christ no. But we're a top 7 team in the league, and we have a shot. Enjoy it. That doesn't mean don't be analytical or afraid to criticize. But don't make that your 'thing' either.

Look closer. He has no idea what pro sports is about. He thinks the Canucks are failures unless they win the Cup every year. He is hyper-critical and probably thinks he could do a better job. There are tons out there like him that don't actually understand pro sports or life in general. One day he'll understand not every team wins the Cup. One day he'll understand hindsight is 20/20. One day he might get a clue. One day...but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. His type of negativity could ruin the sunniest day for people. It's too bad he has to post here.

Avatar
#12 NM00
November 04 2013, 04:55PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
4
props

@Ted

What are pro sports about Ted?

Let's see if you have a thought provoking comment in you...

Avatar
#13 PB
November 04 2013, 05:49PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
9
props

@NM00

Disagreeing with your constant sky-is-falling prognostication does not make one either a Gillis apologist or a rose-tinted homer. It does seem a bit strange for someone who is a supposed fan to constantly be talking about the impending doom waiting around the corner based on your oft-repeated critiques of the drafting and trades made by the GM. All of the latter are valid points, but your insistence on seeing the worst in everything the Canucks do gets a bit tiresome. This has been a far more enjoyable group to watch than at almost any point last year and despite your claims that coaches are no more than middle managers without influence, I've been pleasantly surprised at the way Tortorella has coached so far -- rewarding players with ice time on the basis of play (Archibald, Stanton, Santorella), and not hesitating to drop others because of performance (Alberts possibly Booth).

You can continue to sound the alarm all you want (and yet be strangely absent or still try to rain on the parade should the Canucks do well), but I think I'd prefer to watch and enjoy them and hope for the best. Outside of the Detroit, Columbus and one of the two SJ games it's been pretty entertaining. You seem to be actively courting the Canucks demise and that does seem to be a strange position for a fan.

Avatar
#14 NM00
November 04 2013, 07:15PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
2
props

@PB

What does "sky-is-falling" mean to you?

I've been suggesting for months that the most realistic outcome is a first round loss to SJ or LA.

It's a pretty big logical leap that you have made multiple times in regards to this "sky-is-falling" nonsense.

"your insistence on seeing the worst in everything the Canucks do gets a bit tiresome"

Where have I seen the worst in Stanton, Richardson or Santorelli?

Where did I see the worst in the Pittsburgh game in which the Canucks were the better team?

It's not my fault that there hasn't been more about which to be optimistic...

"You seem to be actively courting the Canucks demise and that does seem to be a strange position for a fan"

And you seem to enjoy making up nonsense...

There's a difference between suggesting the Canucks are in trouble for the next few years and actively courting their demise.

Barring a ripoff trade or two, I suspect you'll see the light soon enough.

If/when the Canucks fail to get past the first round, the "negativity" will suddenly be "realism".

Kinda like the "negativity" over not indulging in delusions about Clarkson, Horton, Grabovski, Gordon & Cullen all summer became reality soon enough...

Believe it or not, it's possible to watch the Canucks, enjoy the games against good competition and still not delude oneself to believe they are a contending team.

You seem to be manufacturing consent for the organization and that does seem to be a strange position for a fan...

Avatar
#15 5mintuesinthebox
November 04 2013, 07:31PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
3
props
NM00 wrote:

"If you live in or around Vancouver you know that the majority of the summer around here was spent verbally eviscerating the job Mike Gillis was doing running their favourite team. It wasn't fair for the most part given the way the lowered cap had tied his hands"

I must have missed the addendum in the new CBA that stated "the salary cap will only going down $6 million for the Vancouver Canucks."

"By hook or by crook the Canucks had lost Derek Roy, Mason Raymond, Max Lapierre, Keith Ballard, and Andrew Ebbett (all of whom had contributed to the team in some way, shape, or form)."

I assume Cory Schneider was left out by accident...

"Obviously five weeks later, myself and many others have been made to look silly by a team that has managed to go 10-5-1 despite a series of unfortunate events."

Please. The record is a mirage that will be corrected in the next 5 intradivision games.

11 of the 16 games have been played against the inferior conference and the Canucks are not the only western team beating up on the east...

Don't be surprised if the team is 5th in the division in two weeks and battling for the playoffs with Anaheim & Phoenix for the rest of the year.

Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli have all been stellar.

And I'll gladly give the GM I wanted fired credit for finding 3 good bullpen pieces.

But let's not go insane.

These 3 players are not going to scare LA or SJ in the 1st round.

And that's if the Canucks don't get squeezed out of a playoff spot by Anaheim or Phoenix.

The Gillis apolgists would do well to point out the contributions of Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli without losing touch with reality...

Are the Blackhawks a mirage as well? They have actually had an easier schedule than the Canucks have had thus far, and have lost to the likes of Calgary, St Louis (twice) and Minnesota. And a majority of theirs wins have been by a single goal, while squeaking out SO wins against the likes of Carolina and Florida.

LA is currently not scaring anyone by the way.

This trip will be a test, but to think that the road trip out east was not one is just ridiculous. Playing that many games, in that short of time, while covering that much ground, while missing that many players?

Avatar
#16 PB
November 04 2013, 07:32PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
5
props

I think you're the one who's deluding yourself if you think the constant barrage of grandiose "Just wait and see" pronouncements and dire predictions aren't negative. Be as critical of the team and the gm as you want but don't dismiss those who don't share your pessimism as towing the party line just because they're not parroting you. I enjoy many of the posts you make on these boards but telling me I'll "see the light" soon enough just makes you come off as an arrogant and sanctimonious ass.

Avatar
#17 NM00
November 04 2013, 08:04PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
4
props

@5mintuesinthebox

The Hawks, Kings, Sharks & Blues are the gold standard of the conference.

As they were to begin the season.

They're all legitimate contenders irrespective of their early season play.

The trip out east was no doubt challenging considering the games & time frame.

However, the upcoming trip may very well be representative of the Pacific division playoff contenders this year.

The Canucks may very well have to beat one of these teams to make the playoffs this year if the Central claims 4 spots...

Avatar
#18 NM00
November 04 2013, 08:12PM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Props
3
props

@PB

"don't dismiss those who don't share your pessimism as towing the party line"

Either you didn't read the original article or my original response to the article.

Stanton can be a good move without it being a vindication of the general manager or relating it to the W-L record built largely upon beating poor teams and/or one goal victories.

"telling me I'll "see the light" soon enough just makes you come off as an arrogant and sanctimonious ass"

And what is the purpose about continually making up nonsense about a falling sky?

Instead of just saying "stop being negative!" you might try and point out where I have been unrealistic...

"telling me I'll "see the light" soon enough just makes you come off as an arrogant and sanctimonious ass."

The pretentious one has spoken...

Avatar
#19 JDM
November 04 2013, 08:17PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

I don't really understand why we don't have Hamhuis Garrison back together again after they were bar none the best pairing on the team (AINEC) for the back half of last season.

Avatar
#20 5minutesinthebox
November 04 2013, 10:48PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

The Hawks, Kings, Sharks & Blues are the gold standard of the conference.

As they were to begin the season.

They're all legitimate contenders irrespective of their early season play.

The trip out east was no doubt challenging considering the games & time frame.

However, the upcoming trip may very well be representative of the Pacific division playoff contenders this year.

The Canucks may very well have to beat one of these teams to make the playoffs this year if the Central claims 4 spots...

All of this is true, the road will likely go through these teams. But outside of the Sharks, the Canucks are doing more with less than any of the other teams mentioned.

Prior to the game against the Pens, they were the measure, then it was the Blues, then it became the Leafs representing the best of the east.

Outside of the Sharks games (which werent as one sided as the score might suggest) the Canucks have fared very well against the top teams they have faced. As you have even said you dont get to choose who you play next.

The game against the Leafs said a lot about this team. It wasnt just the win, it was how they dominated them so completely that the Leafs just imploded, right from the opening faceoff and they didnt let up. They are playing like a team, even though by most peoples standards, they are barely 1 and a half lines.

The most positive thing I see right now, is that they are actually improving. We all know how Lu is in October, so his struggles were no surprise. Kesler took a while to find his game, Edler and Hamhuis both seem to be finding their games. Burrows will start to get his considering his play the obvious chemistry with Higgins and Santarelli. This is also without Booth and Hansen.

There are many reasons to be optimistic at this point, more so than not.

Avatar
#21 QoC
November 04 2013, 11:47PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props

Wow, frag those numbers are surprising. I'm a bit confused though cause according to Behind the Net, Stanton is getting some seriously easy matchups. He's out there with Juice against the opponents weakest players. Where as Tanev and Hamhuis are out there against the opponents top 6 (and lately against the opponents top lines).

So it stands to reason that Hamhuis and Tanev are the best d-pairing cause they play tougher mins?

Not to diminish Stanton though. He's been a massive surprise, a great one. You know the Canucks are essentially running 3 quasi shutdown pairings this season? Pretty crazy. Canucks d coach must go to bed dreaming about sunshine and lollipops evry night. Not to mention they have a grade A defensive prospect on the farm who will def be with the team next yr. Kind of makes me wonder if Tanev gets shipping off? If he continues to play against opponents top lines this yr, they're not gonna be able to afford him this summer.

Avatar
#22 PB
November 05 2013, 08:06AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
4
props

@NM00

Stanton isn't a vindication of everything that Gillis has done, any more than Santorelli or Richardson. But as fiveminutesinthebox points out, you're really cherry picking with dismissing Canucks victories as against inadequate opposition and being fairly uncritical of all the other teams you've been praising. SJ, as always, is hot out of the gate, but it remains a small sample size and because they have done this so often I would prefer to wait to see if this is a mirage or holds. LA has people talking about both their injury problems and the early season woes of Quick. Anaheim's PP is almost as unproductive as ours and their PK is far worse.

As I've repeatedly said, you're welcome to your critiques, but you shouldn't find it surprising if others find your constant and consistent refrains grating at times. Do I think you're unrealistic? Not necessarily -- Gillis' track record on drafting until the most recent draft has ranged from abysmal to adequate (in part due to low picks, in part due to some pretty poor calls), and some of the trades he's made have not panned out at all. And you may yet be correct that the Canucks are a failure this year. But you are basing your predictions on a lot of assumptions that are yet to be proven -- the Canucks will be destroyed by the elite teams of the West, there will be no secondary scoring, that Gillis has hamstrung the team through poor asset and cap management. Perhaps that will all come to pass but at this point it is speculation on your part.

And really, are you who constantly cries "just wait till the middle of the season when we're down in the standings", "just wait till we get swept out of the first round", "just wait till we get bypassed for a playoff spot" actually saying that this refrain is neither negative nor saying that the sky is falling? Really? Please.

Avatar
#23 NM00
November 05 2013, 10:35AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
1
props

@PB

"And really, are you who constantly cries "just wait till the middle of the season when we're down in the standings", "just wait till we get swept out of the first round", "just wait till we get bypassed for a playoff spot" actually saying that this refrain is neither negative nor saying that the sky is falling? "

Those wouldn't be so hilarious if, you know, those were my actual quotes.

Where have I said the team will get swept out of the first round?

I've said the most realistic outcome is a first round loss to LA or SJ and there still isn't a logical reason to expect the Canucks to beat either team...

And considering I've repeatedly said I expect the Canucks will make the playoffs, the "wait until we get bypassed for a playoff spot" is nothing more than wilful ignorance on your part used to construct a flimsy strawman.

You would do well to disagree with me without resorting to such fantasies...

Avatar
#24 5minutesinthebox
November 05 2013, 11:35AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props
NM00 wrote:

"If you live in or around Vancouver you know that the majority of the summer around here was spent verbally eviscerating the job Mike Gillis was doing running their favourite team. It wasn't fair for the most part given the way the lowered cap had tied his hands"

I must have missed the addendum in the new CBA that stated "the salary cap will only going down $6 million for the Vancouver Canucks."

"By hook or by crook the Canucks had lost Derek Roy, Mason Raymond, Max Lapierre, Keith Ballard, and Andrew Ebbett (all of whom had contributed to the team in some way, shape, or form)."

I assume Cory Schneider was left out by accident...

"Obviously five weeks later, myself and many others have been made to look silly by a team that has managed to go 10-5-1 despite a series of unfortunate events."

Please. The record is a mirage that will be corrected in the next 5 intradivision games.

11 of the 16 games have been played against the inferior conference and the Canucks are not the only western team beating up on the east...

Don't be surprised if the team is 5th in the division in two weeks and battling for the playoffs with Anaheim & Phoenix for the rest of the year.

Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli have all been stellar.

And I'll gladly give the GM I wanted fired credit for finding 3 good bullpen pieces.

But let's not go insane.

These 3 players are not going to scare LA or SJ in the 1st round.

And that's if the Canucks don't get squeezed out of a playoff spot by Anaheim or Phoenix.

The Gillis apolgists would do well to point out the contributions of Stanton, Richardson & Santorelli without losing touch with reality...

So you are chastising a GM who spent to the Cap in an effort (albeit a futile one...oh to be a hind site psychic) to create a winning atmosphere and a team that could contend? And because he (and other GMs)chose to spend to their fullest (thereby fueling the NHL economy) they are penalized by the Cap dropping (even though the NHL has never been in a better place financially and organizations are not given any concessions in order to deal with it). How does this end up being the fault of the GM?

I am not a Gillis apologist, he has made his share of mistakes, but you cant point out failures that appeared to be the exact moves he should be making at the time, like somehow you could see that those were not the right decisions to be making.

Anyone can criticize in hind site, and it grows tiring listening to it.

Avatar
#25 PB
November 05 2013, 11:54AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@NM00

"Don't be surprised if the team is 5th in the division in two weeks and battling for the playoffs with Anaheim & Phoenix for the rest of the year."

"And that's if the Canucks don't get squeezed out of a playoff spot by Anaheim or Phoenix."

"If/when the Canucks fail to get past the first round, the "negativity" will suddenly be "realism"."

"Please. The record is a mirage that will be corrected in the next 5 intradivision games."

"Hopefully this "core" isn't given more than another 1-2 years to show what it's made of…"

"All the evidence in front of us would suggest this has been and continues to be a piss poor environment for young players…"

"This is a mediocre team with a mediocre farm system."

"It's a mediocre present with a mediocre future barring a one-sided trade or two."

Yes, you are completely right, I have absolutely misrepresented you as being negative or a broken record predicting the Canucks dire future. However could I have developed such fantasies?

Avatar
#26 NM00
November 05 2013, 12:06PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
2
props

@5minutesinthebox

The cap dropped for all 30 teams.

If Gillis didn't plan for it appropriately that's on him.

He knew the cap was going to be $64.3 million when he handed out $7 million to Burrows & Higgins with two expensive goalies and Ballard still on the books...

Avatar
#27 NM00
November 05 2013, 12:12PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
1
props

@PB

At least you are using actual quotes now so that's progress.

Of course, now you actually have to point out with which quote you disagree and why.

Feel free to tell me which quote is unrealistic and I'll gladly explain my reasoning again...

Avatar
#28 PB
November 05 2013, 12:44PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

I think it's clear that we have differing opinions. I don't really need to parse through yours again. Have a good day.

Avatar
#29 NM00
November 05 2013, 01:18PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
2
props

@PB

Perhaps the next time you choose to start a similar exchange you'll actually back up what you say or not start at all...

A good day to you too.

Avatar
#30 PB
November 05 2013, 01:54PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
1
props

@NM00

I tried to leave this constant back and forth but you seem not to let it go. If you choose not to agree with my views that is your prerogative. You have in no way "proved" your case. We simply have differing views. I have made two assertions -- that you are consistently negative and that you make a lot of assumptions that are yet to be proven. Show me that you are doing neither of those things. I have said on repeated occasions that you have some good points and others that you are over-reaching on. I'm not sure what part of this is unclear to you. I used your own quotes to back up what I said. If you don't agree then fine. Disagree with me and let it freaking go.

Next time you want to start a similar exchange perhaps you'll take your head out of your self-important ass…you are free to your own delusions.

Enjoy the day and the game.

Avatar
#31 5minutesinthebox
November 05 2013, 01:57PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

You keep repeating that, and guess what, the Canucks are not the only team that suffered because of it. The lower rung teams that suck that life out of the NHL are the ones that benefitted most from the Cap drop. How can you plan when you already have money already tied up in players? Should he have just let those 2 walk. Who would be there to replace them? Those two are hardly the reason the Canucks are handcuffed right now.

From my perspective neither of those players are over paid in the slightest. Where would this team be at this point without Higgins and Burrows? They are two of the most versatile players on the Canucks.

He also knew that Ballard was going to be bought out, and that one of the goalies was going to be moved.

Whats your point?

Avatar
#32 NM00
November 05 2013, 02:02PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
1
props

@PB

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you started this exchange.

And it's not the first time you have gone down this path with assertions of "negativity" and recoil when asked to show where I have been unrealistic.

"I have made two assertions -- that you are consistently negative and that you make a lot of assumptions that are yet to be proven. Show me that you are doing neither of those things."

Why would I prove these vague concepts?

If you want to show where I am being unrealistic you are welcome to try.

You wouldn't have to let anything go if you didn't start this in the first place...

Avatar
#33 NM00
November 05 2013, 02:06PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
2
props

@5minutesinthebox

The point is that some Canuck fans, in their typical "woe is us" manner, act as though Vancouver is the only team for which the salary cap went down.

Did it not go down for LA, SJ, CHI & STL just to name four?

Whether or not Gillis overextended himself with contract extensions is up for debate.

However, the salary cap went down for everyone so it's a pretty poor excuse...

Avatar
#34 JohnnyCanuck
November 05 2013, 04:53PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
0
props

NM00 wins both exchanges!

Avatar
#35 5minutesinthebox
November 06 2013, 10:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
NM00 wrote:

The point is that some Canuck fans, in their typical "woe is us" manner, act as though Vancouver is the only team for which the salary cap went down.

Did it not go down for LA, SJ, CHI & STL just to name four?

Whether or not Gillis overextended himself with contract extensions is up for debate.

However, the salary cap went down for everyone so it's a pretty poor excuse...

What excuse are we talking about? I never used it as an excuse. You have been using it as a point of contention. I just pointed out the fact that the teams that were spending to the limit in the years prior to the lockout (with contracts that extended past it) were the ones most affected by the Cap drop.

St Louis as an example is loaded with cheep expiring contracts where many of them will need hefty raise in order to maintain. Including 7 players who are UFA next seasons (including both goaltenders) and 3 RFA contracts of Berglund, Sobotka, and Shwartz. They may have not been affected by the Cap drop this season, but they will feel it no matter how much the Cap goes up.

Chicago lost a bunch of depth players. SJ has just been an anomaly and a model, build on the fly franchise, but they are also over the cap right now by 2 million and both Couture and Pavelski are getting raises next season (a combined 5.1 cap hit) and both Thorton and Marleau are UFAs.

I do agree with you on too many Canucks fans having that 'woe is me' attitude.

This team would certainly be a whole lot more effective if we were healthy right now. But they seem to be weathering the storm as it were. We are what we are for the time being, and so far Im okay with that. It will be a struggle to make the playoffs in our division. We could realistically get to 100 pts and still miss the playoffs, (which is simply ludicrous) especially when you consider that a team like the Islanders could secure a playoff spot with just over 80 in the Met division.

If Gillis overextended himself on contracts it certainly wasnt on the likes of Burrows and Higgins. Sesito on the other hand....

Avatar
#36 5minutesinthebox
November 06 2013, 10:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
JohnnyCanuck wrote:

NM00 wins both exchanges!

Is that so?

Avatar
#37 acg5151
November 06 2013, 04:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

I would have handed out 7 million to Higgins, a good second liner and great first liner, and Burrows, a guy who can do work on the first and second lines and score clutch playoff goals such as the game winner in Chicago and one of the fastest overtime goals ever in Boston.

I'd rather have paid those guys 7 million who have earned it as Canucks than Clarkson and Grabovski who aren't any better and haven't earned it as Canucks.

But whatever NM00. The sky is falling!

Comments are closed for this article.