79
Photo Credit: Anne-Marie Sorvin - USA TODAY Sports

CanucksArmy Post-Game: They Blue It

Canucks Blow a 3-1 Lead, Lose 4-3 to Blues in Overtime

In most cases, I think the Canucks fans wouldn’t be that upset with an overtime loss to the Western Conference-leading St. Louis Blues — all the more so when the two teams combine for seven goals!

Tonight’s game wasn’t your typical overtime loss, though. It had it all! The return of Jake Virtanen brought intrigue to the Canucks lineup and was every bit the storyline we’d expected, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. There was a contentious disallowed Canucks goal that shook even the mild-mannered Thomas Vanek to the core. Anders Nilsson looked human! And through it all, the Canucks blew a two-goal lead and then the game in overtime.

Sometimes, teams find a way to win hockey games they probably shouldn’t. This one feels a lot more like a game the Canucks found a way to lose — sound familiar?

The Canucks opened the scoring little over halfway through the opening frame, as Brock Boeser carried the puck into the zone, created a shot that went wide, stayed active on the play and buried his second opportunity.

In the final two minutes of a frame that the Canucks were otherwise firmly in control of, the St. Louis Blues forced them to chase play in the offensive zone. Eventually, Blues defenceman Colton Parayko found space, the puck found him, and he found a way to put it in the back of the net with his cannon of a shot.

In the second period, Canucks winger Loui Eriksson brought his fastball. On a penalty kill early in the middle frame, Eriksson forced a turnover and led a three-on-one into the Blues zone. Eriksson put the puck on Markus Granlund’s stick, and he made no mistake, scoring a goalscorer’s goal in tight. About five minutes later, Eriksson sent a puck on net that Blues goaltender Jake Allen failed to corral, and Sven Baertschi sent it home for the power play marker.

Baertschi’s power play goal was the last time the Canucks lit the lamp tonight. Blues forward Vladimir Sobotka scored on a blown coverage by Henrik Sedin just over two minutes later. Then, early in the third period, with the Canucks shutdown line on the ice, Joel Edmundson, left wholly uncovered by Sam Gagner, got the puck at the point, walked into the zone and snapped a shot past Canucks netminder Anders Nilsson. And just like that, we had overtime.

Little over halfway into overtime, Brayden Schenn walked into the Canucks zone, crossed into the slot with Derrick Pouliot giving him the space, and snapped a wrister past Nilsson to secure the Blues comeback victory 4-3.

Nilsson stopped 27 of 31 Blues’ shots. Allen stopped 20 of 23 Canucks tries.

The Numbers

Quick Hits

  • There was a disallowed goal near the end of the second period that would’ve secured another two-goal lead for the Canucks going into the third period. Here’s my breakdown of the play: the Canucks had the puck in the offensive zone, drew a penalty, and as they were moving the puck around the offensive zone a Blues forward grabbed it mid-air, though, the Canucks recovered the puck and moved it to Thomas Vanek who was stopped on his first attempt on the play, but buried the rebound. The referee explained his reasoning for disallowing the goal, citing a Canucks hand pass. The Canucks never touched the puck with their glove, but the Blues did on a delayed penalty. The referees’ explanation was off, but the goal shouldn’t have counted. They got the call right.

  • I have a lot of questions about the Canucks’ deployment tonight. Where to start? Jake Virtanen’s usage is going to get a lot of attention, or the lack thereof I should say. Virtanen was physical and created a couple scoring chances in the first period; he was also on the ice for a goal in the second. By the third period, Virtanen was effectively phased out of the game plan. Green said he liked Virtanen’s game today. You’d never guess it based on his usage. Then there’s the question of Sam Gagner. Why was he on the “shutdown” line? There couldn’t be a worse fit for Gagner in the Canucks lineup. The Canucks paid for that decision on the Edmundson goal in the third that tied the game. Then there was the Canucks sets in overtime. They left a lot to be desired.

  • Only Alexander Edler and Ben Hutton played more shifts than Brandon Sutter’s 27 tonight. Some of that is Canucks head coach Travis Green sending Sutter out for defensive zone draws occasionally. Regardless, it’s way, way too much to ask of Sutter, who is at his best a third line centre. The most egregious example came late in the third. The Bo Horvat line pinned the Blues in their zone and forced them to ice the puck. In response, Green sent Derek Dorsett, Brandon Sutter and Sam Gagner out for the offensive zone draw. I just don’t get it.
  • The Alexander Edler-Derrick Pouliot pairing has been on the ice for four goals against in the last two games. Pouliot’s been on the ice for five goals against. Tonight, they were -11 in five-on-five shot attempt differential. They looked so good for their first handful of games together; they haven’t in the last two.
  • You know which goal shouldn’t have counted? The Blues first one. They had way too many men on the ice.

  • Loui Eriksson had another good game tonight for the Canucks. Eriksson assisted on Granlund’s shorthanded goal and Baertschi’s power play marker, which highlights how effective he was on special teams. At even strength he was a -3 in five-on-five shot attempt differential, but I didn’t notice any glaring errors. In fact, mostly he seemed to play a good game at even strength.
  • Many were rightly pointing to Virtanen’s ice-time throughout the night and crying foul. Lost in the mix was the fact that the Sedins didn’t play a whole lot more than Virtanen. I don’t think Green was singling Virtanen out when he opted to sit that line for long stretches of the game. Henrik and Daniel Sedin were on the ice for two even strength goals against; Henrik, especially, looked terrible in the defensive zone on both. The Sedins defensive play in the last two games has been pretty brutal.
  • truthseeker

    Can’t say this loss bothers me nearly as much as the Vegas loss. I’d even say this game was a decent sign that the team is much more resilient than last year. The Vegas loss last year would have been the start of a snowball series of losses.

    The canucks simply have to be a team that works their ……..off every single shift with no let downs. They have a lot of room to improve in that department. Aside from that, 20 games in and I think it’s obvious this team has improved quite a lot from last year in almost every area. (yeah…..PP…..I know)

  • Ragnarok Ouroboros

    Canucks got screwed over by the refs tonight. The ref called it a hand pass, when it was the St. Louis player that grabbed it. It should have been a good goal, and the Canucks should have went home with the win. Instead, St. Louis is fired up, gets the tying goal and wins it in overtime. That should be a reviewable play, it totally changed the outcome of the game.

    • Lemmy Kilmister

      If i am not mistaken when a delayed penalty is being called the team that is about to receive the call has to have full control of the puck before the ref blow’s the whistle

      • Tedchinook

        Reality is if he controlled it with his hand it should have been another penalty and 5 on 3. Simply batting it with his glove isn’t control any more than deflecting a pass would be.

        • crofton

          Not to split hairs, but he would have had to close his hand on the puck to get a penalty, not just control it. And if it was considered control, that ends the play before any closing the hand on the puck penalty could be called

        • Jimjamg

          Agree completely. You can’t have control of a puck with your hand. Until it’s on your stick you do not have control. This is evidenced by the fact that the next player to touch the puck when it hit the ice was a Canuck who immediately passed it to Vanek, ipso facto, St. Louis never had control. Unfortunately refs don’t understand logic.

      • Ragnarok Ouroboros

        If the Blues player “controlled” the puck when he grabbed it with his hand, then it should have been called a “Closing the hand on the puck” penalty. Since he only knocked the puck down with his hand, he did not have control. The goals should have counted.

    • jaybird43

      Blues had brief control when their player grabbed it. It’s a dead play at that point. Doesn’t matter if the ref didn’t see that or explain it properly. Control, even briefly = play is dead. PP begins thereafter …

  • StraightShooter

    It’s apparent that for elite teams like the Caps, Pens and St Louis it’s very hard to get up for the lowly Canucks, yet for Vancouver it’s a cup final hence the extra effort. The Cali teams in particular simply set the tone early, coast and hit, then turn it on again in the third, as the Blues did last night. That’s the why the Canucks are where they are… nowhere.

    • crofton

      So when lowly Vancouver plays against a good team and looks pretty good, it’s because the other team “can’t get up for them” ? Spare me. And nowhere? Oh you mean nowhere near as bad as some pre-season postulators suggested they would be. Likely you included.

    • Martin Gelinas Fan

      I would agree with this. Watching the Hawks v Pens game last night it was played like a SC Final game with outstanding talent, goaltending and effort by both teams. Clearly the top clubs raise their levels to play each other – very hard to do against poor teams like Vancouver.

      Personally this .500 hockey (likely worse after 82) is a nightmare for us. It means no playoffs, but it also means a middle of the pack draft pick. We need to be in on Rasmus Dahlin so bad it’s not even a debate. Why can’t commenters see this?

      • Geriatric Mushmouth

        Spot on pal but please be aware that none of the homer regulars here have any vested interest in building an elite Canucks team again as they are neither paying public or local ‘bar spending’ fans.

        These are mainly sad old f^rts or shut in kids (under multi ids) who don’t care about building anything meaningful, as long as they have a Canucks hockey game to watch for free that is all they care about – most were here were commenting ALL summer waiting like rabid dogs for pre-season to begin… sad but true.

        • Bud Poile

          Dud,you are the only one here talking to yourself under multiple i.d.’s.
          You did it all summer long.
          That makes you a hypocrite and disturbingly unique.

          • Geriatric Mushmouth

            Case in point…this loser NEVER pays to watch a game, is ALWAYS here all day every day even in summer spoutinf cr@p, and is a confirmed multi id troll who makes a mockery of the team and other posters here… after all HE is still the ONLY poster told by a member of staff to leave… yet is still here?!

            “Bud has generally served to make the comment section an unwelcoming place not just for the authors but also for a lot of the commenters as well. ” – Jackson McDonald

          • Bud Poile

            Poor Jackson.Tired young man.
            Dud,numerous posters repeatedly,routinely ask you to leave.
            Yet,you trot out your insulting hockey supremacy dribble under countless user names like nobody can figure your schtick out.
            FYI-again-I’m on Bali.Going to be difficult to attend games.
            I could begin pretending like you do,Dud, and just say I attend games.
            Then I could be a hypocrite just like you.

          • Geriatric Mushmouth

            ”the least I could do is remind Bud that CA’s readership is constantly growing and if all he is going to do is be rude to other readers he doesn’t need to come back especially because this isn’t Tim Hortons and I don’t get brownie points for smiling and being polite while someone makes the work area a nuisance to be in for staff + customers. ” – Jackson McDonald

            Yep… the ONLY poster to be asked to leave and still won’t (no life)… news flash fantasist, you are nowhere NEAR Bali, Yank. A screensaver of Padang-Padang Beach and watching Best of Bali on the Travel Channel don’t count see… Psst, it’s currently 4.50am in Bali…

          • Bud Poile

            Here’s some facts to keep in your files,Dud.
            I’ve been on Bali ten years but go home every year to B.C. where I was born and raised.
            I have six dogs so I walk them at dawn or 5:30 a.m. every day.
            Indonesians will steal your dog and sell it for meat.Some will beat your dog to death and eat it.Some will beat your dog to death for kicks.
            All my dogs were abandoned and thrown to the streets by locals.
            Same with my cats.
            School starts at 7 a.m. because of the oppressive heat.
            All of Bali awakens starting before 5 a.m..
            A Muslim country,the first prayers must be done before dawn.
            Bali is Hindi but Muslims are the workers and also have wealth here.
            The circumference of Bali is 350 miles-99% beaches.
            Only Julia Roberts devotees and tourists like you go to Pantai Padang-Padang,Dud.
            Stick to insulting people over hockey,Dud.
            You won’t look quite as ignorant as you do now.

      • truthseeker

        Stupid logic. Even finishing last we only have a 20% chance of getting the first pick. Writing of an entire season on purpose for a 20% shot is the height of stupidity. If you think that’s a good idea, I’d love to play poker with you.

  • Bure94

    Just in case anyone was wondering how poorly Gudbranson played tonight, he was +1 and had a 5on5 cf% of 54.2% while his offensive zone start percentage was only 15.4%. The stats were too good to put in the report.

      • Bure94

        I’m simply stating that this website chooses to use stats only when it fits their narrative for certain players. It’s too bad because, otherwise, there is a lot of good content and a few good writers on here. By the way, for the eye test, Guddy had the outlet pass that led to the Boeser goal (almost scored off the rush first too) and he had the point shot that led to the disallowed goal (not sure if you consider the Blues to have had possession – difficult call). On the other hand, the eye test (and stats) looked bad for several other d-men tonight (and other games) that get free passes.

      • crofton

        Well if +/- is outdated according to SOME, the same people are saying the eye test is worse. What’s your actual stance? Anti +/- and pro eye test at the same time?

  • Locust

    Sutter, Guddy, Dorsett – leaders, as usual.
    Why the lack of statistics on this post? Oh, ya, Sutter, Guddy & Dorsett. Sorry, I forgot, you only use “the stats” when they support your narrow minded narrative.

    • Geriatric Mushmouth

      Here he is folks, the chief CA WHINER who hates the site and writers yet is on here every f-kin day… whining.

      This is the type of clown who shows up at the soup kitchen and bangs his old tin cup moaning about the FREE food, yet shows up for more the very next day and every day… to moan some more… sad isn’t it.

  • DJ_44

    A few thoughts: for all the crap the media heaps on Gudbranson, they give Edler a complete pass (and have for years). He is absolute terrible out there, often appearing completely clueless. Get him off the PP. For the love of god, get him off the PP.

    Poulliot, while needing a bit better gap control on the overtime winner, has been solid. When we get Tanev and Stecher back, I would go with the following:

    MDZ – Tanev
    Poulliot – Gudbranson
    Hutton/Edler – Stecher

    Ben player okay yesterday (the penalties are disappointing but they happen). Edler should be a sat, or rotate the left side D, amongst Edler, MDZ and Hutton.

    Loui is starting to get it going. I hope they keep the the Loui – Granlund – Vanek line together for a couple of games at least.

    Gagner looked bad. He never passes the puck. He is bad in D-zone coverage. I would not complain with a Gaunce for Gagner move: for everything Gaunce is not, he plays the hard, straight ahead game you want on a checking line.

    Vanek was billed as a guy that doesn’t play D. I have not seen that, simply because he is very strong on the puck and usually will at least get a stalemate on the defensive boards when a puck comes around to him.

    The Canucks got no breaks from the refs: JD’s determination that it was a correct call demonstrates a lack of understanding of the rules of the game (can’t wait for JD’s video analysis pieces!); touching the puck is not the criterion for a whistle; possession is. Since you cannot have possession in you hand and the puck never made it to his stick; it is tough to say possession occurred. The too-many-men non-call was far worse. That said, it is part of the game and they will even out in the long run.

    Tough road trip coming up. Here we go!

    • Dirty30

      Good points!

      Elder was good except when parked in front of Nilsson — then he becomes a clear liability.

      I was impressed by Guddy’s play against the Blues … MDZ needs to leave the ‘moves’ for his DJ gigs … Pouliot needs to gain some weight or wear lead undies because he is way too easy to knock off the puck … Hutton needs to practice clearing attempts … and Biega needs to stop throwing hits behind the net resulting in the opposition carrying the puck into the OZ while he’s standing there with a WTF look on his face.

      The first line is looking like a first line but needs the other lines to step up too … Loui looked like he was earning his paycheque and nice pass to and play by Granlund.

      Would like to see some kind of indepth on Jake — he wasn’t throwing any stupid big hits but the Blues almost (almost!) looked like they didn’t know what to do when he was on the ice except back up. If the Sedins were playing just a little better that line could be very very interesting.

      Kudos to Sutter for taking a spear to the throat and still having the highest TOI. Boo to Green for giving Sutter the highest TOI game after game after game … shades of WD.

      As for the monkey-balls sucking Bettman and his game managing refs … really? Really? What next? Blogger at Canuck Army? @$$&@$$$!!!

    • defenceman factory

      gotta agree with most of what you said. Maybe you’re just a bit rough on Edler. He certainly is not consistently good and has some poor games. I agree he shouldn’t get the PP time he does.

      Watching the game last night I said “what the hell is Edler doing out in overtime?” Then I saw how Poulliot handled Schenn one on one. It was a small mistake that I don’t think Edler would have made and one I hope Poulliot learns from.

      Defensive upgrades needed next off season and building defensive depth a priority at the draft and trade deadline.

      • Cageyvet

        Dfactory I agree with your comments, thus agreeing with dirty30 as well. Edler will be traded one day, in the meantime he is always going to frustrate with great nights and wtf nights….and will always break sticks, miss the net with his shot, and try and play goalie and be sitting on top of the keeper at times. He’s still better than most on the team, let’s hope the kids keep developing.

        Your last comment is spot on, we need to keep an eye on the future for the defense in general. Without Tryamkin we don’t have a physical presence beyond Guddy and Beiga, and they’re both suspect. We need to look for both quality and some size on the back end. I don’t want plodders, but a D version of Virtanen who is big enough, fast enough, and can play with some skill and/or crash the boards. I don’t dismiss Guddy’s contribution, but it’s not all I’d hoped for. Where are those open ice hits I saw video of? I know they don’t come around with regularity, but how about sometimes?

        For those who don’t think the physical part of the game matters on D, I guess you don’t care that Tryamkin’s gone. I was loving him tossing guys around, who cares if he’s mean, I’m not looking to scare them or play Neanderthal hockey, I’m looking at how hard it is to make a play when you’re sitting on your ass.

    • Geriatric Mushmouth

      Ffs could we at least get a cut off word count per post so i don’t have to spend twenty minutes scrolling past this know-all idiots rambling novels.

      Guys this is another pompous clown who likes to THINK he can write better than the bloggers. He doesn’t and merely sucks the life out of the room as i am sure he does in r/l.

      Frankly it’s a miracle he can type so much with webbed fingers but i don’t wanna see War n Peace every time i come here!

      • Dirty30

        Well, as long as you are pushing on a door that is clearly marked ‘pull’ you’re stuck here. No one else is making you stay or read anyone’s comments.

      • LTFan

        I really don’t know why you post on here. Nothing positive and usually attacking other posters. It would be refreshing if you would have something intelligent to say – sadly not so far. You are one of those “trolls” who I give an automatic “Trash It” as soon as I see your name.

      • defenceman factory

        mushmouth you have been banned from this site on multiple occasions. Not sure how or why you keep finding your way back to somewhere you think everyone is stupid. You are free, even encouraged, to leave. Almost all who visit this site would welcome your departure.

        Please be sure to take your insults, vulgarity, multiple user ids, boring diatribes, the tin foil hat Mike Gillis gave you and your creepy obsession for Bud Poille with you. You will not be missed.

  • canuckfan

    The game was fun to watch but when the Blues turned it on you knew that it was going to be hard for Canucks to keep the lead. Vanek has been a good signing as well as MDZ. Gagner has not been good hope that someone will take him off our hands.
    No considered the Canucks would be where they are now. After this latest road trip I think we will all be brought back to earth and prepare yourself as the articles will be crapping all over the same guys. It is all about next year as we have some pretty nice players who will move in to spots. May not get the results as fast as everyone would want or like but at least are moving in an upward curve. Jake I hope is learning some valuable lessons and needs to know it isn’t just him not getting ice time it is his line. He won’t be a top line player but will still add to the team.
    As for Sutter and Dorset they have been playing big minutes because they have been playing against some pretty damn good players who log a lot of ice time no mater who they play against and have done a great job of shutting these players down. I can see Dorset being traded as well as Gudbranson to a team who wants to make a run in the playoffs maybe the Toronto rumours are true soon will find out.
    The Killer B line are going to be good for a longtime fun to watch. Please just get rid of Gagner don’t see him having any value just send to Utica and cut our losses and move on.

    • Cageyvet

      Agreed, too much angst over a season that is one where I’m just happy to see Boeser getting more comfortable in the league……at a point a game pace, lol.

      Gagner has been a huge disappointment, but Vanek has been a pleasant surprise, MDZ is holding his own, and Nilsson looks good. The FA signings were all stopgap moves, we’re doing alright there. Give it a year or two and this team will be fun to watch.

  • Laxbruh15

    That’s absolute bullsht. The goal absolutely should have counted. Either one, the call for the handpass was incorrect, which it was, and the play still should have continued or the blues player closed his hand on the puck resulting in a penalty and a continuation of play since that doesn’t establish possession. I’m sick of seeing the desperate attempts to cover for the league and the reffs because they blew a game and cost us a point. Friedman’s explanation was beyond pathetic. As well as the fact that if you have two conflicting calls, which was the case, then they both cancel each other out. There were a multitude of reasons why the call should have counted, and the reff’s incompetence contributed to all of them.

  • Fred-65

    First may i say will the tit for tat snarkey remarks be parked some place others are trying to discuss hockey. If you can’t control your posting impulses the please leave this site alone. Better still go outside and settle it rather than using your annonimuty as a shield and a reason to subject the rest of us to this tit for tat prattle.

    The question I asked myself was why did I leave the comfort of my home to drive through heavy traffic, suffer the lousy weather and pay exorbitant prices to watch a linesman decide the outcome. This was my take away from the game. Basically it’s a coin flip so why do I do it every August when I renew my tickets

    • jaybird43

      ‘Cause they’re going to be better next year Fred-65 🙂 Actually, they probably will be. Pettersson’s lighting it up, Guadette is doing the same (although pointless THIS weekend with his team only scoring two goals in two games), Lind looks very promising indeed. All good stuff … and that’s not counting on the other players in the pipeline or those who might improve a lot (e.g. Pouliot, Virtanen, and Dahlen, etc.). They are *reasonably* competitive now, considering how depleted the cupboard was, how aging the team was … the future looks bright. This isn’t a 10 year rebuild, like Arizona, Edmonton, or Toronto. Hang in there …

      • Geriatric Mushmouth

        More delusion from another alumnus of the most ignorant and dumb online commenters in hockey forum history.

        Jaybird, could you tell us how PASSING on elite franchise changers like Dylan Larkin (elite center and fastest skater in the league), David Pastranak (elite scoring winger) and one of Sergachev (elite puck moving D) or Tkachuk (elite power forward) and drafting BUSTS McCann, Virtanen and Juolevi instead makes the ‘future look bright’ – because if you THINK that’s great drafting for a franchise DESPERATE for NHL ready top tier talent, I have some prime farmland i’d like to sell you in the Sahara Desert…over to you…

        • jaybird43

          There’s always going to be players that get missed in drafting Mushmouth. That’s the nature of living 18 year olds: hey guess what, every GM alive has passes on some great players. Do do your best at the time with the info available. GMs drafting at the time don’t get 20/20 hindsight like you got now. Otherwise, you wouldnt have seen Zetterberg picked 210th, and Datsuk picked 171st. You heard of them, right? 🙂

      • wjohn1925

        Yah…I’ll concur with this post. I’m enjoying watching the games for the first time in a couple of years. The end result doesn’t matter so much as long as the young ones are playing well and looking like they’re improving. Whenever the Boeser, Bartschi, Horvat line are on the ice, I sit up and enjoy. Honestly, who cares what the Sedin line does or does not do. We’re clearly moving in the right direction and have at least one young line that is going well and is entertaining. Unfortunately, for this year, it’s only the one line. We still need a couple more years of good drafts, and I think the table is set for a future run. What difference does it make how well Gub or Vanek or other older players with limited contracts play at this stage. The games are mostly close, often competitive and generally quite entertaining. Expectations are being met!

      • Dirk22

        I always get a kick out of people saying they don’t want the 10 year rebuild but then defending all of the backwards acquisitions Benning made in his first three seasons. We’re in the 5th season of the Canucks being close to the bottom feeders of the league (with one anamolous season thrown in there ’14/15). This still remains a mostly veteran team so any rise to mediocrity this season doesn’t necessarily represent a franchise on the up and up. Some very nice progress from Boeser and Horvat are positives, as well as some good looking prospects that give reason for hope…but under what sort of time frame?

        Let me ask you this jaybird. If somebody approached you and offered that in the season 2022-23 (year 10 since 2013-14) the Canucks would be given some of the best Vegas odds to win the cup (as the Leafs do now) would you take it? That would constitute a ‘ten year rebuild’ dating back to the Torterella year (although of course the word ‘rebuild’ means different things to different people). Judging from your comments, you don’t think it will take them that long to get to that point – so what year do you think? 2 years from now (year 7)? 3 years (year 8)?

        We have to understand that the chances of Lind, Gadjovich, Gaudette, J. Dahlin etc. all panning out to be impact NHL’ers is not very high – that’s just the reality with prospects. Think of all the things that would need to go right for the Canucks to be Stanley cup competitors in 2-3 years. With all the nice pieces, the Canucks still have a lot of work to do to build for the future – including more ‘elite’ talent (ie. a Rasmus Dahlin). With the wasted first three years on Lindenning, 10 years would be closer to a best case scenario than something to dread.

        • DJ_44

          Benning took over before the 2014 draft. This is year four. They had a really good season in 14/15. We have suffered through two poor seasons, with the last one being the most obvious tank job (explained numerous times).

          This idea that the first three years were ‘wasted’ does not reflect reality. The rebuild started when Benning stepped in. It started with the 2014 draft. He had a massive job to do, unwinding a bunch of terrible contracts that he inherited. He has done that, with only Edler and the Sedins left from the 2012/2013/2014 years of absolutely brutal, short-sited decisions.

          They have made mistakes, but there is finally a pool of under 25 talent, with a large group of under 22 talent, that provides significant promise for the future.

          The Canucks currently have a veteran laden team because they have signed fill ins while the prospects develop. You know, like a rebuilding team does. The only exception has been the Eriksson signing.

          They will be competitive this year, and a playoff team next year, and in contention (and really exciting) the following year (that is year 5 and 6). This puts the Canucks on the same timeframe as the Leafs.
          The Leafs without Matthews is a team in the same or worse boat then the Canucks.

          The work will continue. Relying on the draft lottery (which at best gives you like a 1in6 shot, more like a 1:9 or 1:10) is like relying on 6/49 for retirement: ever hopeful but ultimately stupid. The thought that if the Canucks lost (or tanked) they will get Rasmus Dahlin is equally stupid.

          • Dirk22

            “Benning took over before the 2014 draft. This is year four.” – Oh ok – if we’re measuring from the time the new GM took over then I guess we say Shanahan was hired in 2014 so it only took him 3 years to rebuild as they were good last year. Anyone referring to the Oilers or Leafs etc. taking 10 years to rebuild is simply looking at how long they’ve been really bad for. In that case, the Canucks are in Year 5.

            “the last one being the most obvious tank job (explained numerous times)” – tanking and being bad are different things. Teams that acquire high priced veterans (Eriksson) aren’t there to tank. What are you referring to? Sitting Granlund because he needed surgery? Playing Markstrom over Miller down the stretch? Oh wait that didn’t happen.

            “They have made mistakes, but there is finally a pool of under 25 talent, with a large group of under 22 talent, that provides significant promise for the future.” – Yes I agree – what I’m saying is that they will need more talent and realistically we’re still a number of years away from this talent coming to fruition.

            “He has done that, with only Edler and the Sedins left from the 2012/2013/2014 years of absolutely brutal, short-sited decisions” – you’re going to lump 2012 in there with short sited decisions. A year away from Game 7 of the Stanley Cup with another President’s trophy and you think the emphasis should be on the future. Do explain these 4 years of short-sighted decisions though.

            “They will be competitive this year, and a playoff team next year, and in contention (and really exciting) the following year (that is year 5 and 6).” – in contention? maybe with Rasmus Dahlin and another high end forward.

            “The Leafs without Matthews is a team in the same or worse boat then the Canucks”. – you must be one of the Reddit fans thinking the Leafs would trade Marner for Gudbranson! This is the exact type of comment that makes people think Canuck fans are the dumbest. You need to think before you utter things like this to stop making us look bad. First of all, the Leafs have Matthews so the comment is dumb to start with. Second of all, it’s unfortunately not true. Apart from Matthews, they had a 19 year old and a 20 year old both score over 60 points last year. They have Morgan Reilly who has 17 points in 21 games this year. It’s not close and it’s stupid to think that it it – despite the promise of Boeser and Pettersson.

            “The thought that if the Canucks lost (or tanked) they will get Rasmus Dahlin is equally stupid.” – nobody thinks that but who wouldn’t want to be in the running to get that 1st overall pick. Oh right..most people on here who want to see us chase 8th place with Sutter and Dorsett leading the charge.

          • truthseeker

            “nobody thinks that but who wouldn’t want to be in the running to get that 1st overall pick. Oh right..most people on here who want to see us chase 8th place with Sutter and Dorsett leading the charge.”

            A lot of people think that. Some moron above already posted pretty much that exact thing.

            Every non playoff team is “in the running” for that first pick. So if we miss the playoffs we will be.

            The problem with people like you is you’re not offering anything of logic as to what they should do.

            What are you saying then? They shouldn’t try to be a good team this year? How do they do whatever it is you think they should or shouldn’t be doing? I don’t get you people. You make statements like that but don’t explain them. Just float them out there like they mean something, when they don’t.

            So again…what should they do this year? Try to win or not try to win? And if you don’t want them to win then when should they start trying? After the 2018 draft? 2019 draft? When exactly is the point where you lottery people actually think “OK…now we should try to make the playoffs again” ?

          • DJ_44

            Oh ok – if we’re measuring from the time the new GM took over then I guess we say Shanahan was hired in 2014 so it only took him 3 years to rebuild as they were good last year.

            I do consider the Leafs in year 4 of their rebuild. They lucked out and got Matthews. I do not think you get Gudbranson for Marner, never said that (but nice strawman). The leafs did have some useful prospects in the pipeline (Kadri, Reilly, Gardiner), but without Matthews, no squeaking into playoffs last year and, despite a recent win streak, struggling for the playoffs this year.

            Edmonton never did really did rebuild; they were terrible, first overall pick after first overall; and then they were even luckier than the Leafs and got McDavid.

            The obvious tank job was, when playoffs were out of sight, the made the trades at the deadline, shutdown anyone with the hint of injury, and brought in filler bodies.

            The Sedins were signed in late 2014 season; Edler was signed in 2013 to a backend load full NTC contract. Garrison, Higgins, etc etc. These were well after the SCF in 2011. These were all moves that have contributed to a 5 year hangover. All without any prospects in of note in the system except Horvat, and no one in the 21 to 25 year old age gap. This is the definition of short-sighted.

            As for the last paragraph, if you win the lottery, so be it. You do not plan on it. Good luck on 6/49 this week!

          • Dirk22

            truthseeker – I understand the coaches and players are never going to decide to be bad for the sake of a draft pick – it’s a ridiculous notion and not one that would every happen. I also understand that the Canucks are probably not going to be within that bottom three team tier that they’ve been in the last little while so unfortunately won’t have the greatest odds at the number one pick. Nothing much you can do about that.

            All I am asking for is that management makes moves with the future in mind, as opposed for a supposed playoff push. What does that look like? Obviously means not using futures to acquire anything to make them better in the short term. On top of that selling veterans – Vanek is an obvious one. Gudbranson another obvious one who apparently holds some value in the league. Get bold and have a look at trading Tanev.

            When should they start trying? I assume you mean when should management really ‘go for it’? Simple – when the pieces are in place to go for it. For reference sake, signing Eriksson to a 6 year deal in 2016 is not the time to go for it.

          • Dirk22

            DJ – “but without Matthews, no squeaking into playoffs last year and, despite a recent win streak, struggling for the playoffs this year.”

            Well how do you argue with that. Incredibly well thought out argument you’ve got there. Who cares that they had the best prospect pool in the league even without Matthews. Let’s ignore the fact they had a 19 and 20 year old, apart from Matthews, score over 60 points last year. Ignore the base of 20-24 year olds that clearly exceed what the Canucks have. Who cares that they HAVE Matthews so what are you even arguing about? They tanked. They got him.

            “The Sedins were signed in late 2014 season” – should they have let them walk? Is that what you’re implying?

            “Edler was signed in 2013 to a backend load full NTC contract.” – Edler was a year removed from a 49 point season and was the Canucks #1 defencemen at 27 years old. The NTC hurts now for sure but that’s the cost of getting a player like that for $5 mill. You could argue they should have traded him for futures but this is a team coming off a President’s trophy – the window as they knew it wasn’t closed. Easy for us to look back and say they should have known.

            “Garrison, Higgins, etc etc. These were well after the SCF in 2011. These were all moves that have contributed to a 5 year hangover” – explain to me how Garrison and Higgins are effecting the Canucks right now.

            “All without any prospects in of note in the system except Horvat, and no one in the 21 to 25 year old age gap. This is the definition of short-sighted.” – teams that are chasing the Stanley Cup make short-sighted moves to try to put them over the top. Happens every year at the trade deadline which I’m sure you’re aware of. Gillis was obviously no drafting guru but you’re kidding yourself if you’re going to compare prospects. We’re talking about teams at the opposite ends of the spectrum as far as draft position and incentive to trade for futures.

            If you want to make a sound argument – which you haven’t as of yet – you should point to the 2013 playoff loss to the Sharks. That should have been the turning point. You’ve mentioned the Sedins were signed long term after that but as I said, what is the realistic alternative here? If you want to criticize the Gillis regime for not tearing it down after the 2013 playoffs I’ll listen to that argument. Usually though it comes from the same people who then support Benning for not tearing it down when he inherited the team in 2014…just to be clear I mean going with a full youth movement – not spending pick to acquire a bunch of mediocre veterans just to be bad anyways.

          • truthseeker

            OK dirk, now you’re saying something totally different from what you were implying before. And I don’t have much of a problem with any of it.

            Yes, they should be careful with their assets and use the Vanek’s as a way to bring in more young talent. But you also have to judge based on play. The way the team is now, I would rather see them be “sellers” to load up on talent. But say they started to play even better, what then? Say they ended up 2nd or 3rd in the division? Sure not likely…but you never know. They’ve shown on their best nights that they can be a solid team. And there worst nights seem to be more a product of lack of focus rather than last year’s lack of talent. So if a team like that gets into the playoffs in the 6th or 7th place I have no problem with that. I think you’re putting the cart before the horse by thinking in that situation they’ll automatically start trading young talent or picks.

        • jaybird43

          Well, I’m never going to get on any team to win the Stanley Cup, unless it’s down to the final two. But I think they will ice not just a *reasonably* competitive team with a lot of stop gap veterans as they have now, but a youthful *very* competitive team in say 3 years. I’d take odds on tgat right now with a reliable counter party…

        • jaybird43

          Dirk 22, here’s how I look at it. JB was hired in May2014, so that’s barely over three years he’s been on the job. I don’t know how brilliant you are, but my observation of people who have been promoted take about a year before they start becoming competent at their job.

          So … JB inherited an old team, with few prospects, and with a bunch of NT contracts. He’s obviously and clearly turned that ship around. Yes, there’s been mistakes, and anyone observing the team can, *with visionary hindsight*, say what they are. There’s a couple of doozies, but drafting and trading aren’t, for the most part, them. I think you might expect to turn things around quicker: but how? Realistically, how? Please don’t include *magically* draftjng with perfect hindsight. With a 23rd pick, he got Boeser (a clear Calder candidate at this point) 150th –
          Gaudette. 5th – Pettersson, who may end up being the best player in that draft. Let’s not forget Stetcher too.

          There’s some whiffs for sure; overpaying Eriksson, Gudbranson trade, Willie hiring. But you have to look at the other side of the balance sheet, or you just look like a hater.

          Overall, above average trading ability especially with young propsects; great drafting; and an ability to learn (e.g a lot of value priced veterans were added this year). I believe they will be a very competitive young team, very very soon (2-3 seasons). Ya, I’d bet on that. You wanna take the other side of that bet?

  • Rodeobill

    It was too bad to lose in OT, and had the reffing been a little better we should have won before that, but I enjoyed this game. They played hard and well against a really good team. Night and day to the vegas game where they really seemed to dial it it. Edler has always been moments of whuuut!? and moments of That’s why he a top two! Pouliot has looked imperfect, but it was hard to find flaws in his game up till the last two games and he is probably being asked to do more in the absence of Stetcher and Tanev, could we say the same about Pedan?

  • Dirk22

    What do these quotes have in common:

    “Like you saw with the (Phil) Kessel deal, we’re not interested in a five-year rebuilding plan.”

    “I like this team – I like the core players. This is a team we can turn around in a hurry.”

    The impetus for this discussion is you stating ‘this isn’t a 10 year rebuild…” The irony of course being that Benning’s approach or lack of approach the first three years is exactly what made a team like Toronto bad for so long. Not putting an emphasis on accumulating picks (one second round pick in the first three seasons!) , committing to overpriced veterans (Dorsett, Sutter, Eriksson) trading youth/picks for for older players (Forsling, McCann, a 5th and Kassian for Prust?!, throwing 2nd rounders into the Guddy and Sutter trades). That seems to resemble the approach Toronto took under Burke/Nonis (trading a first + for Kessel, signing Komisarek to a big deal, signing Clarkson to a big deal) and a big reason for they were bad for so long.

    • truthseeker

      You keep spouting the same trade lies and exaggerations after I and others have repeatedly proven they aren’t true or that you’re being totally misleading and disingenuous.

      He’s traded ZERO first round picks. He has a net loss of like ONE second round pick if we consider that Vey amounts to zero.

      You’re inability to see past your own conformation bias is unfortunate, because you don’t seem to be a troll.

      • Dirk22

        There is nothing false or misleading about what I’ve said. The first round pick was McCann.

        How can you think it’s acceptable to have a net loss in draft picks as a rebuilding team even if it’s just one? One second rounder in three drafts is ridiculously inept for a rebuilding GM. That has nothing to do with confirmation bias as it’s a fact. Everyone gushing over Lind and Gadjovich. Why? Well because they give some hope for the future….both 2nd rounders in a weak draft.

        The only extra second he’s accumulated had nothing to do with JB – it was a lucky ruling on Torts.

        • truthseeker

          uhh….except for the fact you totally ignore what he got back for some of those picks. Baertschi does count you know. And so far he’s been better value than a second round pick. Second round picks are over rated. Hell…all draft picks are over rated aside from the top 15. Relax. It’s totally acceptable to take fliers on young first rounders not producing for a second round pick. You sound totally ridiculous ranting on about the one second rounder for Vey that didn’t work out. whooopty doo!

          • Dirk22

            “Second round picks are over rated. Hell…all draft picks are over rated aside from the top 15”

            Well if that’s how you feel I can’t really argue with you. Every GM in the league thinks it’s important to build through the draft (especially for a team without a lot of prospects) but truthseeker thinks it’s overrated.

            “You sound totally ridiculous ranting on about the one second rounder for Vey that didn’t work out.”

            You’re telling me I’m being disingenuous and then saying stuff like this, conveniently leaving out the second he threw into the Gudbranson deal (probably overrated hey) or the second he threw into the Sutter deal (again overrated I’m sure). So what – they could have had Alex deBrincat or Sam Girard…who cares, right! Hindsight as you like to say right truthseeker! Totally overrated. We’re better off with the veteran presence of Gudbranson and Sutter.