the Tuesday, it's Dan Rachow and Satyar Shah here in the Kintak studio, Canucks Central is for enzyme Pacific Vancouver's premier Chrysler dot Ram and Jeep Superstore on second Avenue between can be in Maine or at enzyme Pacific Chrysler dot CA It's a game day for the Vancouver Canucks the Buffalo Sabres in town and then get our first look at Bowen byroom in savers colors. Former Vancouver giant, let's see how he fares against the team that I wouldn't say he grew up watching. He's been pretty good so far. Five points, Buffalo were all over the Seattle Kraken last night. So it should be a good one tonight. We'll see if the Canucks can bounce back. As always, it's one of those. If they take care of their own, they should be able to get two points. They should. Now, the Sabres have been playing better. Yes. One of the hotter teams in the league. But are the Canucks a good team or not? That's kind of the question for me. They're a bad team if they lose. No, it's, but, you know, if you're a quality team, you take care of your, you know, your own needs. Take care of your own objectives. What is it? You should be able, yes. Needs need to be met. Needs need to be met. Got to stick by the staples and you'll have success. You'll have. What needs to be thinking about needs. Great start to the show. And you'll have success. Very good. Success. All right. We'll also join up with the pregame at six o'clock and on Sportsnet Pacific. A little bit later on in today's program. All right. Let's get to the open. Welcome to the open. That's your home. Are you too good for your home? Answer me. That was me on this first hole about the ninth hole today. Oh, yeah. You want to pull. You want to play golf with earth. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. That's where the golf, the golf attire really comes in. Looks like I got right off the course. Feels like it too. Did you? No, I actually went home and chowered and got ready. But you just felt the golf vibe. The golf vibes are still strong. Right. So that's where we are. Speaking of needs, your golf game needs work. It does. It definitely does. Much like the Canucks game needs some work right now. They are struggling. I feel that the whole struggling narrative though is a little bit overblown, right? They lost two in a row, but they were coming off a foot. But they were coming off a four game win streak against some pretty good teams, pretty good performances, especially against Vegas and Winnipeg. And they lose two in a row. And yeah, it feels like things have not been great in these two games. And I don't disagree, but you look at the long view. They are still a little bit above 500 since the all star break. And I think what's happening here is everything's kind of slowed down. Right? They aren't blowing teams out of the water with as much frequency as they did early in the season. The offense has ticked back a little bit. Pedersen's not playing as well as he was early in the season. And the secondary scoring has dried up as well to a point where it's not as in your face as it was when the third line was going. Or Nils Holglonder was popping in goals for fun off the fourth line. There's just a lot that's changed with the team. And I guess you're getting more of a sober look at what you have on the roster. And I'm wondering, Sat, have you changed your mind about anybody on this roster and their potential long term fit? We know who the core is. They've locked up the core now, especially with Pedersen. And the Rhonic deal is still something that looms over, but has anybody else changed your mind on their long term fit with the team? Really two guys. Two. Two. Okay. I'm listening. And maybe not some of the players you may think. The first one is Nils Holglonder. I mean, those who have been listening to this show know I've been a Holglonder skeptic. Yes. And very skeptical of Holglonder in his overall top six viability, right? I know what this says about me, but generally you like players with more size. Generally, yes. Now, I don't mind players that are more diminutive. It's more about how successful can you be like at a love rating point? Yes. Hate him, but Brad Marchand is very, very effective, right? So I'm not against the smaller players. It's more about what are you ultimately providing? And Holglonder has proven me wrong this year with his offensive production. He's got 20 goals, right? Yep. And he's right now driving play. And he's been one of the better top six performers, especially since the All-Star break. All these things are true, right? Now, does that mean I want to commit to him long term? I'm not sure I feel that yet, but... So you're not like trying to get him on a long term deal as soon as July 1st hits? No. Okay. I view it as get through the year. Let's see what it looks like in the playoffs. And if he's back next year at 1.1 million, that's incredible value. Yes. And I think, okay, let's see, if you believe in the player, bring him back next year. Let's see what he does. 1.1 is a great value. And if you can prove that he can play in the top six, okay, let's look at the long term fit. If he's more of a middle six forward, how much are you willing to pay for guys that are going to play in your middle six? Right now we have a debate about Blueger, Joshua, how much is the organization willing to pay these guys? Yep. And if you're not paying your top-end guys, how much can you pay the other guys in your lineup? So to me, if Hoaglander is a middle six forward, a guy that's going to play 10, 11, 12, 13 minutes a game, I don't look at it as being a long term fit I want to commit to. If he can legitimately play with Patterson, would say JT, in a featured role, be offensive producer, be great on the four check, play 16, 17 minutes a game. Okay. But right now he's playing 11, 43. Yeah. Like he's proved me wrong in terms of what I thought he would do this year, absolutely. But it's more about long term. There's another question about it. So Hoaglander, the 11, 43, I will say, maybe is something that is affected a lot by his early season ice times because that has ticked up. He's generally been above 12 minutes since getting bumped up to the top six, but he doesn't get power play time. So it's all even strength time. He's essentially another Connor Garland, right, a guy who doesn't play a lot of special teams, but has some five on five value for this team. I'd like to sit here and list off reasons why knows Hoaglander should be a Vancouver Canucks for the long term, but I still need to see more, right? I said this last year about Andre Kuzmenko, how you got to be careful in buying into the shooting percentage and lo and behold, Andre Kuzmenko isn't even a Vancouver Canucks anymore, despite the fact that they gave him more than $10 million on a two year deal. Around this time last year. So, it's not that I don't believe knows Hoaglander can continue to have success, but you also have to look at his shooting percentage for the year, how that is inflating his numbers to a certain extent, and have an understanding that it could very well come down in the future. And that may affect how you feel about the player moving forward. The thing I'm most impressed with him is he is still prone to a times doing some things the coach doesn't love in terms of decisions with the puck, not getting the puck deep sometimes and it'll advise decisions. Those things happen every once in a while, but his defensive awareness has improved. His defensive positioning has improved. His availability waiting for or providing support for players along the boards has improved, right? And those are the types of things I was wondering about to a large degree. He can play a safer style for the most part, as long as he stays focused. And to me, that means he's a guy you can trust. And I think it tells you quite a bit that the organization resisted trading him at the deadline. Yeah. They could have easily done it. And I don't think it's just because they want more than what they could have got for him. I think it's they want to keep exploring what it looks like with him on this team. He's off to a great start this year. He's got 20 goals. He's earning more trust as a season goals arm, which is perfect. Can you parley this into something bigger and greater? I think there's a lot of listeners that might say, Leah Patterson has changed their minds about his long term fit on the team. Yeah. I mean, is it over the course of the full season or spurts where he's had struggles? He's recently biased completely with the mindset of, "Oh, he signed a how many million dollar contract recently?" Of course. And honestly, when you get paid that much money, there was an expectation you have to be great. Yeah. And that's just the reality of it, right? And if he didn't, if he was afraid of dealing with that, he wouldn't sign for eight years of Vancouver. Yeah. Right? So I think he understands exactly what he needs to do and that this is going to have to be something that he's going to have to deal with when he struggles, that fans are going to question him. He's going to get more criticized by the media times. But sometimes it's just like, you know, you go through a stretch and it's like, "Is he bad now? Should they trade him already?" And it's like, "Can you relax?" Like legitimately, people are saying, "Should they trade him before there's no trade clause?" 'Cause now that's a legitimate question I get repeatedly. Yeah. It was first, "Should they trade him at the deadline or should they trade him in the summer? Now it's, are they going to trade him before his no trade clause kicks in?" And I don't think any of those things are true. Leah's Patterson's long-term fit on this team is just fine. So I just wanted to throw that out there. You said two players, though. Who's the other? Noah Jolson. Okay. No, honestly, it's Noah Jolson. I thought you were going to say somebody else on the roster, like maybe Connor Garland, or maybe Brock Besser. I don't know. We talk maybe somebody higher up the line. I don't mean to diminish Noah Jolson in any way, because in the context of the question, I agree. Yes. Noah Jolson has done a lot to improve his standing as a long-term fit for the Canucks. Okay, we'll get to this. Like, to me, Garland hasn't done anything. I didn't think or knew he was capable of doing. And he's not playing a role. I did not expect that he would be able to play. Like, what did I say at the end of the last year? The best role for Connor Garland is him being on his own line, on a third line, driving play and having his own thing. Because he can't fit in your top six. That's the best role for him. But he's making five million. Is it worth, ultimately, a guy that's a third line specialist, getting paid that much money to drive a third line? I don't know if it's worth it. I don't think it's worth it personally. He's had a ton of success doing that this year, right? He's had great chemistry with Blueger and Joshua when that trio is healthy. But is it just because of him? Because now that Joshua has been out, is Garland quite as effective as he was before? No. To me, Garland's not a different player than what he was last year. He just has a specific role he's playing and having success in. Like, he's not doing anything I didn't think he was capable of doing. Is Connor Garland not as effective? Or, I mean, he's still like what? Scoring more goals than almost everybody else on the team since the All-Star break? He's like one of their top three scorers at five on five since the All-Star. Sure, and he's got 13 goals on the season. Yeah. Yeah. Ilya Mikayev has 11, and he won 34 games without scoring a goal. That's because he was hot for the first bit of the season. For sure, and he does play with Patterson and stuff like that, minutes and everything I get it, right? And if you want to look at it at points per 60 and all that five on five and the numbers look good. But it's not too dissimilar from anything he's done at Vancouver before. Like, is Garland doing anything production-wise he wasn't doing here before? Yeah, no. Right? It's actually less than what he's done in prior years. Yes, but it's working because when that trio is healthy, it's a really good line, right? Yeah. But he's not doing anything I didn't think he was capable of doing. He's making five million. Yeah, good. You can work on a third line. Congrats. That third line was one of the things that allowed the Canucks to go on a great run that solidified their spot atop the Pacific Division. It's not something that should be overlooked. Like, it was a huge value to the team the way that third line was playing for a couple of weeks. Absolutely, but it wasn't just because of him. It's because of how that trio play together, right? And also what it is. Because I think people still forget this. Petterson was the second star of the league in January when the Canucks went on that great run too. For sure. And now we can talk about Besser a bit more in depth because I think there's a good discussion to be had about him, right? But to me, Noah Julesen has gone from being a guy that, take him or leave him, put him on waivers, who cares? He went from organizational depth to, it feels like, I don't know, you're what? Penciling him in at the very least for the sixth spot on defense next season? There was a legitimate question about is he an NHL-caliber defenseman, like true day in day out NHL-caliber defenseman. Can he even be a decent 7-8 guy? That was a legitimate question about him, right? He was in the same pool as the Guillaume Breezewa type. Now, not only has he proven that he can be a 7-8 defenseman, I look at him and say, for next season, don't you feel comfortable penciling him in as your third-payer D-man on the right side, making league minimum essentially? Which means you can go cheaper in your 7-8 defenseman. Now, if it doesn't work, you can always go out and make a trade for Zadorov type, right? Like, you can always explore the trade market during the season. But has he not played well enough that you feel pretty comfortable with him in that role? And considering he's making 800k, isn't that a nice way of being able to have more space to do other things on your roster? It could allow you to, you know, hey, here's 7.2, 7.5, whatever it is for Philopronic, and then you still have some left over for the other spot on the right side. Whether that's Tyler Myers, whether that's you go for a run and try to get Krisannoff here in free agency this summer, maybe it's a even higher free agent. I don't know. Like, it gives you options because you're essentially saying we're committing to Noah Juleson as potentially our 6-defencement on a league minimum contract. Exactly. And that gives you so much more flexibility because now you look at the blue line and say, okay, you have Hughes, Susie, and Juleson signed. You signed her, Ronik. That means you don't have to add two more defensemen, which, hey, that's not an easy thing to do. But it's a lot easier to accomplish that if you're bringing Myers back, for instance, or Zadorov, one of the two. Now it's one defenseman you have to add. And considering who's available, it's not a ton of money we're talking about here, right? Like, I think it gives you the option to either make a sizable addition or, hey, get a couple of guys in the three, four million range, and now you have more money up available to get another forward up front. It gives you a lot of options on D, which teams would love to have options on defense. So Brock Besser, I did want to get to Brock because I think you'd be fooling yourself if you don't think that the question of Brock's long-term fit has to be answered probably this summer. Or you at least have to ask the question and try to figure out what you want to do with this player who's an unrestricted free agent next year. He's got 36 goals right now and is just turned 27. So you're in a kind of difficult spot with a player that is now going to be able to command a pretty hefty contract given the potential of a 40 goal season here. And I wonder how the team juggles this because Brock Besser has been a long-term player on this roster. He's the longest tenured Vancouver Canuck as it currently stands. He has avoided the trade rumors for years on years on years, asked for a trade out last year, and now finds himself as a clear part of the core of this successful team this year. But I'm not sure I'm even sold on his long-term fit on this roster. The thing that always concerns me about Brock's ultimate game into his 30s is he's never the fastest player. The game's getting quicker. At some point is he going to lag behind and is skilled diminishes to the point where he's not going to be anywhere near an $8 million player. And I mention $8 million because if he wants to contract this summer and he doesn't play next season, that's kind of the number. Maybe he signs for seven or eight years or something. But you're talking about a massive contract that he wants to sign here. And how comfortable do you feel signing him up until the age of 33, 45, and 6? That's what you have to do. He's going to be 29 years old when he's going to be signing an eight-year extension. If that's what you're looking to do, I have a lot of concerns and questions about it. Jeff Skinner signed $72 million deal in 2019 with the Buffalo Sabres. At that point, it was over 11% of the cap. It was a big number and, yes, Buffalo probably overpaid to get Jeff Skinner to stay with the Buffalo Sabres at the time. But he was coming off a 40-goal season. Very similar to Brock, actually in a less productive than Brock because Brock has even got more apples than Jeff Skinner had in his 40-goal season. He's going to get over 70 points. He might even get 40 plus goals by the time the season is over. It puts him in a real strong position bargaining-wise for any contract talks. The Canucks, if they truly want to keep him, the best thing you may do is actually not extend him, let him play out next year. And maybe he regresses slightly with his goal scoring and feels comfortable signing a cheaper contract. Is your Jay Genssel next year? To some extent. It's going to be hard to get him to sign a really team-friendly contract. Are they even interested in doing that? The question I have more is about would they move him this off season? Or would they rather take their chances and see what it looks like during a season and make a decision by the deadline? Yeah. He could be somebody that helps you get an asset to maybe go out and get something else that you may covet. But again, you're juggling a lot of different things at once. But the most important thing here about Brock Besser is his value has increased monumentally from where it was at the end of last year. Last year, nobody wanted him. You couldn't even give him away. No. Right? That's how low his value was to you're moving him this off season, you're getting a first round pick at the very least. Yep. And then whatever else I'm not sure, but you're getting, not only are you moving all that money, you're getting a legitimate asset back in return. So those are some of the players that may have changed our minds on their long-term fit with the team. Not included, Teddy Blueger, Dakota Joshua, we've talked about them a lot. Yeah. Still on the right contract, they do have a long-term fit in Vancouver, but they still very much are secondary players. Support players to the roster. And the one that has completely fallen out of my mindset for the potential of them remaining a Vancouver canuck is a Lyslyn hole. Like I love the fit when they first made the trade. I am not loving what I'm seeing so far as we've talked about so often. I just need to see more offense. And I need to see a fit that's more than just a third-line center if, you know, even on a favorable deal, I still think a Lyslyn hole is going to be able to command probably $7 million in unrestricted free agency this summer. Even if it's not seven, are you comfortable even giving him $6 million to play a third-line role? Probably not. And that's, I think that's, I mean, if we're having that now, he's a lot different than Garth. He'll be like Jordan Stahl in Pittsburgh, you know? He's a good fit, I think, for the rest of this year. And I know it has been perfect offensively, but I think, again, I'm repeating myself, but I think in the playoffs, he plays on his own line. I think you see a benefit in it, but I don't see the fit long-term and giving him a contract. I'm not even feeling good about $6 million per year. You know, if he could, if he showed he could play with Patterson and these guys could really work off one another, I would feel differently about it. But that hasn't materialized at all. And if this guy can't play with either JT or Patterson, can you invest that much money in him long-term through his 30s? I wouldn't. I would be very skeptical of doing something like that. I mean, you're looking at a player that had 64 points last year and right now is under 40 points for this season between his time with Calgary and Vancouver. Like, that's a lot of dough to be given up for a third-line center guy who, yeah, penalty kills well, takes a lot of good face-offs, but you can't overcommit if that's going to be his role on this team. So, yes, thought it might be a good long-term fit, but definitely not thinking that anymore with Elias Linholm. All right, Canucks Central round up, couple of quick things, Canucks and Sabers tonight, Buffalo smashed the Sabers. Sorry, they smashed the crack in last night. Six to two, Jeff Skinner scoring a hat trick in that one. It is game four of nine on the Homestand for Vancouver, currently one and two. Pot Colesan said for his seventh game. Does he get his first point tonight? I'd like the way that he's played. He has. But when are you going to show me some bottom line? And that's why, ultimately, as good as he's been, is he more than a depth option for you? Yeah. And I think that's what he is. And that's good. He helps you. You need depth throughout the playoffs, but if you had any sights of him playing up the lineup, it's like, hey, get your first point. Let's get your first point. Then we get to talk about perhaps moving up the lineup in any way, shape, or form. The NHL is looking at tweaking some rules. We're going to get into that with Eric Engels. And yesterday I had a big take on the show. You did? Yeah. Was it about a certain hockey player? A Russian hockey player? It was. And yesterday I said Alex Ovechkin, probably not going to beat the record, right? I think you're more forceful than that. I felt after seeing Alex Ovechkin here in Vancouver that I became very skeptical of the opportunity of him beating the record. You said he's washed, right? I pretty much said that he's washed. Do we have the Ovechkin monster? And it was, well, as some people were in my mentions listeners of the show, they said, well, this take aged like milk. Let's hear what happened. I did have one other takeaway from Saturday Night's game. I don't think Alex Ovechkin's going to beat Gretzky's record. That's right up the middle. Wilson trying to muscle his way in, time up, gets it back. Patrick Reddy in front of Ovechkin's 20th. A power play goal makes it two nothing capitals. I hate talking about the greatest goal score of all time like this, but it was a tough watch. I don't think he's going to beat the record at this point. Well, that's text for Alex Ovechkin and it makes it three nothing capitals. You know, he's not as much of a factor on the power play anymore. He is, I mean, look, he worked hard to get that goal on Saturday, but other than that, not nearly as dangerous a player as he once was. So two more goals. Yeah, both on the power play too. Yes, fantastic. He's 21 on the season now and all of a sudden needed with Celine Dion's, my heart will go on. So all of a sudden is 51 goals. Yeah. 51 goals left to tie the record. That's it. 51. It doesn't look as daunting now doesn't look as daunting now, like he's going to finish this here probably with 25 to do 24 more for the rest of the year. Are you honestly? You want to go? You want to do it again? You know my miscalculate, please. Look, he's down. I'm still skeptical that he that he beats the record. I am. Please doubt him again. My, the thing that happened here is I really, really, really underestimated how bad some teams are. Oh, yeah. That's the problem. Yeah. That was covering that. All right, coming up, Eric Engels is going to join us his take on some of the rule tweaks that may be coming to the National Hockey League. That's next on SportsNet 650. [BLANK_AUDIO]
