Canucks waive some guy named Yannick Weber

The Canucks made a minor roster move Monday, placing some guy named Yannick Weber on waivers, as per TSN’s Bob McKenzie, a.k.a. The Waiver Oracle.

 

As per my understanding of waivers, you can’t waive a guy who doesn’t play for your team, so that must mean that Yannik Weber is a member of the Vancouver Canucks. It’s weird, because I do not recall ever seeing him.

I checked the Canucks team roster, however, and Weber is there. According to the site, he’s a defenceman. A likely story. I vaguely recall the Canucks having a fourth-line forward named Weber. Is it the same guy? In any case, Weber is listed at 5’11″ and 200 pounds. He is alleged to have been born in 1988, if he even exists at all.

Anyway, this is all we know about him, and we’re pretty sure it’s the first time he’s ever been mentioned, as I don’t recall him playing a single game for the Canucks this season. I watch these games pretty closely, you guys. I think I would remember him. I’ll check the game logs, but I’m quite confident that he’s never — oh.

Oh right. Yannick Weber. The defenceman turned forward who signed with the Canucks in the offseason, presumably to play on the bottom pairing, only to lose his job completely to Ryan Stanton and be converted into a member of John Tortorella’s fourth line (which is entirely theoretical, like the document on which the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are supposedly based). Right. This guy.

Back when the Canucks claimed Stanton, we made a point of saying that he hadn’t stolen Weber’s job, just Andrew Alberts’. Our hypothesis was that Stanton would basically replace Alberts, but Weber would still get his reps as a natural righty.

It didn’t happen. Stanton settled in as a reliable, regular member of the Canucks’ blueline, Alberts became the official number seven, and Weber was rendered superfluous and turned into a forward during the Canucks’ recent spate of injuries, left to skate primarily with the likes of Tom Sestito — hardly a recipe for success.

Weber has played just 10 games for the Canucks this season, and in November, he’s spent just 2:46 on the ice — all during a blink-and-you-missed it 2:46 versus the Maple Leafs. Now the Canucks have decided, perhaps because they have another move coming or maybe just because Weber’s not doing them any good and the Comets could use the help, to send him to the AHL.

Understandably, they’re not too worried about losing him to waivers.

It’s a shame Weber didn’t get more of a chance to show what he can do at his natural position, or on the powerplay.

“I helped in Montreal when I was there,” he told Tony Gallagher of The Province last week. He also added that he occasionally looks at video of Sami Salo on the Canucks’ powerplay and yearns for the lost opportunity to be the new Salo (although by being out of the lineup so much, he sort of is, right?). “I still watch it now,” he said, “and he does have a very hard shot and I know when he was here they were very successful. I was sure that was one reason why they signed me.”

Before things changed, I think it was.

On the bright side, he should get a similar chance in Utica. Provided he’s not claimed by another team on the way down, a standout performance with the Comets (which shouldn’t be hard to accomplish, as the Comets are terrible) might earn him a real shot later in the year.

17 comments

  1. Adam Nowek
    November 18, 2013

    Watch him be Switzerland’s best player at the Olympics.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  2. George
    November 18, 2013

    Mr. Mooney,
    I enjoy your blog – usually – but your extra comment about the gospels was entirely unnecessary, and quite inappropriate. Stick to hockey and you’ll be fine. Normally you do a good job. But – inserting little “shots” like this poke at the gospels takes the emphasis away from your comments on hockey – not needed, and definitely not useful.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: -25 (from 35 votes)
    • Harrison Mooney
      November 18, 2013

      How was that a shot at the Gospels? Most New Testament scholars — even the Christian scholar under whom I learned my New Testament theory at Trinity Western University — support the theoretical Q document.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +33 (from 33 votes)
    • Tony
      November 18, 2013

      Agree with George.

      Your blog’s ill attempt to inform and provide humor to the misfortune of an athlete clearly indicates your own shortcomings and need to feel good about yourself. Congratulations, it worked.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: -23 (from 25 votes)
    • Lemming
      November 18, 2013

      I’d say, George, you’ve just been served.
      -signed “an actual atheist who actually doesn’t like your religion, and isn’t afraid to say it”

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: -4 (from 18 votes)
      • ikillchicken
        November 18, 2013

        I’m pretty sure nobody has been served since the early 2000s.
        -Signed, Also an athiest who doesn’t like religion at all but doesn’t feel the need to preach about it at every opportunity.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +5 (from 9 votes)
      • tox26
        November 18, 2013

        As a Christian, born-again, real-deal serve God sorta Christian… I wasn’t offended by it at all. I did however get a kick out of a self-avowed atheist going by “lemming”. That’s classic. :-)

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
    • TubaNat
      November 18, 2013

      Ooh no, one of the reasons I love this blog is I never know if I’ll get a reference to funk bands of the 80s or obscure Bible trivia, two things I love! I say keep it up!

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +12 (from 12 votes)
    • fiann
      November 19, 2013

      shutup.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. laplander
    November 18, 2013

    And here I am to congratulate you for causing me to look up an actual cultural item. Your writing just keeps getting better (and usually, funnier…)

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  4. DanD
    November 18, 2013

    Anyone who can use the Q source in a humorous and informative sports blog is a winner in my books. Nice work Harrison!

    And for you Christian/atheist debaters, the existence or non-existence of a hypothetical source document for the synoptic gospels really says nothing about their historical reliability either way. Whee!

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +13 (from 13 votes)
    • Harrison Mooney
      November 18, 2013

      Haha I knew you’d arrive to resolve this eventually, Dan.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
  5. NormalGuy
    November 18, 2013

    Harrison, I feel vaguely threatened by the fact that you made a humorous reference to something I’m pretty sure my parents told me I’m supposed to believe in. I don’t know what you meant by it and I’m not going to learn about it, but just know, I’m pretty sure it goes against what I think I believe or something and I don’t feel at all comfortable about it.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
    • Harrison Mooney
      November 18, 2013

      Hey Bryan……. QUIT. [/insidejoke]

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  6. Taylor Mah
    November 18, 2013

    I thought the gospel reference was a creative and inoffensive way of showing how slapdash the fourth line has been put together for most of the season.

    -Signed an atheist who doesn’t really care either way.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  7. BBoone
    November 19, 2013

    I was hoping that since Coach T never uses his 4th line that Weber could be an old fashioned specialist and play the power play as a 7th defenceman / 4th line winger.
    I think it is fair to say that PITB, Nov 18, is the only hockey blog on this, or any other, planet having a spirited , theoretical, theological debate. Boldly going where none have gone before …

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  8. TT
    November 19, 2013

    The only thing I found offensive is that you got it wrong! Q was a source for the parts of Matthew and Luke that didn’t come from Mark, not the source for all three.

    /pedantic

    But yea, people taking offense to you mentioning a theory that’s widely believed by christian bible scholars because they didn’t bother to take 30 seconds to figure out what you were referring to aren’t doing a great job of dispelling the “reactionary” label that’s sometimes leveled at religious types.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)