Gawdzukes

Yeah, they're missing Beauvillier alright. Plus they give us a second on top of that, plus they take our spare crap, for a top pairing 30 yr old veteran D. Ha ... dream on. Imo that's ludicrous but hell ya sign me up.

Also, Eiserman = Yzerman?

Canucks finally get #1 overall? I like Celebrini.

Just completely different than what the team needs. He's a smaller 6/7 defenceman looking for money and stability/fit. We have neither, and far bigger concerns to address. Again, if he wants to sign for league minimum and fight for a spot great but otherwise ... no chance. We just addressed our defence the last thing we should be worrying about is how to give this guy a job and a bunch of money.

1 piece of bubble gum 3 pieces of rubbish 2 low draft picks for Pesce 2nd =

Niiice

Buena

Yeah, the more I thought about it you're absolutely right. They committed a lot cement in their formula. He's there rain or shine.

lol, no doubt hey? What a far out statement. I thought Bear looked behind the play defensively all year long. Not overly good on offence, poor around the net and on the boards, not a very good player imo. He's a player who should be a #7 battling to become an NHL regular.

I think their motto is Kopitar rocks, he's 100% a big part of the team moving forward and they showed everyone that.

I think it's inevitable that first gets traded for something along the way. They're in go for it mode.

Terrible at the hockey part of hockey. Good luck Ottawa.

That's the near impossible part. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see a market for any of our available wingers.

Passing up $4.65 mil ... bold, risky maybe?

It should be Nikita Kwitagain

Something tells me Nashville will never through in the towel, and with shrewd management they might just bounce back quickly.

Mostly a GM issue imo. Kept signing redundant wingers instead of getting a legitimate 2 LW.

We would need to offer $4.3 mil and our 1st and third. If we had our second we could offer him around $3.5 - 4

Total chump. Money more important than hockey for him. Doesn't he have millions already?

Bye bye chump

Thanks, I thought so. I also have post traumatic Steen disorder. @shiznak One of them is more experienced and thus gained the trust of professionals.

Eloquently said. My hats off to you sir. I am contemplating your points.

That was my whole point with the laughing face at the end. Believe whatever you want though it's 100% your choice. I will let my eyes and hockey experience be the judge for myself. I can see the numbers are the same but they don't equate to my common sense so I'm not going to reach for a false conclusion. I simply don't believe those numbers are the be all end all to sizing up a player as much as you do. In fact they're worthless without context imho. The points I mentioned are the things that actually matter. Try putting together an all analytics team. I remember seeing one once and I think it was Thomas Steen who was considered the NHL's best player. As far as Burroughs goes, hopefully he breaks out this year and proves me somewhat wrong. He's got effort on his side. I really like the kid but I'm not at all confident he's going to take SJ by storm. I also think Soucy is the better player and 95% of hockey people would too. Anymore convo on the topic would be silly at this point. Let's see how it plays out. Dude just likes to argue lol

Well yeah. It's kind of absurd people are struggling with watching players play hockey as the best way to evaluate them. What else is there? Listening? Innate knowledge? Stats? It's kind of hard to prove 100%, even with numbers, which is why a subjective, yet objective viewpoint is always needed. I don't think you could just run an algorithm and put together a team that way. On the other hand maybe we're just in for ChatGPGM in the future. Man that sure would be boring as hell lol. How does one prove a hockey player is better than another? I don't know if people really have a statistical background but if they do the flaws in these types of advanced stats, and the way they are gathered is fairly obvious, and documented as well. I can't really prove it but my sincere belief based on my lifelong hockey judgment is that Soucy is far better for the Vancouver Canucks. Case closed. Haha.

Agree to disagree. I have to wonder if you actually do watch, and if you do if you evaluate for yourself what is happening on the ice. Again, there is so much more to a hockey play than whether or not you are accumulating simple shots for vs shots against stats. Every hockey play is vastly different and needs to be evaluated on it's own merits independently. I don't know why you say Soucy didn't play top 4 ever as a comparison but it makes sense why you're confused then. You're are unaware of the situational realities and somewhat blindfolded by a spreadsheet. Not all bottom 2/top 4 situations are the same. Players also graduate to larger roles as they progress which is what you're seeing here. I watched quite a few Kraken games this past year and he seemed to jump on the ice and play a pivotal role throughout the game, often against top caliber players, while providing that sought after pushback and toughness. He may have been in the third slot but certainly was relied in all types of situations. Burroughs was not and shouldn't be. Soucy contributed to an incredible Seattle season and played a sizable role. Burroughs contributed to one of the worst defence performances in modern history. He played in a pinch when we were short players. Do you not see the difference? Also the size difference where we all saw Burroughs struggle against bigger players. That's why people believe Soucy has a far better chance at playing top 4 then Burroughs. I understand being hesitant in declaring Soucy a surefire top 4 but the difference between the two is currently night and day.