• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

836 Esteemed

About kloubek

  • Rank
    Canucks Rookie

Recent Profile Visitors

4,044 profile views

    Seriously? We NEED high-end D prospects. I would do this in a second - especially considering Guddy might just end up walking at the end of this season if we don't trade him anyway.
  2. TSN finally showing some respect with "Core 4" rating

    Grit factored in, I would have to agree. I suppose the several (if not abundant) middle six prospects we do have could always be flipped for assets we do need as well when the time is right. I guess I just don't get the love affair CDC has with Kane. I feel he is quite overvalued on here when you factor in the negatives against what amounts to be not-exactly-elite skills.
  3. TSN finally showing some respect with "Core 4" rating

    Well for the right price we would want to sign all sorts of free agents. I just feel that middle six guys is not where we want our cap space to be spent in two years while our top line and top defensive pairing isn't what it needs to be.
  4. (Proposal) VAN - WPG

    Fair enough. But this thread is about acquiring another forward, which looks just fine if you are going to blow up the current team but in real life (as we are), we simply don't need another forward of a middle-six caliber. I think for the most part you are pretty accurate with your predictions, which only solidifies that point. If anything, we are going to end up sellers of our talent. I actually really hope so, since that gives us trading fodder to acquire any missing pieces. Some fair points that Horvat may be elevated with better wingers. (Boeser is still there but we can assume he will get even better with experience). I suppose it is indeed possible. Let's face it - Baertschi for all his improvement is not exactly the kind of player who is going to push anybody's stats through the roof. Since it is generally agreed this is going to be Horvat's team, it would be ideal if he could indeed reach #1 center status.
  5. TSN finally showing some respect with "Core 4" rating

    Maybe so, but you are assuming an 82 game season, which most players don't actually play and he certainly does not. He's a decent player, but durability factors into it too and I imagine it is his playing style that has kept him from playing 82 games even once. He seems to average 10-15 games off a season so that works out to perhaps 42 points at best - and that's simply *not* 1st line scoring. Point being - we just don't need him. We have such players now, and will have an abundance of them shortly.
  6. Just because we might play some of them on the right wing, they've all played left wing at some point.
  7. TSN finally showing some respect with "Core 4" rating

    To be fair, that trio of forwards is exceptionally talented - though I think they overrated Rielly.
  8. TSN finally showing some respect with "Core 4" rating

    I especially don't want to rely on him to get first line minutes. Sure he's a point a game player in his contract year now, but 1) I expect that to reduce over the season 2) His best season by a large margin he got 57 points. On average, he gets about a point every .6 games. That's firmly 2nd line level scoring. Not to mention he hasn't had a single fully healthy season. Not high on Kane. Especially not considering the accompanying drama.
  9. (Proposal) VAN - WPG

    This is a decent looking lineup. (Even if I still think Horvat is unlikely to gett so much better that he should remain our 1st line center) But why rebuild the team? Somehow, you conveniently eliminated about 3/4 of our existing forward lineup. Where did they go? One could assume we won't have all our existing forward group in a couple of years but we should at least have a good portion of it. Even if all those guys simply walked after their contract was up, in a couple of years we're still going to have Eriksson Sutter and Gagner under contract. I think this proves a good point though. We have so much forward depth that we actually CAN make a new team by only retaining a quarter of our existing team. As such, why is it you feel we need yet another middle six player?
  10. No, not exactly. Baertschi is on pace for 59 points this season. That betters every single one of Galchenyuk's seasons (and especially this one) and is also playing alongside Horvat - who is admittedly good, but is also not exactly an elite playmaker at this point in his career either. So we already have one solid 2nd line left wing perhaps with an outside chance of being 1st line level. But in addition to that, we have the following players with who can also play left wing on the roster right now: Virtanen Eriksson Gaunce Gagner Granlund Dorsett D Sedin (for this season anyway) Vanek (until the deadline anyway) Many of those guys are 3rd or 4th liners - although I see potential in Virtanen to be a bit better or Eriksson to gain back his game. ...and our prospects who can play LW: Pettersson Dahlen Goldobin Gadjovich Palmu Out of these, I see two likely 1st liners (though I imagine we would play Pettersson at center), a likely 2nd liner or possibly first liner in Goldobin, and a couple of outside chance top-six guys in Gadjovich and Palmu. So while I admit our obviously high end left wingers are few, we have an abundance of guys who can play 3rd or 4th line and potentially even the 2nd line as well. If we were to go after anyone for the left wing, it would only to be for our first line and would only some sort of insurance in case both Dahlen doesn't pan out AND we do need Pettersson for that first line center position. In short, we're actually in decent shape on the left going forward and we just don't need Galchenyuk. If he was a 65-70 point guy, I would reconsider my position. But he isn't.
  11. I really don't see the point in adding Galchenyuk unless Benning plans on unloading Vanek early maybe, but that isn't how he is going to maximize the return. We already have a logjam of forwards and in a couple of years we are going to have a new bunch of middle 6 forwards coming through the system. Unless he improves, I feel Galchenyuk is a 2nd line player at best and we just don't need more 2nd and 3rd line guys at all. Additionally, I don't think Hutton is worth a heck of a lot to other teams and would imagine we'd have to contribute more along with Hutton to get a guy like Galchenyuk - doghouse or not. IMO what we should be targeting is a defenseman with top pairing potential. Maybe package of Galchenyuk plus Juulsen, and give up Hutton, Goldobin and a third?
  12. [Proposal] Yute-Blockbuster..would U?

    Ideally, when coming up with a trade idea it works best to focus on what we need and what we have to trade away without a huge detriment to our team, if possible. Barzal looks to be really, really good. This season in particular he's playing a *very* high level of hockey and one could say he could slot in as our #1 center pretty much immediately. But is that what we need? We may already have a 1st line center in Pettersson.and while he won't be ready for that position for a 2-3 years, the rest of our team won't be ready to contend until then as well so it's all good. So we don't really need another center, until such time as it turns out Pettersson isn't going to be as good as we all believe. But at this point, 3 top six centers is not at all what we need. We need perhaps an elite scoring left winger, and absolutely an elite defenseman. But to top it off, you want to give up a goalie we've been grooming to be our #1? Then who's going to man the net... Markstrom? Sorry - while he looks better this season I don't believe he's the goalie we need if we are vying for the cup. So no to the proposal. Not necessarily due to unbalanced value (which it may be), but just because it doesn't meet our needs. And I'm going to guess it probably doesn't meet theirs either.
  13. Derrick Pouliot | #5 | Defenceman

    I did. And hey... no denying he had a good game. But thats all it was. Good. Lots of our players had a good game. Hell.... Eriksson had a good game. On the flip side, Prior to this Pouliot was...what... 3 points in 14 games?(though he wasn't generally a liability either and played solid d). I will say though that I realize being with a new team and system is challenging so he's done well. Im glad we acquired him, and he has played solid so I don't want people to think I'm ragging on him.... I just don't see the excitement. Again, unless he progresses noticeably past his current ability he really is a guy that fills a spot but not a need. We know this by the debate of where he is on the depth chart. Right now I place him as tied for 6th spot at best or more likely the 7th, and I'm sorry, but on a team with so little blue line scoring that isnt saying much in his favour at this time. Yes hes young and yes he has potential. Both good as well. But unless reaches that potential (and the Pens felt he would not) hes relatively inconsequential to this team. Bow watch him really take this new opportunity to turn the corner with his new team. Id love nothing more.
  14. Derrick Pouliot | #5 | Defenceman

    Oh, I didn't say that. I am willing to accept that the trade was a good one. I just don't think all this excitement and fanfare is warranted for a guy who imo is a bottom pairing defenseman and has a *potential* of a 2nd pairing guy. If he does turn into a 2nd pairing guy, then we did really really well. But until then, I just see it as a depth trade.
  15. [Discussion] Markstrom + Hutton = ?

    I was thinking the same thing. He says exactly why we want to get rid of them, but believes that other GMs would overlook those issues and covet them? I don't even agree with the OP's assessment in the first place. I will, however, say that if we could get a piece back we really need that I would be willing to part with Markstrom, Hutton, and even a prospect. What we really need are high-end potential guys for the forward line but especially the blueline. I have no idea how Juolevi will work out, but so far I haven't been impressed. Even if he does turn out to be a really good defenseman, we could absolutely use a top-end guy... for the 2nd unit pp if nothing else. So if we gave up Markstrom, Hutton, and say... Goldobin - would this get us a nearly sure-fire #1 defensive prospect back? Say, a McAvoy/Chabot kind of guy? If so, I'd do it for sure. That allows that prospect to develop for a couple of years while the rest of our young guys do, and will be ready for when we want to contend in 2-4 years.