Ray_Cathode

Members
  • Content count

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

527 Esteemed

About Ray_Cathode

  • Rank
    Canucks Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

18,299 profile views
  1. Yeah, but teams only win by finding those kinds of gems in those picks - almost all players come into the league via the draft. If you are not keeping your picks, you ultimately have no assets to play or to trade.
  2. Sedin Sedin Eriksson Rodin Sutter Hansen Baertschi Horvat Virtanen Burrows Gaunce Etem Granlund Dorsett Edler Tanev Hutton Gudbranson Tryamkin Larsen Sbisa Biega Markstrom Miller Here's hoping Rodin is our next Naslund, Virtanen our next Stan Smyl, Tryamkin our next Bob Daley, Gaunce our next Malhotra, Hutton our next PP quarterback - failing that, here's hoping we can be nicely placed in the Nolan Patrick sweepstakes. My greatest fear is that the decline of the Sedins is permanent and ongoing. If it is there should be a lot of movement at the deadline.
  3. The reasons our D gets so few shots through are numerous, and Edler, by the way, is the worst at getting them through. The primary reason is that none of D seem capable of moving laterally across the line (walking the line) in order to open a shooting lane. Part of the reason for that is because we never have our forwards screening the defenders from closing on the point men. Another reason is that the Sedins in particular set up so low on the sideboards that they do not draw the high defender to them. Playing deep on the side boards also closes down the available angle for a pass to the near point, so the the defender is too close to the boards - the high defender of that side easily closes on the defenceman and takes away the shot. Earlier in their career they would move up and down the side wall - moving toward the point cause the high forward to engage and the angle to the near point opens up. Playing higher on the sidewall also expands the space between forward and defender in the slot for cross ice passes (remember those) and for slap passes (remember those). Whether that is poor coaching or play by the Sedins is moot at this point. Mostly, I am just used to watching them kill the first minute and forty-five seconds of every power play for the opposition. There is a reason our PP is so bad, and they are the guys who monopolize the PP time. If the D can't get through shots, it is primarily because they never receive passes when they are in open lanes, and they don't seem to know how to create them. That is something at which Ehrhoff was a master in Vancouver - of course the Sedins (namely Henrik) used to change his position on the side boards - now they mostly stand around until they give the puck away.
  4. Wonderful. I'll take you literally, you'd trade a future Karlsson for Sbisa any day.
  5. Tanev doesn't shoot the puck that much because he has watched Edler blast the puck into the defender's pads so often and seen the shot blocker skating up ice past a stumbling then falling Edler. Tanev is defensive minded - he'd rather fire the puck in the corner than take that risk when Edler is on the other side of the ice just waiting to fall down and give the opponent a 2 on 0 opportunity.
  6. Tanev is the guy feeding his partner or making a short pass because he is usually the first guy back retrieving the puck and taking a hit, and has his back to the play - giving his partner, who is facing up ice the puck to make a play. For crying out loud, try to watch the game without your pre-formed opinions.
  7. People seriously bias the stats on lower draft picks - first rounders too. If you check the 2015 draft class - almost no-one made an appearance in the NHL. If you check the 2014 draft class, you will find a small number have had a taste of the NHL. If you check the 2013 class, a few more, and the 2012 class even more. By the time you get to the 2011 class, you will find nearly half have had a turn on the ice in the NHL. That is because very few players make it right out of junior, or even after their second year, or third - for most defencemen and goalies it can take five years or more. Those players who are being counted, but simply aren't ready to play YET are biasing your statistics. Then you have to add in the prospects who are traded for someone who does make it, and the players who are drafted and go to college first and don't make it till they are finished - (Bieksa) - meanwhile, for five years they are draft 'failures'. If you are going to evaluate the value of a second round pick, for instance, you have to remove the first five years or so after they are drafted - because of the great proportion of players who complete two or three years of junior, then two or three years of minor pro, or who do three or four years of college (Stetcher, Cory Schneider, , , then a couple of years of minor pro, or who take several years to polish their game in Europe (Rodin).
  8. Virtanen's role this fall is entirely up to Virtanen. If he outplays all of the other wingers, he can completely determine what spot he gets. Then he can let Benning decide who else he has to get rid of other than Jake.
  9. You are correct, but it does not diminish my argument at all, that later picks can have value - whether they make one's team or not, and shouldn't be tossed around like so much confetti. Yes, they are lottery tickets, but the odds are odds you would die for on the 6/49. Yes, they have a bout a 20% chance of making the NHL directly - but teams that do wellplay all of those cards that they can collect, and they are the guys that find those gems outside of the first round - they find them, because they accumulate chances, and they pay more for scouting so that they can increase on that 20% chance, and the pay a ton to develop their players the right way. Poker is a game of playing the odds, and professionals consistently win at the game because they play those odds better. The Canucks have a bad habit of trading away their chances to play for lower risk, but either older or marginal guys - when what you are looking for is home runs. You can always puck up marginal free agents. If a team doesn't like a guy, like the Flames management did not like Baertschi, they often just give up on them and they are available for almost nothing.
  10. He was a liability in his own end, a centre who couldn't win draws, he was almost always badly positioned in his own end, too weak and soft to win the puck in the corners, fairly slow, had a weak shot, and didn't dig up enough pucks to make enough plays to really earn a spot on the Canucks. Now that could just be a bad fit - because he was a soft guy on a soft team; or it could be that he just wasn't worth the pick we wasted on him when we could have had McKeown - a defenceman who had fallen in the draft, but still made the national junior team. McKeown got traded for Sekera, who got a six year contract from Edmonton - Carolina still values McKeown - he is very 3rd rated defensive prospect. We'll see how Vey plays on a team with a stiffer backbone.
  11. Well, actually, the Kings used the guy they selected with the pick the Canucks gave for Vey to select a guy who fell out of the first round at the draft: Roland McKeown - who played on the 2015 world junior team for Canada. He was then traded by LA and yielded them Sekera, who subsequently was signed for six years by Edmonton. So, that second round pick you so easily disparrage, turned into a guy playing on an NHL team and in possession of a six year NHL contract. So clearly someone saw a value in that pick - in fact several teams did, and it resulted in an NHL defenseman, and Carolina's now third rated defensive prospect - McKeown. That is what happened to the reasonably high second round pick that we gave up to get Vey - a soft centre chocky on a team renowned for its softness. So, before you launch off on your devaluation of second round picks, you should at first check the facts and see how they are actually commoditized in the NHL - they don't have to make your team to be a value. You really must think a deeper game than you are used to.
  12. It is not about 'improving' from terrible to mediocre; it is about winning the Stanley Cup - or at least icing a team that has a reasonable chance to. All of the players you list, which one is a truly great first line centreman? It is very rare to pick one up outside the first few picks, and Stanley Cups are almost never won by teams that don't have one. The last time we contended, we had both Henrik in his prime - Henrik, remember, was a second overall.
  13. Compromise never wins you anything except mediocrity, and that defines Benning. He won't let us be bad enough to have a great chance of picking first, and he trades away his other draft picks like he's throwing out confetti at a wedding - so he won't accidently pick us a stud centre with a later pick. Don't even get me started about the coaching - this team is among the most disorganised in its own end, and it has a terrible power play - the two things that good coaching is most able to improve on a team.
  14. Rodin is a more mature player, the leading scorer in a MEN'S professional league even though he missed games through injury at the end. Virtannen was an 18 year old kid last year - two years, for him, will make an enormous difference - as long as the lousy coaching in Vancouver does not ruin him.
  15. Boesser will be available next year - and college players are usually more physically and mentally mature than juniors, and much more ready to step in than a 17 or 18 year old junior - Tanev and Hutton, for example.