Hedman

Members
  • Content Count

    848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hedman


  1. 18 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

    I'm not sold on Tkachuk at 5. If Dubois isn't there I wouldn't mind trading down a bit and getting a defensemen. If Arizona would trade their 7th and 20th for the 5th (or something similar) I would go for it in that situation.

     

    Stick around even if Benning does something stupid, it wouldn't be the first time. Plus that's when these boards get really polarized and entertaining. We've got to remember that Benning is transient, we were fans before he came to the Canucks and we will be fans long after he leaves. 

    Tkachuk's a winner. People will say that he's a product of great linemates, but he knows what it takes to win, and he will go to the right areas to be as effective as possible. I will say that i'm actually not sure Benning will pick him if he's there at 5, which is part of the reason why i'm concerned. I'm more confident we will pick Dubois if he's still available, so i'm kinda rooting for him being there for my own mental health, but i guess you can never know for sure until the pick has been made.


    If i would stick around i would feel like i'm actually supporting the decisions being made, and for my own taste, there's just been too many bad ones this year, and i'm definitely not in the mood for another one after months and months of draft-hype. I'm not really seeing the light at the end of the tunnel right now, with all the talk about ownership being involved in certain decisions, not rebuilding when that's what we should be doing etc. I just want to see this team moving "in the right direction", at least from my POV.


  2. 1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

    I was just going to say....A lot of people in here sure are getting excited and rightfully so!  I am as well.  But I am a Canucks fan, tomorrow I am expecting to be let down, discouraged, angry and frustrated.  It's the Canuck way 

    There's been a lot of let downs this year particularly. The trade deadline, the draft lottery, and trading both McCann and Shinkaruk. I feel like you're always going to get stabbed in the back as long as you're excited about something as a Canucks fan. Literally no player or prospect on this team is safe, and i feel like it's getting to the point where you're asking yourself what the worst possibly thing that could happen to us would be. Trading Horvat? Boeser? Demko? Tbf there's not a whole lot to get excited about anymore, and when the players that you're getting excited about are getting traded before they've even been given a fair shot with this team, then what's the point of feeling excited about any player?

     

    Hard to judge a trade unless you know exactly how it looks, but i'll tell you this: If we keep the 5th overall pick, and we aren't picking the remaining player of Dubois/Tkachuk, i'm done with this team until Benning is getting fired. And i won't be posting on this board until he has been fired. I guess there's 1 or 2 player that i could potentially be ok with besides those guys, that could grow on me over the days/weeks/months/years due to their potential. But in my mind, there's literally no reason to pass on the remainder of Dubois/Tkachuk. Make your highest pick in 17 years count. Not only are Tkachuk/Dubois the safest picks at 5, but they also have really good potential to end up being great players.


  3. I have a bad feeling that i'll end up being disappointed after the draft. Whether that's trading our 5th overall pick or picking "the wrong" player with our pick, i don't know. Don't like all the talk about Subban, great player but not worth the cap-hit. He's also 27 and he just doesn't seem like a great fit with us right now IMO. He's not going to grow with this team. We're not contenders, and we won't be contenders for at least 3-5 years. We should be rebuilding instead of adding mammoth contracts that's not going to make this team better in the long run.

    • Upvote 1

  4. 1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

    I don't think #5 is a crapshoot at all...You could look at Dubois/Tkachuk as having fairly equal talents..although they are not similar players..Either is a great prospect...I would say 6-12 is a crapshoot,and one of those players in that range could very well be one of the best in the draft...

     

    https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-draft-pierre-luc-dubois-vs-matthew-tkachuk/c-280963710

    Well put. I agree 100% with you. There's no reason to go with the fancy picks when you can just go with the low risk, high reward guys. Benning would honestly go against his own agenda if he doesn't pick Dubois or Tkachuk at 5. Not only are these guys big, strong forwards that can skate and mix it up, but they're also offensively gifted players with great upside. Not to mention that personalitywise, Tkachuk and Dubois are just on another level compared to the rest of the guys outside the top3. They are both very professional and they know what it takes. There's literally no reason for Benning to not pick Dubois or Tkachuk tbh. And again, i will be furious if we don't pick either one, especially after the McCann trade. 


  5. 1 hour ago, Canucks Curse said:

    with the emergence of Hutton, and possibly tryamkin, where is this desperation to pick a d man coming from??? You have to go BPA and that is clearly tkachuk or pld. Plus I would say by far and away our biggest need is a future front line player that can play now and help our team transition away from the sedins, but we are not going to get one of those. BPA this yr is a forward.

    Yeah apparently we would have gone from being the 2nd worst team in the league in goals scored, to being a top-scoring team if we "just had" d-men that could generate offense. Not that i dismiss that good defence can generate offense, but it's so clear that this team's offense isn't good by any means, forwards and defencemen included.


  6. 7 minutes ago, JamesB said:

     

    Clam has a good point. Tkachuk is a solid player even without Marner and Dvorak. But, Gooseberries' response is also valid. Like I indicated before, Tkachuk is definitely a good player -- but maybe not as good as his numbers this year suggest. If he can score at the same or higher rate next year (without Dvorak and presumably without Marner), that will be a very positive sign. 

    I personally think most people are aware of this. Tkachuk benefits from playing with Marner and Dvorak, but honestly the same could be said about Dvorak and Marner playing with Tkachuk. They would've had slightly less points if they didn't play with Tkachuk. Tkachuk filled his role on that line better than anyone else on the Knights team. If Tkachuk doesn't hit 100 points next year with Dvorak and likely Marner gone, that's not going to be the whole world. If he can hit 80 or 90 points, that would still be great, because he contributes in more ways than just scoring. Him not getting as many points next year, i really don't see that preventing him from developing as a player. He would also be "the guy" on the team which could possibly make him grow even more as a player.


  7. 11 minutes ago, prix57 said:

    I was curious if anyone here is possibly concerned about Tkachuk's commitment to our team if we draft him.  More specifically if his dad gets involved and convinces him to get traded to an American team.  I am not saying this will happen for sure but it is a possibility.

     

    Watching the world championships and seeing how good puljujärvi is makes it burn missing out of the top 3.

    Well seems like his dad didn't mind playing for the Jets back in the days. And it seems like Matthew didn't mind playing for a Canadian junior team in OHL. So my answer would be no.

    • Upvote 1

  8. 2 hours ago, shiznak said:

    Man, I really hate it when people say "take the BPA, take the BPA!" I mean, how do people determine whose the best available player, at that draft position? These lists that are complied by scouts and hockey analysts, are predictions of who THEY think are the BPA at that position, but that doesn't mean they're right. For example, Bo Horvat wasn't the BPA at ninth, in 2013. He was rated as low as 15th and look how well he turned out for us. The same thing with Logan Couture, who was drafted ninth, as well, but was rated in the late teens. 

     

    Unless, they have some of crystal ball that can predict the future, there's really no telling fact of predicting who's better than who, or who should go where. Rather than ranking players individually, I like to put them in tiers. As far as, the 5th overall goes, Tkachuk, Dubois, Chychrun, Juolevi, Jost, Keller, and Nylander are all in the same tier, below Matthews and the two Finns.

     

    Horvat is a completely different scenario because he had an amazing playoff run in 2013. It's hard to rank those guys and how high they can go, same for Fabbri in 2014 who i personally was very high on. That draft-eligible guy having a beast post-season this year is Tkachuk, and he's been considered a top5 pick all year long. London is winning games right now because of their offense, not because of their defense, where Juolevi is included. 


    The only guy that was actually considered a better player at 9th in 2013 was Nichuskin. The rest were debatably better players, but not necessarily better players. Again, extremely hard to argue that Dubois and Tkachuk aren't the best players in the 4-5 range.

    • Upvote 1

  9. 2 hours ago, theminister said:

    Because the debate about projecting defencemen is a double edged sword. On one hand, it's easy to say that they are harder to project so it's safer to take a forward, all things being equal. On the other hand, if forwards are easier to project then their current results are skewed to the present than to the future, and the current D performance should be less of a factor in determining their upside and positive qualities. If D take longer they often won't look as good now comparably. 

     

    With regards to to their comparison to the D in part year's draft, possibly with the exception of Hanifin and Provorov, who I had 3 and 4, I disagree with that assessment. At 5th this year or last, any of the top three D this year are reasonable choices for that spot. 

     

    The largeness of the mistake, or even if it would be one, will only be known in years coming. I'm not even advocating we take one. The argument I was making was that it COULD be a huge mistake to get tunnel vision and to have passed up on a top pairing D over players who eventually wound up 2nd line players would be very painful for this fan base and franchise. Especially when we might get the pick of the litter. 

     

    The argument that they aren't worth taking at 5th are either media driven or based off of personal observation. The reality when the board starts to fall could be very different. The reality in 10 years will probably be even more so if we pay attention to history. 

    Do you really want to take that risk though with your franchises highest pick in 17 years? Instead of just going with the safe pick, with one of the players that are actually considered the best players by the majority in our range? 


    I definitely hold Werenski one tier above Chychrun, Juolevi and Sergachev in his draft year, without a doubt. A big smooth-skating offensive defenseman coming off a great 1st year in Michigan. Hanifin, Provorov and Werenski all had true 1st pairing potential IMO in their draft years, with Hanifin having possible #1 potential. I don't think that's the case this year with any of the defensemen, it doesn't mean that they CAN'T reach that level. Players have exceeded expectations before.


    I didn't mind us picking a defenseman in the top5 this year originally, in fact i voted for Chychrun in that "4th overall poll" a few months back. But things have changed. Dubois and Tkachuk haven't disappointed anyone, how can you possibly go wrong with any of them? Sure, one of the 3 defensemen could end up being a 1st pairing defenseman, just like Tkachuk and Dubois could end up being 1st line players. But the likeliness of them being that is probably significantly lower than Dubois and Tkachuk being 1st line players.


    Out of the 3 defensemen, i like Sergachev's potential the most, but out of the 3 defensemen, he probably also holds the highest amount of risk. If we don't pick him with the 5th overall pick, and he ends up being a #1 defenseman, people would probably grieve that we didn't pick him with our pick. "MAN WE MISSED OUT ON THAT #1 DEFENSEMAN THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD!!" But picking Sergachev with the 5th overall just isn't realistic at all, just like it wouldn't have been realistic if we picked Larkin at 6th overall in 2014, or Erik Karlsson at 10th overall in 2008. Sergachev is going to be a great pick for whichever team picks him, same goes for Chychrun and Juolevi. But at 5, they would constantly get compared with Tkachuk/Dubois, the players that were considered the best players available at that spot.

     

    Can you really blame the Canucks if they pick Dubois/Tkachuk, and one of the defensemen ends up surpassing him? That's like blaming the Islanders for taking Dal Colle, instead of just going off the board and pick Nylander or Ehlers.

    • Upvote 2

  10. 8 minutes ago, theminister said:

    That's your fear and your perception. 

     

    There is no consensus amongst NHL teams. Simply a repeated perception in certain media circles. 

     

    I'd trust JB to gauge the potential of the D-men before the talking heads. 

     

    IMHO, not taking the best D in this draft could be a huge mistake. That's my perception. 

    Not trying to label the defensemen in this years draft as busts, but care to explain why? Why would it be a huge mistake to not pick a defenseman, versus not picking Dubois or Tkachuk, 2 powerforwards that are considered safe picks with good/great upside? The defensemen this year aren't bad, but they're not even near the same level as guys like Hanifin, Provorov and Werenski, the top defensemen of last years draft.

    • Upvote 2

  11. 7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

    There really isn't much separating 4-10 and most scouts have said as much. 

     

    D take longer to develop and are harder to predict. That's largely the reasons they're ranked slightly lower by some scouts. 

     

    It's basically an argument of picking a Kesler or an Edler. There isn't really a wrong answer based on the information we have. 

     

    Declaring otherwise (with such certainty no less), especially without a pro scouting background, intel and one on one interviews, is just silly. 

    I disagree. Dubois and Tkachuk are ranked higher because they're better players, not because the defenseman could possibly take longer to develop. Rankings and the actual draft/mock-drafts are different. Do you think Dubois or Tkachuk will fall further than 6th? I think it's impossible. Meanwhile, i see Juolevi being picked maybe 7th overall at the earliest, unless Oilers reach for him, because again, that pick doesn't really matter much to them.

    • Upvote 2

  12. 5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

    I'm happy for you that you feel so sure about that ::D

    Yeah i would love to hear you argue why he is top5 worthy, without saying that there's no difference between pick 4-10.

     

    Only reason why people want us to pick Juolevi or any other defensemen for that matter is because they're defensemen, and not because they're actually the best players available. This team needs quality, and right now, it's extremely hard to argue that Dubois/Tkachuk aren't the best players available in the 4-5 range. Whether you like it or not.

    • Upvote 4

  13. 1 hour ago, J.R. said:

    Someone should inform him that CDC has deemed Juolevi as not worth being taken at 5th, let alone 4th :P

    He isn't and that pick matters less for the Oilers than it matters for us. No matter where the Oilers would end up after the lottery, they couldn't really end up being losers. They're the only team that didn't need the best player in the draft, like at all, even though they were the 2nd worst team in the league by points.


    The Oilers are where they are cuz management have failed them miserably. They already have their guys going forward, and they have multiple blue chips to trade to get the players that they need. They can do whatever they want with that 4th overall pick, they can pick the best player available, they can trade the pick or they can reach for a defenseman, a positional need. You can't blame them no matter what they do, that pick isn't going to be the difference between them winning and them losing anyways. Meanwhile, we have our highest pick in 17 years. It's important that we do what's right with it.


  14. 1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

    So,

     

    Who'd be down for trading hansen and a 3rd to move in to the later 1st round?

    If Fabbro is still available (think he will be gone in the teen-range) then i wouldn't mind. McAvoy would also be interesting. I like Hansen, he's good and all, especially for his contract. But he's replaceable, especially if we get Dubois/Tkachuk with our 1st pick. Short-term it might be harder to replace him, but not long-term.


  15. On 2016-05-05 at 3:50 AM, AntiAquaman said:

    Well every year a few fall out of the 1st round combined a few off the boards make for 2/3 of the 31-35 ranked go 1st round.  Will there be a 26-30 ranked available at 33?  odds say yes with average movement of 4 projected 1st rounder's dropping.

    My 2 guesses( and will say why) is as follows

     

    1st guess Markus Niemeläinen : 8th/last defenseman 1st rd.,  projected to go 27th.  With none of the other defensemen likely to drop below him on a depth chart for any team; unless a panic happens with defensemen going he most likely to drop into our lap.

    2nd guess Mitch Mattson: Big centre with "under-developed" 6'4" frame who has committed to North Dakota University. with so many Centre's in 1st round think a yet-to-fill out College Committed project to be the one C who drops out of top 30.  Canucks have history of being ok with projects going to college(Boeser) unlike other teams, so most likely for us to take if drops to 2nd round and IF Edmonton takes Markus Niemeläinen at 32.  If his frame fills out and he tops 6'5"?... could be the steal of the Draft!

    I personally haven't seen anything of Mattson, but the guy is ranked 61st for NA skaters and had pretty underwhelming numbers in the USHL. Seems like he would be a huge reach in the 2nd round considering there should be a couple of good defensemen available, and a few other guys that could have been 1st round picks. He will probably be available in the 3rd round anyways, or even in the 4th or 5th round. Again, seems like a huge reach in the 2nd round, so not sure how it's "most likely that we pick him" if he "drops".

     

    Have you seen him play, it sounds like you think he could be gone in the 1st round? How is his skating? Or is it just because he's big and that he has committed to a great University, the exact same University that Boeser is committed to? Just wondering.


  16. 21 hours ago, elvis15 said:

    That comes down to the semantics of what you consider vision. I'd say William does more to create for his teammates and see the ice from that perspective, while Alex does more to create for himself and find opportunity where there otherwise isn't anything.

     

    But, for what it's worth, ISS just ranked Nylander ahead of Tkachuk and Dubois in their May ranking:

     

    Also, Brown at 7 and Jost at 9. Not that I subscribe to those as gospel, but interesting nonetheless.

     

    Very interesting seeing Moverare in the top30. Watching the WJC-18, i was honestly wondering where he could realistically end up in the draft, i thought he looked pretty good. He was paired with Timothy Liljegren. He's big, mobile and i think he has some nice offensive upside. Apparently, he's also one of the youngest prospects in this years draft (born the 31st of August). Haven't really seen him play apart from that tournament, but i thought he stood out a little bit on the swedish team.

     

    Obviously don't think he will get picked in the 1st round, and i don't think i would pick him with our 2nd round pick either as i think there's better options available. But i wouldn't mind him in the 3rd or even 4th if he's still around at that point. I'm not surprised that he's climbing the rankings after the U18 tournament.


  17. 17 hours ago, granpappy said:

    actually in nylander's case you can kind of see what he might do in the nhl by what his bro is doing for the leafs.  with their game being so close, it is a rare opportunity to sort of see into the future

    I think out of the players projected to go top10, Nylander is the most underrated of them all. There's barely any talk about him. He has had a really good year, scoring some pretty clutch goals, and he was great in the WJC20. He's definitely Mississaugas best player, and that team doesn't exactly lack talent. I think a team picking him outside the top5, possibly Calgary, could get a real steal in the draft. Honestly, i think he's offensively talented enough to go top5, but teams always fancies the big skilled guys that can skate, like Dubois and Tkachuk, those players are automatically valuable, and they've also been really good this season. I don't mind Dubois or Tkachuk at all, that's the guys i want at our spot personally, but i also don't think anyone should be upset if we're picking Nylander, which i do think is EXTREMELY unlikely though. He's going to be a really good player.

     

    I don't think he's THAT similar to his bro though. There are similiarities for sure, but they're still different players. William is the guy that relies on pure skill, he's a top6 guy that will thrive in that role, but if he wasn't good enough to play in your top6, he would probably struggle playing in a grittier bottom 6 role. Alex is also skilled, but he's also a bigger and tougher player than William. He's not as good of a skater as William though (William is an excellent skater) and Alex's vision is also not as good, even though he's actually a good playmaker. I think he's a safer pick/player than William was/is, given he's bigger and tougher, but his ceiling is probably not as high as William's, even though that isn't necessarily bad, because William had and has amazing potential.

     

    A lot of people (not you) mentions that Alex isn't as talented or as great as his brother, therefore he's not as good. Well, neither are Dubois or Tkachuk tbh. Just because the Nylanders are brothers doesn't necessarily mean that they're the exact same players, and that you can compare them that way, because they're not. And just because Dubois and Tkachuk's potential might not be as high as William's, doesn't necessarily mean that they're worse prospects or worse players than him. They're all good at different things.

    • Upvote 3

  18. 54 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

    I would argue that Dubois is better below the hashmarks than Tkatchuk, he's hounds the puck unlike anyone besides maybe Pulujarvi in this draft class IMO. Offensively hes a force with his size and ability to use it, aswell as his passing/shooting skills.

     

    PLD IMO is a complete package player with high upside, and there are significant advantages he already has over Tkatchuk like shooting and skating, but its like I keep saying to the pro Tkatchuck crowd, alternatively, what are some of the things that he has to his game that he is significantly better at than Duboius, I would argue nothing.

    Didn't Benning call Tkachuk the best player in the draft from the face-off dot and in? I actually kinda agrees with him there. Tkachuk knows exactly where he has to be on the ice to be effective. He's a very smart player that can score in numerous ways, and it always seems like he's able to find the loose pucks, no matter how crowded it's getting, he's got very good hand-eye coordination. He's also a pest on the ice, he's the type of player that you can't stand, but also the type of player that you love to have on your team. He's a tough soab.

     

    I'm not trying to argue that Tkachuk would be better than Dubois though. I would love to have any of them, and i hope we're picking either Dubois or Tkachuk.

    • Upvote 3

  19. 3 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

    So if Dubois is BPA when we pick?

     

    Trade down! Benning also said there wasn't a lot separating the next group. So trade your 5th, throw in Sbisa, get an 8th to 11th pick and a strong prospect from another team on D.

     

    Or just trade.  Pick up a pick 15 to 22. 

    You pick Dubois/Tkachuk unless a team is offering something that's too good to pass on. I wouldn't trade out of the top10 though.


  20. 3 hours ago, J.R. said:

    I never said there was no chance but historically D take 1-4 years to even get a sniff at an NHL job. Top 10 forwards are generally closer to 1-3 years. Top 5 forwards 0-2 years. It's very rare you get an Ekblad than can walk on to an NHL team. There's a reason he went first overall. 

     

    As for your opinion on the D 

     

    giphy.gif

     

    There's plenty of professional scouts who disagree with your assessment.

    Even if Ekblad wouldn't have cracked the Panthers roster straight away, i always liked him better than i liked Reinhart heading into that draft. I remember being worried about us trading up to the 1st overall, picking Reinhart (who was rumoured to be favored by Benning) and passing on Ekblad, because he was the better player IMO.


    Yet the majority of the rankings have Dubois, Tkachuk and even Nylander in their top5 rankings over a guy like Juolevi. Those rankings aren't based on whatever team picks were, but the best players from 1-30 regardless of position. Sure there's people and scouts who thinks that a defenceman could be worthy of being picked in the top5, but they're still the minority. I will value the majority of the scouts opinions higher than i will value the minority of the scouts opinions. I think that's common sense, that's what makes a player a consensus pick at whatever spot. If you actually thinks that a defenceman is worthy of going top5, that's your opinion. But your opinion is a minority, as well as all the scouts who believe so.

     

    In the end, if Benning really likes Juolevi, it's not impossible that he picks him at 5. His opinion is going to matter more than any scouts opinion out there. But i sure as hell won't be satisfied if we pick Juolevi, i know that. I would come around with the pick eventually i guess, just like i did with Virtanen, but i don't feel obliged to be happy with whomever we pick just because that's some sort of rule that you have to follow as a fan. I want the best player available, and i don't think that's Juolevi, and i don't see any reason why he would be the BPA when we pick. He hasn't done enough in my mind to justify himself being a top5 pick.

    • Upvote 1