The Lock

Members
  • Content count

    4,178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

The Lock last won the day on February 13

The Lock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,909 Revered

About The Lock

  • Rank
    Canucks Second-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Prince George

Recent Profile Visitors

6,752 profile views
  1. Bring back Gully?

    Grain feeding boredom?
  2. Stealth-Renewal Is 99.5% Realized (beauty, eh? :^)

    The thing is, when you trade for a player, sure it's another contract, but often times a contract is also given up in return. Even with trading for a pick where you give up a contract, that's still giving room to sign another contract in the meantime, or claim one off waivers or whatever. I also want to point out that I questioned where the point becomes too much. Getting a couple of extra picks is great, but there also comes a point where it's diminishing returns when you can't sign all of your prospects and you give up your assets to get those diminishing returns. Except with batters, last I checked there's a rotation that happens. That could be thought of as the contract limit and having more quality batters over quantity would clearly become better. Okay, so you have a bunch of assets you can trade for value. What's the value of those assets and how much extra value do really get out of trading them? Perhaps we end up with a Vey who is a fringe NHLer with potential and we get a decent pick, or perhaps we don't. I get what you are saying that the chances are there. The quality is reduced from what we give up in terms of assets to get those draft picks. Getting 5 more draft picks costs us current assets and if we can't sign those players and have no gaurentee of getting value later on (compared with the assets we are giving up clearly having value) it's the risk we take. Again, diminishing returns. Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against getting more picks. I just see some of these other teams with 11+ draft picks and wonder how much more does it really benefit them?
  3. Stealth-Renewal Is 99.5% Realized (beauty, eh? :^)

    I think the desire for more draft picks really depends. Considering only so many draft picks can be signed due to contract limit, that means that the more draft picks a GM has, the more players are let go after the time expires to sign those picks; whereas, the number of picks signed stays the same. Also, consider that each pick acquired means that something is given up to acquire that pick. Picks are not free (obviously). This enters in the question: how many picks are good and where does the value in acquiring such picks makes it infeasible to acquire more? If a GM is good at drafting, then theoretically, that GM wouldn't need as many draft picks to do well and departing with players that GM wants to keep could mean that GM is giving away players for draft picks he wouldn't sign anyway. Now, obviously, there's the potential argument that can be made of seeing more prospects do well means the quality of the pool can get better, but does it mean that? How does one determine who's going to make it and who doesn't if there are a whole bunch of prospect neck and neck. If the pool is good enough, suddenly, good prospects are not being signed simply because there's not enough contract slots and who's to say the prospect let go is not the prospect that would have ultimately made it onto the team rather than the one kept? So, while I would love for us to have more picks, I don't think it's nearly as simple as some people make it out to be on these boards. I wish I could agree with your and think things are so clear cut that we need more picks, but I just don't think the world works that way unfortunately. Perhaps it's an unconventional train of thought on my part, but I'd rather us have quality over quantity any day.
  4. Tyler Motte | #64 | C/W

    All this is is a false sense of thinking everything is worth what we want to get out of it. If there was a better offer on the table for Vanek, do you seriously think Benning wouldn't have taken it? Opportunity happens at a specific point in time and anything that happens outside of that time is meaningless with that opportunity. Clearly, our opportunity here was to get Motte and the most likely scenario is we couldn't get anything more for Vanek. Motte could suddently decide to become a street vender selling tacos instead of playing hockey and it would have nothing to do with that particular opportunity we had as the future is unpredictable and impossible to consider accurately with such opportunity. So please, stop mistaking opportunity for the outcome of the trade. They are 2 COMPLETELY different things.
  5. Guaranteed 6th to 9th, 4 Points Better Than Last Year.

    First of all, I somewhat agree in having at least 1 spot open, if not 2. I think there needs to be a balance really. I like the idea of having roster spots open to young players, but too many spots open would also potentially imply rushing them into the lineup and, if Virtanen is any indication of how well rushing a player goes, we might want to think about that rather than just not signing anyone come free agency. That being said, too much competition can also be detrimental in my opinion. Our young players still need to be able to earn those roster spots and not have to fight out 5 other FA's in order to do that. While it would likely not be in our best interest to hand over those spots and allow for laziness to creep in, it would also not be in our best interest to overwork them. I think protecting our players is a fair argument so long that it's not done in overkill. Having more experienced bodies on the ice can do that and I don't see your argument really having anything that says why we shouldn't be doing that. Do you really want our young players to get more injured, have shorter careers, be less productive due to them having a harder time than need be in their first year? Not protecting them to an extent can, not just potentially but most likely, do that. Of course, like I already said, having too much competition can also do that, so there's that balance.
  6. I think people focus way too much on trying to blame outsiders (such as the media) on things like trade value. Here's what I really think happened: As other teams got the players they wanted, such as Nash, it meant those teams would then be out of the market for Vanek. If the demand for such players are limited to certain teams (ie. the teams who paid to get the players they wanted), we can't expect other teams to fork over the same cash. Simply put, he was not in demand and not because of the media. People need to learn to look at things at face value in my opinion rather than come up with all this needless complications and conspiracy theories. What your comment implies is that the media shapes the GM's opinion because that's the only way your statement would work. I hope I don't need to explain why the media is not going to shape a GM's perspective of a player and whether or not he wants that player; thus making media sabotage impossible.
  7. Draft Lottery

    Unfortunately, the odds don't get any better due to there being multiple times. Both the odds of winning and the odds of losing increase, which essentially makes it the same odds no matter how many times you get to try. lol That being said, I'd like to think something has got to give at some point. lol
  8. New team logo/logo change

    We have whales on the west coast (thus whale). Hockey has ice. Seems find to me. lol
  9. New team logo/logo change

    Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. We don't need a new logo. We don't need a new jersey. I don't care if there are "better" options (as that's based on opinion anyway. Some even think our current logo is the best). I just want to see consistency and see that we're completely out of the whole identity crisis we've had over the years in terms of logo changes.
  10. Elias Pettersson | C/RW

    Maybe. Maybe not. They could have just been looking to praise EP's accomplishments and not having everything revolving around the Sedins. Don't get me wrong, the Sedins have had a great career and to say they wouldn't have influenced anyone back in Sweden would be among the silliest comments one could say.
  11. Ashton Sautner | #59 | D

    I think if Ottawa's looking to rebuild, would Tanev really be their answer at this point? I mean, we're going through a rebuild at the moment and, assuming Ottawa's just starting their rebuild, he'll be maybe 31 or 32 at the earliest, probably older. Perhaps Tanev could be a bandaid for them, but it does make me kind of go "why would they even want him?" to an extent. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, but still.
  12. You don't need everyone to be tough though to play with confidence though. Some players helps, but I just don't see it where everyone needs to. I'm not saying we don't need toughness. I'm saying that we need balance. There's a big difference. Too much of going one direction makes us a one dimensional team. We won multiple president's trophies because we had both the skill and finesse of the Sedins and the toughness of Kesler and Burrows. We also had different kinds of defenders and other players. We had a solid package. Sure, we didn't win the cup, but we almost did at the same time. Let's not forget that.
  13. If every player needed to focus on team toughness, we'd have a much WORSE team in my opinion. We'd have players trying to focus on toughness and standing up for one another, and as a result, focusing less on the net. Take Kesler for example, he's known to be tough and focused on being a pest. Then one year he focused less on being a pest and had a career year in terms of goals. Because he focused too much earlier on toughness, he was hampering his ability to be more effective in other areas. Sorry, I just think this whole idea of everyone needing to be tough would just make our team bad elsewhere. We need players with skill and finesse who don't focus on being tough just as much as we need tough players, and if we ignore that, then we'll never get out of being a bad team. Look at every Stanley Cup winning team in the past 10 years. Even Boston had players who focused on scoring goals rather than being tough.
  14. Ashton Sautner | #59 | D

    Yes. I realise he has benefits, but Tanev and Hutton are unlikely to get us Karlsson. Highly unlikely in my opinion..... Do you really want to have to give up Petersson or another prospect like that, because most likely that's what it will take..... It's easy to dream of having certain players but, aside from last season, we are talking about one of the best defenders in the league. Tanev could arguably be considered "scraps" in comparison.
  15. Ashton Sautner | #59 | D

    But if we're better after those 3 years and Karlsson's past his prime, then we've wasted one (or more) of our top prospects for after that point in time. I like Karlsson and mentorship is great and all, but at what cost does it make such a trade infeasible for us in the long run? This is especially the case when you consider a lot of other teams are going to be interested in a player like Karlsson. This is why we don't see a lot of top players get traded unless if it involves another top player in my opinion, because the price becomes so much that it can effectively hamper the development of whatever team is going after that player.