• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Toews

  1. I don't blame him honestly. I think you need to be careful with your D picks at the top of the draft. Predicting the development of defenseman is notoriously difficult. You do not want to end up with a Gudbranson or a Luke Schenn with a top 5 pick. Even then you have guys like Zach Bogosian/Ryan Murray who are decent defenseman but not something that I would be happy with at the top of the draft. Forwards carry inherently less risk and are safer to project. Its no surprise that less and less defenseman are going in the top 5. Its the same reason why a goalie hasn't gone in the top half of the first round in forever. Goalies are voodoo. EDIT: Regarding Johansen vs Monohan I would take Johansen every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I find myself less and less enamored with Monahan than I was at the start of his career. To me he hasn't progressed as well as I once thought he would. I am no longer a fan.
  2. Honestly speaking I don't care about off the board stretches. I have zero problems with going off the board if your scouts are confident that the player you are selecting is worth the selection. If you are going off the board though you had best hope that you aren't getting a Patrick White as that might be the end of your tenure as GM. Fans turn quickly on GMs who miss with an off the board pick, that's about the only difference. My concern isn't where Virtanen was ranked. My concern is what influenced the Canucks to make Jake their selection. There are quite a few scouts that did see problems to his game including fans from the Dub. Suffice to say that there are a lot of people that aren't surprised with how his career has gone thus far. Even if he completely reworks himself into a different player, it wouldn't necessarily prove them wrong as they always said that the style Jake played in junior wasn't going to bring him success at higher levels and I fully agree with their evaluation now. To me a "bad pick" is a player that ends up significantly worse than the players selected within that range. Hugh Jessiman has the dubious distinction of being one of the worst picks because every single pick in the first round that year ended up being a player. Maybe Jessiman was ranked at #23 or close to there at the time, maybe he was even higher. It is still a terrible pick though. In any case we can shall see how Jake's career will turn out. Lets agree to disagree on Jake though, this seems to be a futile discussion as neither of us is likely to convince the other and I would rather not bring the toxicity from the Virtanen thread to this one.
  3. Agree about development. I don't place too much emphasis on roster spots. The cream usually rises to the top. A player like Boeser came in and showed us all that he belonged. Sure the Canucks had 0 depth and were playing guys like Megna and Chaput due to injuries but IMO you put Boeser on a better lineup and he still cracks that one as well.
  4. Actually that's exactly what he is suggesting, taking the BPA. Poile has consistently taken D even when his roster is stacked at that position. Instead of taking Seth Jones at 4, the Preds could have selected Sean Monahan/Elias Lindholm instead and would be a worse team for it today. Ryan Johansen > Monahan/Lindholm
  5. You are going to read my post while ironing? If you are going to behave in a condescending manner at least try and make some sense.
  6. I am not entirely comfortable giving Benning the benefit of the doubt. You might scoff at that but I am a cynical person. The Virtanen pick really makes me wonder sometimes. It seems clear that we were going to build a team with the Bruins model in mind. I wonder how much that played into selecting Jake, did we select Jake because he fit a particular model? How much did him being a local pick play a part? I do admit that having not been in the room I have no idea how the selection actually went down so this is pure speculation of my part and I don't actually have any proof. I simply can't shake the feeling though.
  7. They wouldn't be happier with you either champ.
  8. Its early to make that determination which is why I included this sentence. We shall see in the upcoming years how well the scouting department has really performed, which picks can be categorized as hits and misses. Based on the results of this Linden needs to look into which guys are actually pulling their weight.
  9. I am not going to dispute any of that. It is possible the Canucks did think that Juolevi would the best player at 5. At the end of the day though this is a results based business. If your BPA ends up significantly worse than the players picked right after him then you to reevaluate what went wrong and refine your scouting process. If you consistently find yourself picking worse players then you need to consider which of your scouts are up to the mark and let the dead weight go. In fact all your scouts should be under constant review, the ones that are consistently better in evaluations should be retained, the others should be let go. This is not to say that this has been the case thus far with the Canucks but to me its important that you are constantly evaluating and refining your methods. Stagnation is the worst thing that can happen to an organization. IMO no one should feel that their job is 100% safe regardless of the results that they produce.
  10. A bit hypocritical to say that Fors is making too much out of a quote when you seem to be doing the same. Its entirely possible that Tkachuk wanted to come to Vancouver instead. I don't see how you seem to have made the determination that he "certainly preferred to go to CAL".
  11. Agreed 100%. I shake my head at the people they say things like "We needed size in our lineup which is why Virtanen was the right pick". The Canucks are still in the infancy of a rebuild. Half the prospects that people are throwing into future lineups are question marks. In most cases unless a player comes into the NHL and proves himself, penciling him in long term lineups is not smart. More prospects bust than reach their potential. The Canucks at this stage have far too many holes to prioritize particular positions. If two prospects are equal then you go with the one that is more of a need but quite honestly for the most part no two prospects are truly equal. Drafting isn't an exact science and you may have to make a judgement call but with picks this high you always go with the player who you think has the brightest future.
  12. Unless there are major developments in the case most outlets will switch to something different. The news maintains viewers by staying "current" by that I mean if viewers aren't getting new info they are likely to tune out. There is also the sad reality that we as a civilization in general have become desensitized to this kind of senseless violence. Take school shootings for instance, the first few incidents were shocking to most people. As time has passed and with more and more of these incidents the public in general has accepted this as the reality that we live in. Take a look in the bombing thread at how many individuals are there simply to politicize the issue and push their dogma. Its hard for me to believe that these individuals actually care about the victims.
  13. The difference is that this is the Jake Virtanen thread. Comments, complaints, criticism, praise etc are all pertinent as long as they are on the topic of Jake Virtanen. This is the purpose of this thread, its even titled "Jake Virtanen Talk". Yet what are your contributions to this thread? Just endless whinging about the opinions expressed in this thread. Its hilarious how offended you get that everyone doesn't conform to your views. This is how a forum works, you are going to see posts you disagree with. I know I am not the only one who finds it sad that you sit on your high horse and berate anyone who you disagree with. It isn't just this thread, you rarely ever stick to addressing the content of a person's post. Instead it's just endless complaining, berating, ad-hominem attacks and insults. You think it makes you look superior to others but it only makes you look petty and incapable of intelligent debate. If you focused your energy into improving the quality of your posts instead of complaining about others, your posts might have some intellectual value.
  14. Larsson was more proven at the time of the trade. He established himself as a top pairing defenseman on Jersey's blue line. Hanifin has a higher ceiling but hasn't realized it yet.
  15. Obese man who doesn't believe in exercise gets tired easily. Such a shocker lol.
  16. 2nd/4th round picks aren't enough to bridge that gap IMO. Its not just that his raw stats aren't great but his possession numbers aren't very good either. I wouldn't even say he is a top 4 defenseman until he can play in the role and prove that he can handle those minutes without getting killed in shot metrics. I have hopes that can he become a better player as he is still fairly young but he doesn't have close to the value needed to attain a 3rd overall pick and adding a few 2nd or 3rds isn't going to change that. I would much rather have Heiskanen/Glass over Gudbranson and to me its not a very difficult decision at all and that's what makes this lopsided.
  17. Last year the Canucks paid McCann + 33rd for Gudbranson. After an injury riddled campaign he is now worth the 3rd overall pick? This isn't close. Even Edler for the 3rd isn't happening. We will get a package of prospects and picks if Edler is moved not the 3rd overall pick. Gudbranson isn't worth moving as he needs to come back and prove that he is a top 4 defenseman for him to have good value.
  18. The difference is that the case is being tried in the US. If a US court does find the Saudis to be responsible and asks them pay, they can tell them to pound sand. But what happens when a US court rules against the US government. Like Rupert said it makes the US out to be huge hypocrites when they decline to pay. I agree with Rupert that this doesn't stand a chance though. My guess is dismissal in pre-trial motion, IMO they won't even see the inside of a court.
  19. What is the point of having a discussion if you do not acknowledge the point of my post and just post strawman arguments? My position has nothing to do with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and everything to do with the United States court of law. Once a court has set a legal precedent where a country is held responsible for the death of civilians on foreign soil then that same court has to acknowledge that the death of civilians due to the actions of the US also falls under this legal precedent. I know you are capable of acknowledging that this is a rational and not a partisan argument.
  20. Easier to feign obliviousness than acknowledge that your argument is weak and thoroughly unconvincing. Speaking of blaming, lets blame Obama for obstructing a lawsuit that would have opened up the US to paying the families of the numerous civilian casualties that have resulted from the foreign policy of the US. Standing by the families of victims is more of a priority than the financial well being of your country.
  21. Outdoor games are only for regional fans and fans of the teams participating in the event. These games sell though and that's the reason why the NHL will continue to do them. It was pretty much guaranteed that after the first few outdoor games fans would stop tuning in because the novelty would wear off. But you don't need massive ratings any more for the game to be a success. You still get better ratings than the average game, you get better gate revenues and you also get to sell quite a bit of merchandise. You also generate a bit off buzz in that region and the NHL desperately needs to reach out to newer fans.
  22. I don't remember reading that. Maybe you can cite the relevant post.
  23. I and I am assuming most Canadians do not care about being a military power. I do agree that we need to spend enough so that we aren't a compete push over and can defend our interests. I also don't give two figs about what the cheeto-dusted clown thinks of our spending. At the end of the day Canada will decide how much we spend and we won't kowtow to anyone's demands.