Brock Boeser | #6 | RW

[stawns]

36 minutes ago, nowhereman said:

You disagree, yet, your entire post is littered with inaccuracies. Gaudette and Dahlen won't be playing in Utica this year. Most of Vancouver's top prospect depth is still in junior or overseas and Travis Green is gone, so there's no reason to suspect that Utica is going to be all that much better than they were last season. Thinking he should be stuck in the minors to mentor other players, when he's never even played pro hockey himself, or to over-ripen him is not the solution.

 

When a prospect is ready, they're ready. Brock has proven he's ready. 

He's proven nothing yet

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

Did you just compare BB to Laine?  There's some serious stretches in this thread, but that one is out there.  Why not McDavid?

Brock has a lot of Laine's qualities and he will be competing for the Calder just like Laine....is he as good...will he score as many goals....probably not but this years Calder candidates are not as strong as last year's.

 

....just watch....

[stawns]

Just now, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

Brock has a lot of Laine's qualities and he will be competing for the Calder just like Laine....is he as good...will he score as many goals....probably not but this years Calder candidates are not as strong as last year's.

 

....just watch....

Its awesome that fans are keeping expectations in check.  I feel a "brock Boeser, do we need him" thread when he fails to hit 15 goals by Xmas and a board crash for a month if he gets sent to Utica.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

Its awesome that fans are keeping expectations in check.  I feel a "brock Boeser, do we need him" thread when he fails to hit 15 goals by Xmas and a board crash for a month if he gets sent to Utica.

If he hit's 15 goals by Xmas....he would be on pace for a 40 goal season and CDC will for sure crash.

 

We are not talking about an 18 year old Jake...we are talking about a 20 year old Brock.

 

Brock will make the team and barring injury he will be in the running for the Calder....

 

...keep watching....

[ReggieBush]

31 minutes ago, stawns said:

Did you just compare BB to Laine?  There's some serious stretches in this thread, but that one is out there.  Why not McDavid?

I would say their releases are similar. Laine has a better one no doubt, but Brock is not that far behind

[nowhereman]

22 hours ago, stawns said:

He's proven nothing yet

Backwards logic. So Boeser has to play in the NHL for a significant period of time before he proves he's ready for the opportunity to play in the NHL for a significant period of time? Nice paradox you've created for yourself there.

 

Boeser HAS proven, in his brief stint with the Canucks, that he's ready for a long look at the NHL level. Whether he sticks is up to him. By your logic, no player ever proves they're ready for the NHL. Brock has done everything he can at the collegiate level and is ready for his chance, whether Stawns here likes it or not.

[bobbyg43]

The results of last three seasons of team finishing near bottom of barrel reflects a lot of glas half empty sentiment.At some point the glass will fill up to half full ,I am one who is rooting for Brock to fill it up this year. God knows we need a few bright spots to shed some light at the end of the tunnel and light up the goal light.He has ability An potential and is 20 . I say his chances are better than half empty but much fuller.Let him score this year build him up more and play him with linemates who complement An or are capable of scoring shelter his minutes and ease him into critical situations where he can grow out .

[Boudrias]

26 minutes ago, bobbyg43 said:

The results of last three seasons of team finishing near bottom of barrel reflects a lot of glas half empty sentiment.At some point the glass will fill up to half full ,I am one who is rooting for Brock to fill it up this year. God knows we need a few bright spots to shed some light at the end of the tunnel and light up the goal light.He has ability An potential and is 20 . I say his chances are better than half empty but much fuller.Let him score this year build him up more and play him with linemates who complement An or are capable of scoring shelter his minutes and ease him into critical situations where he can grow out .

Not sure what you are suggesting with the half empty comment. Boeser's entire pro experience is 9 games. We would all like to see some light at the end of the tunnel but if that undermines Boeser's development then I am willing to error on the side of caution. Fans looking for 'bright spots' cannot be a rationale for putting a 20 year old in the NHL. 

 

The 2004 NHL lockout had a lot of ramifications. One of them was that many current NHL vets played their season in the AHL. The majority of those that did were very positive about the benefit it gave them as they adjusted to the pro game. This is one of the main reasons I would not be disappointed if young prospects spend 1/2 or even a full year in Utica. Obviously it is up to coaching to make that decision. If Boeser has a big camp it makes the coaching decision tougher.

 

I do expect Boeser to start in Utica. Goldobin, Boucher, Gaunce, Megna, Chaput and Rodin are all waiver eligible. I expect Green will want to assess these players early on before risking losing them on waivers. Maybe pre-season makes that decision easier but I doubt it. 

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Not sure what you are suggesting with the half empty comment. Boeser's entire pro experience is 9 games. We would all like to see some light at the end of the tunnel but if that undermines Boeser's development then I am willing to error on the side of caution. Fans looking for 'bright spots' cannot be a rationale for putting a 20 year old in the NHL. 

 

The 2004 NHL lockout had a lot of ramifications. One of them was that many current NHL vets played their season in the AHL. The majority of those that did were very positive about the benefit it gave them as they adjusted to the pro game. This is one of the main reasons I would not be disappointed if young prospects spend 1/2 or even a full year in Utica. Obviously it is up to coaching to make that decision. If Boeser has a big camp it makes the coaching decision tougher.

 

I do expect Boeser to start in Utica. Goldobin, Boucher, Gaunce, Megna, Chaput and Rodin are all waiver eligible. I expect Green will want to assess these players early on before risking losing them on waivers. Maybe pre-season makes that decision easier but I doubt it. 

Are you saying it's going to be like last season, where (out of camp/preseason) Stecher was our best Dman, but got cut?  

[stawns]

1 hour ago, nowhereman said:

Backwards logic. So Boeser has to play in the NHL for a significant period of time before he proves he's ready for the opportunity to play in the NHL for a significant period of time? Nice paradox you've created for yourself there.

 

Boeser HAS proven, in his brief stint with the Canucks, that he's ready for a long look at the NHL level. Whether he sticks is up to him. By your logic, no player ever proves they're ready for the NHL. Brock has done everything he can at the collegiate level and is ready for his chance, whether Stawns here likes it or not.

Backwards logic? 

[theo5789]

11 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Not sure what you are suggesting with the half empty comment. Boeser's entire pro experience is 9 games. We would all like to see some light at the end of the tunnel but if that undermines Boeser's development then I am willing to error on the side of caution. Fans looking for 'bright spots' cannot be a rationale for putting a 20 year old in the NHL. 

 

The 2004 NHL lockout had a lot of ramifications. One of them was that many current NHL vets played their season in the AHL. The majority of those that did were very positive about the benefit it gave them as they adjusted to the pro game. This is one of the main reasons I would not be disappointed if young prospects spend 1/2 or even a full year in Utica. Obviously it is up to coaching to make that decision. If Boeser has a big camp it makes the coaching decision tougher.

 

I do expect Boeser to start in Utica. Goldobin, Boucher, Gaunce, Megna, Chaput and Rodin are all waiver eligible. I expect Green will want to assess these players early on before risking losing them on waivers. Maybe pre-season makes that decision easier but I doubt it. 

If Boeser is given a top 6 role on the Canucks and a chance to succeed, then I am all for keeping him on the big club. If he is going to be demoted early or playing a 3rd/4th line role on the team, then I would just send him to Utica. I don't think age plays a huge part in the scenario as Boeser seems very mature and works hard, but he does need to be put in a position for him to learn where he will be playing for years to come, even if there are some growing pains.

 

I know Brock still has to earn his spot on the roster to be given this opportunity, but it's different for a 20 year old (21 in Feb) coming into the league then an 18 year old doing the same coming out of juniors. It seems college players have an easier transition into the NHL as they had those extra couple of years to mature and develop their games.

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Are you saying it's going to be like last season, where (out of camp/preseason) Stecher was our best Dman, but got cut?  

The rationale for sending Stecher down last fall made total sense to me. Waiver exempt and a rookie. The big deal last fall was finding out what Larsson, a KHL All-star, had in his tank. As it turned out he didn't have enough. Stecher got called back and he took advantage of his opportunity. I have to smile thinking of the reaction if Stecher has a sophomore lapse like Hutton did.

 

I might be to cautious but IMO the over riding concern should be what this team looks like in 5 years not this year or next. Many Canuck fans have a high opinion of the prospect pool  but I consider it no where close to where it has to be.   

[Rob_Zepp]

20 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The rationale for sending Stecher down last fall made total sense to me. Waiver exempt and a rookie. The big deal last fall was finding out what Larsson, a KHL All-star, had in his tank. As it turned out he didn't have enough. Stecher got called back and he took advantage of his opportunity. I have to smile thinking of the reaction if Stecher has a sophomore lapse like Hutton did.

 

I might be to cautious but IMO the over riding concern should be what this team looks like in 5 years not this year or next. Many Canuck fans have a high opinion of the prospect pool  but I consider it no where close to where it has to be.   

Great post.   The cycle from the top to the bottom and back to the top will take time - and from where they are now at least two or three more seasons before truly competitive and that will mean more prospects and some "high" on people's list will simply be replaced by others who come over those next few years.  

 

In terms of waivers, there seems to be undue angst about losing players though as a 29th place team's cuts are not exactly going to be at the forefront of what other teams are going to pick up given picking someone up means  you have to drop someone yourself.   It is not like the Canucks are waiving players who are locks on becoming stars.   Face it, if you cannot make at lower portion of its cycle team and you are waiver eligible, perhaps you are not all that hot of a high end prospect.   Brutal reality but it is reality.   Of course there are nuggets in the field and I am one who does stress patience and not writing off players too soon but being worried about losing players on waivers is a bit silly at this point of the cycle - Frank Corrado isn't going to be "the difference" for Vancouver (or any other team).   

[Boudrias]

21 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Great post.   The cycle from the top to the bottom and back to the top will take time - and from where they are now at least two or three more seasons before truly competitive and that will mean more prospects and some "high" on people's list will simply be replaced by others who come over those next few years.  

 

In terms of waivers, there seems to be undue angst about losing players though as a 29th place team's cuts are not exactly going to be at the forefront of what other teams are going to pick up given picking someone up means  you have to drop someone yourself.   It is not like the Canucks are waiving players who are locks on becoming stars.   Face it, if you cannot make at lower portion of its cycle team and you are waiver eligible, perhaps you are not all that hot of a high end prospect.   Brutal reality but it is reality.   Of course there are nuggets in the field and I am one who does stress patience and not writing off players too soon but being worried about losing players on waivers is a bit silly at this point of the cycle - Frank Corrado isn't going to be "the difference" for Vancouver (or any other team).   

My only reason for sending the waiver eligibles down to begin the season is for assessment purposes by Green. I agree with you that odds are not in favor of these players being stars. I believe that what Benning had to do was create a transition pool of players to fill a huge hole in the Canuck system. It will allow younger prospects to be brought in at hopefully a better environment. 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

The rationale for sending Stecher down last fall made total sense to me. Waiver exempt and a rookie. The big deal last fall was finding out what Larsson, a KHL All-star, had in his tank. As it turned out he didn't have enough. Stecher got called back and he took advantage of his opportunity. I have to smile thinking of the reaction if Stecher has a sophomore lapse like Hutton did.

 

I might be to cautious but IMO the over riding concern should be what this team looks like in 5 years not this year or next. Many Canuck fans have a high opinion of the prospect pool  but I consider it no where close to where it has to be.   

I agree about our prospects.  We have several decent looking ones, but need a couple elite guys - especially a Dman.  I see the current youth only becoming a mediocre team, when matured.  

[Boudrias]

19 hours ago, Alflives said:

I agree about our prospects.  We have several decent looking ones, but need a couple elite guys - especially a Dman.  I see the current youth only becoming a mediocre team, when matured.  

Maybe this is the year the Canucks luck out on the lottery. Sweden's Dahlen #8 looks tremendous. Team USA's Adam Fox had a outstanding tourny. I do believe Canucks will be drafting in the top 6 again this year. 

[aGENT]

Aah the 'current youth' fallacy again. 

 

Our prospect pool is better this year than last and will be better again next year. Why do people assume the entirety of the 'next' team is already assembled and won't be improved?

 

Frankly you sound just a foolish prognosticating 'mediocrity' as the people prognosticating a near future cup win. None of us know with any certainty what the team will look like in 3-5 years or witch players will surprise and which will bust. The only thing we can presently ascertain is that we're at least heading in the right direction. 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

Maybe this is the year the Canucks luck out on the lottery. Sweden's Dahlen #8 looks tremendous. Team USA's Adam Fox had a outstanding tourny. I do believe Canucks will be drafting in the top 6 again this year. 

I hope we get a top six pick too.  I like Boeser, and think Brady Tkatchuk could be a good centre for his game.

[The Lock]

On 8/7/2017 at 8:50 AM, Boudrias said:

Maybe this is the year the Canucks luck out on the lottery. Sweden's Dahlen #8 looks tremendous. Team USA's Adam Fox had a outstanding tourny. I do believe Canucks will be drafting in the top 6 again this year. 

Rather it be 2018 than 2017 at least. To be honest, I didn't even really care what spot we earned in the draft lottery earlier this year. lol

[Stierlitz]