5Fivehole0 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 8 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said: I could actually live with Boeser and our 10th for their 1st overall and a 3rd or a 4th. Depending on how much Boeser makes on his new contract. I still feel that we are at least 2 years away from really challenging for a cup and Hughes at an entry level contract when we have a chance at a cup vs Boeser at 7 million could be huge. Ya... Give up our only top 6 winger outside of bear cheese... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I doubt the Devils will want to drop all the way down to tenth so first the Canucks are going to have to make other trades to get a higher pick. So I say let's promote Benning to president, then hire Brian Burke as GM then have him try to pull another draft day miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 4 hours ago, CanucksJay said: What if they ask for Quinn instead and they keep their number 1 pick to pick his bro? What would our asking price be? Would we do Quinn for Nico Hirschier and Sami Vatanen straight up? I would consider it... As a fellow Finn, Vatanen can mentor Juolevi and Hirschier might be better than Jack Hughes... I would ask for Severson and Ty Smith, if they want Quinton. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hindustan Smyl Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 50 minutes ago, Tystick said: 10th overall + Horvat + Baertschi + 2nd round pick for 1st overall Would you make this trade for Jack Hughes? That would take BALLS to make that deal from Vancouver’s end. As the old saying goes however.......no guts, no glory. Losing a character guy like Horvat would hurt.......a LOT. On the flip side, consider the following: 1) Trading Horvat+ for Jack would give us short term cap relief (we don’t need it, but still). 2) Vancouver would become a UFA magnet. With Pettersson and Jack here, not only would UFA forwards want to come here, but they might even be willing to take discounts......why? Because - with Pettersson and Jack here, we’d likely be seen as a team that could be the next Chicago/Pittsburgh. 3) Marketing: The marketing hype in Vancouver would be HUGE. Whatever fans that we may have lost post Gillis......those guys would likely come back just out of sheer interest. If I really had to guess what the asking price for Hughes would be, my guess is that it would be -Horvat -10th OA -Hutton -Gaudette -2020 1st something insane like that. If the Canucks believe that Jack Hughes will be Auston Matthews at worst and Connor McDavid at best, then they really should seriously consider the above. If Hughes lives up to his potential just as Pettersson seems to be, then UFA’s will *want* to come here......at cap friendly hits. I personally don’t know if I’d do the above, but if there ever was something that could get Vancouver excited again, and slay the dragon of the 2011 aftermath, then this would undoubtedly be it. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 8 hours ago, SabreFan1 said: Lindros wasn't Lindros. He wasn't even a first or second ballot Hall of Famer. It took him up until 2 years ago to get in the Hall of Fame after retiring in '07. You can lol all you want, but you made my point for me, " teams learn from history to not make a deal like that again". Which is why getting a 1st overall in a draft with a sought after prospect isn't worth it. Lindros was hyped to be as good as (if not better) than Lemieux and was considered to be a generational talent. He’s ranked 17th all-time in points per game, better than some hockey greats Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Mark Messier, both Bobby and Brett Hull, amongst others, and that’s with less than 800 games played. He definitely would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer if his career was longer and wasn’t plagued with injuries. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I’m reading through these projections of what it would take and thinking that NJ would actually want to win the deal outright if they were going to do it. That means in my estimation that even Boeser and Horvat wouldnt probably get it done. I think they’d want Petey and our first. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscience Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 2 hours ago, shiznak said: Lindros was hyped to be as good as (if not better) than Lemieux and was considered to be a generational talent. He’s ranked 17th all-time in points per game, better than some hockey greats Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Mark Messier, both Bobby and Brett Hull, amongst others, and that’s with less than 800 games played. He definitely would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer if his career was longer and wasn’t plagued with injuries. Points per game favours lower games played totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscience Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 People in here seem to be severely overrating Hughes on here, give up Horvat or Boeser, 2 1st and more??? Hes being projected as more of a Hirschier type first over all than a macdavid or matthews. Crazy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Trade at the Draft Van trades/ , there a lot of packages that are being discussed . Horvat, Demco, Markstrom, Virtanen, 10th overall and on and on. But if you Break it down what would it take to get second or third or forth. overall picks instead of Jack. Horvat plus Madden for …… Second Demco plus Lockwood plus Rathbone for..... Third Virtanan and Juolevi ……. Fourth or a Fifth You would end up with in a better position then with just Jack Kakko, Byram, and Dach or Cozens Vancouver is a long way from competing for the cup 3 years at least So two more drafts stocking the cupboards. Probably better off just to keep drafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hindustan Smyl Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Conscience said: Hes being projected as more of a Hirschier type first over all than a macdavid or matthews. Crazy Based on the reports that I’ve been reading, I’m not sure I agree. Many hockey gurus claim that Hughes is the best American born player since Pat Kane. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 8 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said: So in one sentence you say Lindros isn’t unique at all but, then in another you say he had the talent (to go along with the size) to be a top 10 all time player To me that’s pretty unique. Not many people have that potential. I think you are focusing on the result of the trade and his (Lindros’) career and not his hype pre-draft. His career results may not have ended up unique. Jack Hughes doesn’t have anywhere close to the hype Lindros had. Therefore he would probably cost less to acquire via a trade. However the optics of giving up a #1 OA pick are terrible, unless you get blown away by an offer. This is likely why it would still cost way to much too acquire J. Hughes. All I know is I wouldn’t make the trade due to the probable cost. Look up the definition of the word "unique". It means, "one of a kind". Not 1 in 100 or even 1 in 10... In the 90's, Lindros was someone ahead of his time. A very skilled and aggressive 6' 4" player who skated like someone much shorter. Back then he was an enigma. These days we see guys that size and bigger skate on a rope. The guy had the potential to be unique (once again that means one of a kind, not one of 10 or 100), but he never lived up to that potential. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Conscience said: People in here seem to be severely overrating Hughes on here, give up Horvat or Boeser, 2 1st and more??? Hes being projected as more of a Hirschier type first over all than a macdavid or matthews. Crazy Kane is what he’s been promoted as, that’s a lot more than Hirshier. Still I’m with you on the overvaluing, I’d say keep our pick as the cost is likely to out weigh what Hughes can add to the team. We know what we have in the core we have so far, there is a certain logic in Horvat and our first (but don’t think they’d take that anyways) .... Didn’t we do this last year ... and the year before ... and the year before and the year before... the amount of first overall envy on this site is silly. It’s possible that both Hughes and Kakko won’t be the best player this draft year, it happens all the time...why not just pick 10th and keep what depth we have left in our pool and a bird in hand in one of Horvat or Boeser. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 7 hours ago, Bertuzzi44ever said: You would be blocked what is with some people here. why do they think other teams want our prospects who aren’t top notch players And a bunch of second rounders for the number one overall pick. my god lol again there is no dream formula it’s not a video game where you can stack your crap players and get a good piece back this is real life. I tried humour and you just went right for his jugular! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Personally I would target Picks in the 10 to 15 range. Flyers Pick # 11 Trade, Virtanen and Hutton and draft Newhook Panthers Pick # 13 Trade Markstrom and Tryamkins rights and draft Lavoie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Look up the definition of the word "unique". It means, "one of a kind". Not 1 in 100 or even 1 in 10... In the 90's, Lindros was someone ahead of his time. A very skilled and aggressive 6' 4" player who skated like someone much shorter. Back then he was an enigma. These days we see guys that size and bigger skate on a rope. The guy had the potential to be unique (once again that means one of a kind, not one of 10 or 100), but he never lived up to that potential. The only thing that kept him from living up to it was one massive hit by Stevens. Before that he was living up to the hype with an Art Ross and Hart trophy, and was one of the funnest players to watch in the league as he ragdolled large defesnseman and had some of the best stickhandling/hands in the league. A regular highlight reel. It wasn’t the only hit that did him in, but it was the key one, after that he played scared and became more of a perimeter player and wasn’t as effective. Bobby Clarke’s diatribe with him also took some of the lustre off too, “Eric gets hit and his butler and Dad are running around in the dressing room freaking out” was good for media but it wasn’t good for Lindros. In the end Forsberg was about what Lidnros was worth one on one, almost identical stats and their hard nosed style broke both their bodies down way ahead of time. Watching Lindros in the Olympics before he started his career it was obvious why the hype, he was like no hockey player before or after. Bertuzzi had similar size (a bit smaller) and managed a tiny bit of what Lindros did his entire career. That to me is “unique”. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 3 hours ago, shiznak said: Lindros was hyped to be as good as (if not better) than Lemieux and was considered to be a generational talent. He’s ranked 17th all-time in points per game, better than some hockey greats Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Mark Messier, both Bobby and Brett Hull, amongst others, and that’s with less than 800 games played. He definitely would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer if his career was longer and wasn’t plagued with injuries. No doubt. His injuries were a result of his style of play and his style of play is a large part of what made him an excellent player. He got away with it comparatively unscathed until he started playing with the big boys in the NHL. What helped make him a top 100 player is what also shortened his career. He managed to hit 40 goals in 4 different seasons. Unfortunately for him, he never once played an entire season full of games. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I hope dim sum Jim doesn't gut this team for the nostalgia factor of having the brothers united. It would take a kings ransom for us to move up 9 spots. NOT in a position to do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 1 minute ago, IBatch said: The only thing that kept him from living up to it was one massive hit by Stevens. Before that he was living up to the hype with an Art Ross and Hart trophy, and was one of the funnest players to watch in the league as he ragdolled large defesnseman and had some of the best stickhandling/hands in the league. A regular highlight reel. It wasn’t the only hit that did him in, but it was the key one, after that he played scared and became more of a perimeter player and wasn’t as effective. Bobby Clarke’s diatribe with him also took some of the lustre off too, “Eric gets hit and his butler and Dad are running around in the dressing room freaking out” was good for media but it wasn’t good for Lindros. In the end Forsberg was about what Lidnros was worth one on one, almost identical stats and their hard nosed style broke both their bodies down way ahead of time. Watching Lindros in the Olympics before he started his career it was obvious why the hype, he was like no hockey player before or after. Bertuzzi had similar size (a bit smaller) and managed a tiny bit of what Lindros did his entire career. That to me is “unique”. Like I said, he deserves to be in the NHL's top 100, but he never got close to living up to his hype. 3 things made him an excellent player. First and foremost his aggressive play followed by his accuracy and skating. He had the tools to be better than he became, but 90's style hockey partially tamed the beast. On occasion I wonder how he would do today. The rules would negate his aggressive playing style but at the same time would have kept him from being injured as often. Would he be just another talented big man in today's game or would he live up to his previous billing... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 10 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Like I said, he deserves to be in the NHL's top 100, but he never got close to living up to his hype. 3 things made him an excellent player. First and foremost his aggressive play followed by his accuracy and skating. He had the tools to be better than he became, but 90's style hockey partially tamed the beast. On occasion I wonder how he would do today. The rules would negate his aggressive playing style but at the same time would have kept him from being injured as often. Would he be just another talented big man in today's game or would he live up to his previous billing... The Big E was great during his time, but (because he was so much bigger than the kids he played against while in junior) he played with his head down too much. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealistOptimist Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 42 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Look up the definition of the word "unique". It means, "one of a kind". Not 1 in 100 or even 1 in 10... In the 90's, Lindros was someone ahead of his time. A very skilled and aggressive 6' 4" player who skated like someone much shorter. Back then he was an enigma. These days we see guys that size and bigger skate on a rope. The guy had the potential to be unique (once again that means one of a kind, not one of 10 or 100), but he never lived up to that potential. Yet again, you're talking about the results of his career. As for the term "unique", by definition you are correct. When I hear that term though, I generally think rare/very rare, not one of a kind, but that's clearly my bad. He was a "rare" prospect at the time, due to his size, speed and skill all put together. I'm not arguing that he lived up to it. He was believed to be a generational talent at the time, Jack Hughes is not. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now