riley57

It's funny, Gaunce is eerily similar to Higgins. Good shot, great hockey IQ, got some wheels but the main contribution you'll get from him is mostly his defensive play and decent playmaking ability.

EDIT: I apparently do not know how to embed twitter photos.

I just said I think Virtanen has a chance of being a huge impact in the NHL, I think that's much more rose-colored glasses than the rest of them. Didn't I say for a few of them I don't have high hopes? I was just trying to answer all your questions in a knowledgable way with useful information.

Did you like Lack? Well, he had hip surgery and took a major step after having it. Sure, goalies will always have more questions around them since they're hard to predict, but for me, the hip surgery is not a question.

Demko: Was Lack a bust? Was Hiller so terrible after his hip surgery? Is Eric Comrie looking like a bust? Hip surgery hasn't been a problem for any of the goalies that have had it; this so called 'bust potential' is based solely on 'SURGERY?! OMG! HE'LL NEVER BE THE SAME OMG OMG!' Cassels: He's not ready yet. He's undergoing abdominal rehab and he'll be a great center for Utica next year. Shinkaruk: He JUST PLAYED HIS 20-YEAR-OLD SEASON. After practically a year off of hockey including a missed training camp no less. He'll be in the NHL within two years, this isn't even a legitimate concern. Boeser: Who said he's a power forward? Just because he's got a 'nose for the net' and 'grit' doesn't mean he's a power forward. He's a goal scorer with edge. Plain and simple. Brisbois: ........... I don't know what to say. Yikes? He's a very good prospect, his stats underrate him a lot because of his poor quality of team. Zhukenov: Oh, come on. I noticed that too, but doesn't Shinkaruk look about the same? He's doing pretty fine for himself. Tryamkin: The KHL is not a development league, Tryamkin is a 3rd-pairing dman because he's having growing pains as a 21-year-old in a high level professional league, nothing serious. Besides, he's a 3rd round pick, he'll probably be a 3rd pairing defenseman anyway. I don't have high hopes for him but that doesn't mean he's not a solid prospect. If he doesn't come over, meh. Whatever. Subban: 'Jordan Subban hasn't gained any noticable strength since we last drafted him'. Are you KIDDING me? Out of all the guys we have, his strength training has been the most noticable, look up his goddamn twitter. I don't buy into the whole hype around him but he's still a solid NHL prospect with upside, saying a 20-year-old prospect that outscored his entire team by a noticable margin last year is safe to say not an NHL prospect is laughable. Gaunce: His footspeed was noticably better in Utica this year, and most young players have growing pains going into the AHL unless they're a VERY good player. Don't forget to mention, he's got excellent vision. Hutton: He just came out of the NCAA? He'll be a top-4 D for Utica in his 22-year old season most likely, not bad for a 'failed experiment'. Jensen: I think this has been gone over enough. Labate: Long shot. Probable 4th/low-end 3rd line center. Corrado: He has been for awhile, stuck behind waiver-eligible Dmen that narrowly edged him out. McNally: Move on. Virtanen, funnily enough is much more of a boom-or-bust pick. Undersized forwards being 'boom or bust' is kind of a myth, Ehlers and Nylander will more than likely carve out great NHL careers, and I think Virtanen will too. Virtanen is a chase for that mythical beast the 'New-Age Power Forward'. Fast, mean, skilled. If he turns out I see him turning into a scary player to play against, I'm very excited about him. The reason that I and a lot of others get pissed about these comparisons is their draft was LAST YEAR. They're not Canucks prospects, and this is the Virtanen thread. Move on, guys.

Keep in mind people; like Virtanen he is a right handed shot, and his natural position is the right side. People say we're weak on defense in our prospect pool but our young right wing depth is barren. Benning most used that as the tie-break when evaluating him next to other prospects; I find it hard to believe no one pointed that out. (If someone did, correct me please.)

Speaking of small sample sizes...

Looked like a feeling-out game, he didn't cheat much offensively it looked like he was more just trying to be a physical play-driver for his first game. It looked like he was playing kind of reserved, in a I-don't-want-to-hurt-the-team kind of way. I'm sure (like Horvat was with the Canucks) that with more games he will try to try more stuff. I wouldn't construe anything from that game other than from the look of some of those hits he's physically mature enough to play at the AHL level.

Lack is not unorthodox, in fact he's quite technical in his movements. Rollie Melanson has Markstrom learning the same type of play (it's laughable that you think Markstrom is the more technical one, as he was lauded for the duration of his career for being a raw athletic talent without guidance technically.) Lack sometimes is too technical in how he plays reserved, compact. Over the duration of the season he seemed to get more and more stretched out because of the odd-man rushes he faced with the fast teams, I think that's what you're thinking of. The reason why they have to be more stretched out is because of their goalie coach. He tells them to play deep in their crease, use their size and rely on reflexes and positioning. Miller was pretty good this season. Not stellar by any means, but average. At the start of the season the team made him look good, they outscored his... Uncomfortable goaltending. He seemed at odds with himself, the aggressive positioning he had earlier in his career and the deeper crease play that Melanson preaches. Later in the season he settled in though and looked better. Overall I think he's still a starter, but by no means is he much better than Lack, if at all.

It isn't in Demko or the Canucks' best interests for him to move to the CHL; he plays older, stronger talent in the NCAA and will most likely play in the NCAA for atleast another year, maybe even two, before he goes to the AHL where he'll continue to face older talent until he reaches the NHL, as the Canucks brass predicted it'll probably be 4-5 years before he gets a sniff at the NHL level, and that's how it should be.

Goalies are usually very vocal on the ice, so that they can tell their D-men what to do, if they're going to play it and also to be a second set of eyes if someone's on them. Not uncommon at all.

Absolutely we should sign him. We need more hometown players who will put their bodies on the line, not less. Santo had a hell of a season, and I believe he will sign for less than $1m and will be a great bottom 6 player who will fill out our line-up. How he played last year, he was one of the best free agent signings of last year, at the league minimum.

It astounds me how much Tanev's name is being thrown around. Are people completely oblivious to the season and potential that he has? He is a stud D-man, who is improving in the O-zone. Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to get swept up in proposals because there are -so- many variables that no person could possibly predict from the outside. Personally, I'm totally on the draft local train. Not just because of the track record of BC boys we have missed, but also because I believe home town players usually hit a higher octane. Look at a guy like Mike Santorelli. Lost his confidence, went from top 6 NHL minutes to top 6 AHL minutes. Came to Vancouver, became the sparkplug for the club and was one of the only bright spots for the first few months, and the rest of the way until he was injured. In general, I'd rather leave the scouting to the scouts. But if Jim Benning likes Sam, all the power to him to trade up. I just hope he's not looking to the CDC for suggestions.

I like the term of 'crap storm'. I think from top-to-bottom the entire season was a crap storm. And I absolutely agree with you, there wasn't enough effort to change the identity of the team. Though; I feel like Lack got a valuable experience out of the entire thing, and acquiring Markstrom and Matthias, mainly Markstrom seemed like a pretty good result, even though the entirety of the season left a bad taste in my mouth. I can try to explain the season myself but there's so many 'buts' and 'ifs' to all the arguments in my head. I can say one thing confidently however, it wasn't one man's fault. Whether that is bad news for Torts or good news, heck, I could bounce that around my head all day. I'm still unsure. All I know is, being bluntly stuck to one side of the spectrum is too premature and stubborn.

It's a lose-lose-win-win kind of situation. You're throwing the dice if you fire or keep him. If you keep him and he does bad, you look bad. But I think, honestly, I would respect keeping him for the sake of the players and for the sake of respecting your coach. I'm not talking in terms of the season, or bias against or towards him. I would say this about (nearly, excluding a few coaches.) every coach, if you give him the job, you give him atleast a couple years. I saw this as a possibility when he started the year, and I thought then what I think now.

Here's my two cents. For me, looking at the year and his interview in reflection, it looks like he's learned alot about the core, the grit of the west, and about his own coaching identity through all this. Most coaches don't know their team that great at the start of their year, and it showed. The injuries made them flat and as Tortorella said in his interview, he lost the team. It seems to me that he's learned about how he needs to coach his team and having a summer to talk with Trevor about the game plan to get on track seems like a great added bonus. I think he'll come into the season with a better outlook and so will the players. Personally, I feel the whole 'one year trial' model for coaches is, how should I put this delicately... Not very smart, and won't get you too far. A revolving door of coaches isn't going to give any familiarity or comfortability to the team. Heck, think of the prospects. Different coaches always mean different philosophies on development and for guys like Nick and Frankie, do you really want to have a whole new training camp? At some point, you've got to say that two years is fair, give him the shot and if it doesn't go well then, then you evaluate.