-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by tyhee
-
You have a view of opinion vs fact that is drastically different from mine. I have no issue with the Canucks' taking Virtanen where they did, but can't imagine how it being the right pick can be anything other than an opinion.
-
I don't think he can play in the AHL this coming season until his junior team is finished, the same as this past season. The agreement between the NHL and CHL is that no player signed by an NHL team can play in the minors unless he turns 20 by Dec 31 of the season in question or has completed 4 NHL seasons. http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2012/8/1/3213217/bruins-nhl-chl-ahl-agreement-CBA-talks-2012 Virtanen had completed 3 seasons in the WHL and won't turn 20 until after the 2015-16 season is completed. He did play 9 WHL games in the regular season and 5 in the playoffs in 2011-12. I don't know the definition of a season in the agreement so if those 14 games is sufficient to be a season he could play in the AHL, otherwise he's back to Jr. I'm expecting that 9 regular season and 5 playoff games is not sufficient to constitute a season under the agreement. Actually, Benning has left a spot open for Virtanen or some other prospect to make the club. The likely players among the pros signed by the Canucks to make the team this season are Hank, Daniel, Burrows, Sutter, Horvat, Vey, Vrbata, Baertschi, Higgins, Hansen, Dorsett, Prust, Kenins, Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis, Weber, Bartkowski, Sbisa, Corrado, Miller, Markstrom. That makes 22 and they have room for 23 on the roster.
-
KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian, on 20 Jul 2015 - 1:04 PM, said: Yes, you can write all you want about Nylander and whether he'll make the NHL in the Nylander prospect thread, wherever you happen to find that thread. It has nothing to do with Virtanen's development.
-
I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere but in forums, but there were a few forum posts that said Treliving had said Vancouver's offer was the best by far. A couple of those: A Calgary forum has numerous posts quoting Treliving: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=144827&page=26 And on CDC Ryan Strome posted saying Treliving had said the same thing on 960 (Radio): http://forum.canucks.com/topic/367730-trade-sven-baertschi-to-canucks/?p=12633199
-
... and the Shinkaruk Talk thread is at http://forum.canucks.com/topic/347328-hunter-shinkaruk-talk/page-113
-
This is just silly. You're asking DeNiro to give reasons for a position he wasn't taking. You are the one that made the statement that we should have taken Caleb Jones, with no reasoning behind it. De Niro didn't say Jones would have been a worse pick. He merely said don't bother to just give your opinion about who should have been taken without reasons.
-
While harsh, the "fluff piece" wording was likely used because Linden was so popular as a Vancouver player that he'd be likely to bring positive feelings to the Vancouver media. The things Ghosts listed could mostly also be true of a slow-witted high energy player. (Before people on CDC jump at this, see the word "also" in that sentence. The sentence does not refer to Linden as slow-witted.) The exception is the Players Association position. Imo his other business interests and involvement as President of the Players' Association are more pertinent to his qualificationsas a team president. Things like playing hockey with broken ribs or winning two Memorial Cups don't have much to do with the ability to make sound business decisions.
-
Hedman, on 26 Jun 2015 - 7:11 PM, said: Time marches on. Demko's WJC eligibility is in the past. Boeser will be eligible for the next two WJCs.
-
Using "likely" isn't weaseling, it is just refusing to be dishonest and make predictions absolute. Nobody knows the future and they gain, rather than lose, credibility by not pretending to have a perfect crystal ball (or perfect formula, or scout that is never wrong) with which to tell the future.
-
It might be only a matter of time before Lack is traded, but it was a given that Canucks would qualify Markstrom no matter which goalie is going. Presumably the Canucks would like to get some asset back for whichever goalie leaves rather than have one walk away as an UFA.
-
You compared the discussion with that on the McCann thread-but that misses the essential difference. On the McCann thread people don't go on endlessly about who else might have been drafted with the pick that was used on McCann. This is a Jake Virtanen thread. As such, it is perfectly appropriate to criticize his development. It is fair game to point out that his goal scoring dropped in his draft + 1 year, that he didn't show the overall increase in scoring expected of prospects in their draft + 1 year and to argue about his ceiling, his floor and what sort of player he'll be. It is not a Nylander thread, nor a Jim Benning management thread. Imo this is not the place to discuss at length and repeatedly Nylander, Ehlers or what Benning should have done with the 6th overall pick in the 2014 draft. When I come on this thread I hope to see news about Jake Virtanen, not prospects that the Canucks didn't draft. I'd be fine seeing that on a thread about Benning, the scouting staff, the management team or the 2014 draft. I think your points would be perfectly appropriate there. I'm not saying you're wrong (or right, for that matter) about whethe Benning could have made a better pick. I'm happy with Virtanen the prospect and don't watch what others who might have been picked in that spot are doing for other teams. You have the right to be critical of the pick and I don't have an opinion at this stage about whether you're right or wrong. I just wish those that wanted to criticize the pick would do it in a thread about those that made the pick. If you want to point out that some concern might be raised by Virtanen's scoring this season both in the WHL and in his stint in the AHL, that's fair enough. No doubt we'd all be more comfortable about his development if he scored more, as is expected in a draft + 1 year. The extent to which his shoulder surgery and resulting time off, coaching and attention to defence can then be brought up by the other side and an argument can ensue. But the fact is we didn't draft Nylander and we didn't draft Ehlers. What they do has nothing to do with what kind of player Jake Virtanen is going to be. The only relevance is when judging how the Canucks' management team is doing. That too is an interesting topic, discussed in many other threads dedicated to that question.
-
The article was for the purpose of evaluating Benning's performance as GM. The question of the Canucks' fans was merely a point of analysis to get there. I thought the article premature, because it seems ridiculous to me to try to evaluate a draft before any of the drafted players has played a single NHL game.
-
This is the Jake Virtanen thread. What does the scoring of other teams' prospects have to do in any way with Virtanen's development? If your answer is that you want to re-live the 2014 draft, then should we also post regularly about how P.K. Subban is doing, bumping the old Taylor Ellington prospect thread indefinitely? Could I suggest if you want to re-live the 2014 draft you bump the threads from that draft and spare those of us interested in the development of prospects of the Vancouver Canucks? This raises a point, though I'd differ in approach focussing on where he'll best develop instead of where he deserves to play. Earning your spot is just one of the factors to consider in a player's development. Some think NHL players develop best in the NHL. Imo that is best for some and not as good for others. Virtanen physically is capable of playing in the NHL. I suspect that mentally and defensively he's closer to being ready than some give him credit for, but for other reasons wonder if he might be better in Jr again. Those are: -offense-between his shoulder injury and his commitment to work on his defence, and possibly other factors (I've seen coaching and playing a different wing mentioned as potential factors in other CDC posts) his scoring didn't go up like one often sees from top prospects. It might not do him any harm to do a bunch of scoring in junior-in fact it may be good for his offensive creativity. -some have mentioned that it would be nice if he isn't expected to carry too much of the team's deterrent weight in the NHL next season. otoh, Virtanen's strength and speed are perhaps overly dominant in many situations in junior. It will interesting seeing what happens in training camp.
-
The question is where the development time should be. Horvat had 0 pts in 5 AHL games, then, if I remeber correctly, 0 pts in his first 6 NHL games. That is, he was a perfect 0 pts in his first 11 pro games. Nevertheless he did his 2014-15 developing in the NHL and it seems to have worked out ok so far. I'm not expressing a view (at least in this post) on where Virtanen should develop next season, merely tryi8ng to make the point that points scored in a small number of games isn't all that meaningful.
-
"may be wrong but I believe Higgins was one of our point leaders last season." Higgins was 5th among the Canucks in points this past season with 36. In case anyone cares, Matthias was 9th with 27. http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2015.html In even strength 5 on 5 scoring per 60 minutes, Higgins was 7th among Canuck forwards at 1.79. Matthias was 13th at 1.42. Baertschi's sample size was so small as to be virtually meaningless-in 168:14 he averaged 2.14 pts/60 minutes. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?db=201415&sit=5v5&type=individual&teamid=29&pos=forwards&minutes=50&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC
-
DownUndaCanuck, on 05 Jun 2015 - 7:36 PM, said: Could you provide a source where Benning said that? I don't recall a report of him saying that. Thanks.
-
... and Canucks are still paying Lu $800K per to play for the Panthers.
-
I agreed with most of your post, but don't see what the number of goals scored by Linden as a 16 year old rookie in the WHL has to do with Virtanen's progress nor do I think comparing Virtanen with Linden helps the case for Virtanen at all. Linden had played 5 regular season games and 6 in the playoffs for Medicine Hat in 85-86; then 14 g + 22 ast=36 pts as a 16 YO WHL rookie in 86-87; 110 points in 67 games in his draft year 87-88 as a 17 year old, then 30 goals/59 pts as an NHL rookie at the age of 18. Virtanen's scoring (goals + assists) pales beside Linden's in his draft year and in his draft + 1 year Linden scored 30 goals for the Canucks and Virtanen 21 while still in Jr. I'm optimistic about Virtanen's future and not worried as some are by his not scoring more, but don't see how comparison with Linden is helpful to those arguing Virtanen's cause.
-
As Vinnie Barberino (aka John Travolta) used to say , I'm so confused ... Is this an argument about whether Torres was the Oiler's best player at some time in 2006 and, if so, what is the importance of the point again?
-
I have seen people question whether he still has too much to learn but don't recall anyone suggesting he is lacking the strength or speed to play in the NHL next year.
-
Right. You've hit exactly why some say Lack gets moved. I expect there to be zero interest in taking over Miller's salary, but would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.
-
The Canucks signed Hutton in March. http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=758351
-
You note that he suffered from fatigue. It was noted he'd played a ridiculous number of games in a row. You then question whether that would help with his fatigue because someone else had the endurance to play even more games in a row? That's logic (or lack thereof) is equivalent to saying an 800 metre runner showed signs of fatigue after a 10K run, and disputing that cutting the distance would help because marathon runners run even further than 10K. Working a ridiculous number of games is only a requirement for NHL goalies if the coach is silly enough to put the goalie in for a ridiculous number of games. Lack's endurance was fine-admittedly not as good as shown by Dubnyk, but fine. If a goalie is playing something like 30 straight games, his fatigue is the responsibility of the coach. If the coach has chosen to play someone that heavily after being aware that he showed signs of mental fatigue the season before after starting too many games, that is clearly the responsibility of the coach. If the coach isn't aware of what happened the year before, that is again the responsibility of the coach.)
-
Since he's not a junior he couldn't be promoted to the AHL after his junior team was done for the season. That leaves him needing to have been assigned to the Comets at least on paper on March 2, the date of the trade deadline. He wasn't assigned to Utica at that time (Markstrom, Kenins, Clendening and Biega were and Corrado had been recently sent down) so he can't play for the Comets in the playoffs now. It may be the Canucks couldn't assign him on paper March 2 because the agreement between the NHL and AHL requires a player to be 20 or to have completed 4 seasons of major junior. Horvat turned 20 in April. I for one am happy to have Horvat not playing for the Comets in the playoffs. He's already played for the Canucks in their playoffs and I doubt playing the playoffs for the Comets would do much good for his development.
-
You're right, McMillan wasn't assigned to Utica. The press release on the paper transactions is at http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=756100.