Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

GoldenAlien

Members
  • Posts

    717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by GoldenAlien

  1. A scouting report from a Swedish fan: https://www.reddit.com/r/canucks/comments/auq4vk/canucks_acquire_linus_karlsson_from_sharks_in/ Another underrated upside to this trade: as an European draftee, Karlsson's rights won't expire until June 2022. That gives him full three seasons after this one to work on his strength and skating with a pro club. He can play another season in Allsvenskan, maybe move up to the SHL the year after and stay there for a couple seasons, before we have to sign him. By the time he comes over, he could be close to a finished product and won't need much time in the AHL.
  2. Sautner was returned then recalled, and Brisebois, MacEwen and Mazanec were sent down. No other moves by the Canucks. As the deadline has already passed, that means Gaudette, Schenn and Demko won't be eligible to rejoin the Comets. The Canucks only have 6 healthy defensemen on roster right now (including Schenn and Sautner), after the Gudbranson trade. Likely one of Chatfield or Brisebois will be recalled, so that burns 2 of the 4 post TDL recalls. Benning probably wanted to save a couple extra so some guys could get a 5 game tryout when we're out of the playoff race.
  3. A nice update from Ryan Biech: Full write up: https://www.nhl.com/canucks/news/vancouver-canucks-prospects-update/c-304845096
  4. We're talking about Anders Nilsson here, he of 0.895 SV% and 3.09 GAA. Why in the world would OTT, or any other team, bend over backwards for Nilsson? Say they waive McKenna, he gets claimed, then VAN doesn't do the deal. Then OTT is left with only one goalie. Why would they take that risk just to have a chance at a goalie who is 46th in the league in SV%? Trading a goalie is not like trading a skater. Teams usually have several spare skaters in the NHL/ AHL, but only a set number of goalies. If a team already has 2 NHL goalies, they have to give one back if they take Nilsson; they wouldn't just give back an AHL goalie. Even if they were willing to, the Canucks were looking for a goalie on an expiring deal. Below are the goalies who are set to go UFA in 2019 but have already passed through waivers, and the reasons why their teams were likely not interested in Nilsson: Jean-Francois Berube -- CBJ -- Bobrovsky starts the lion share of the games. Why trade for Nilsson? Joe Cannata -- COL -- Currently has three goalies on roster. Harri Sateri -- DET -- Rebuilding team, has Howard and Bernier. Al Montoya -- EDM -- Had Nilsson before, didn't work out. Peter Budaj -- LAK -- Dead last in the NHL. Has Quick and Campbell. Andrew Hammond -- MIN -- Has Dubnyk and Stalock. Eddie Lack -- NJD -- Kinkaid has been better than Nilsson and Blackwood looks extremely promising. Will eventually get Schneider back. Troy Grosenick -- NSH -- Has Rinne and Saros. Dustin Tokarski -- NYR -- Rebuilding team, Lundqvist starts most of the games anyway. Marek Mazanec -- NYR -- See above. John Muse -- PIT -- Has Murray and DeSmith. Jared Coreau -- STL -- They just got him from ANA on Jan. 3. ANA already had Gibson, Johnson and Miller on NHL contracts, doubt they wanted Nilsson. Edward Pasquale -- TBL -- Has Vasilevskiy and Domingue. Instead of spouting false equivalencies, why don't you point out a deal that Benning could've done that would've netted Vancouver the same return. Not to mention, Leipsic was never a part of the Leivo deal. Per LeBrun: Leipsic was put on waivers on Dec. 2., before Benning inquired about Leivo. If you're privy to discussions between the Canucks and Leafs that was missed by LeBrun, please do share.
  5. These lower round draft picks have little impact on an NHL team's success, rebuild or not. For example, take the Bolts. Yzerman was hired as GM in May 2010, here's their record for 4th to 7th rounders from 2010 to 2016: 2010: #96 Geoffrey Schemitsch, #118 Jimmy Mullin, #156 Brendan O'Donnell, #186 Teigan Zahn. 2011: #148 Nikita Nesterov, #178 Adam Wilcox, #201 Matthew Peca, #208 Ondrej Palat. 2012: #101 Cedric Paquette, #161 Jake Dotchin, #202 Nikita Gusev. 2013: #124 Kristers Gudlevskis, #154 Henri Ikonen, #184 Saku Salminen, #186 Joel Vermin. 2014: #119 Ben Thomas, #170 Cristiano DiGiacinto, #185 Cameron Darcy. 2015: #118 Jonne Tammela, #120 Mathieu Joseph, #150 Ryan Zuhlsdorf, #153 Kris Oldham, #180 Kris Oldham. 2016: #118 Ross Colton, #148 Christopher Paquette, #178 Oleg Sosunov, #206 Otto Somppi, #208 Ryan Lohin. A whole bunch of nothings, a few grinders/ tweeners, and the only player of consequence is Palat. That's one top 6 winger out of 28 picks. Sure, guys like Paquette and Joseph play for the Lightning, but you can get these type of players (see Schaller, Roussel, Beagle) every year in free agency, without the years of development. Stockpiling 5th rounders isn't the recipe for a successful rebuild. You're much more likely to just end up with 3 extra Ryan Zuhlsdorfs. It's a little early to judge the 2017 and 2018 drafts, but for reference: 2017: #169 Nicklaus Perbix, #180 Cole Guttman, #200 Samuel Walker. 2018: #121 Alex Green, #152 Magnus Chrona, #183 Cole Koepke, #206 Radim Salda, #214 Ty Taylor. Not seeing a whole lot of potential for future Conn Smythe winners here. As an aside, the Bolts have also had plenty of misses. Look at some of their higher picks: 2010: #6 Brett Connolly -- #7 was Jeff Skinner. 2012: #10 Slater Koekkoek -- #11 was Filip Forsberg. 2013: #3 Jonathan Drouin (turned into Mikhail Sergachev) -- #4 was Seth Jones. 2014: #19 Tony DeAngelo -- #20 was Nick Schmaltz. Instead of stockpiling long shots, Benning tried to get prospects who have pro experience and are more likely to at least play in the NHL in some capacity. The vast majority of late round picks never reach 100 games in the NHL; a guy like Pouliot has done a great deal more than most fourth rounders. Benning could've gotten more picks for Burrows and Hansen, but he went for Dahlen and Goldobin instead. If he insisted on say, a 6th rounder from CBJ instead of Motte, he probably would've gotten it. But then the Canucks would have three guys playing in juniors right now, instead of two in the NHL and another on the farm.
  6. But Hamilton also listed Pyatt as LW on their 2009-2010 roster, the last time he played in the AHL.
  7. Is Pyatt really a centre at this point? His last two seasons, he took 49 faceoffs in 82 games and 51 faceoffs in 81 games. His FO% last season was a horrid 33%. He’s averaging 4 faceoffs a game this year, but he’s dropped from producing 20+ pts per season to 2 pts in 37 games. Seems more like a Granlund than a Richardson. The Canucks also listed him as LW online and in its press release.
  8. From the Comets' writer for the Utica Observer-Dispatch: And Cory Hergott's recap for Sunday's game against Charlotte: Coming back from an injury midseason isn't easy, let alone doing so in your first pro year. Boeser scored 2 goals in his first 12 games this year and he was cleared for training 3 months before Canucks opened its season.
  9. From Cull after Brisebois' first star performance in Comets' 5-2 win over Binghamton on Friday:
  10. Not sure if this has been posted before... an Abbotsford mayoral candidate, Eric Nyvall wrote this in October: Nyvall basically proposes a season ticket drive like Seattle/ Las Vegas did to make sure the financials work. His full post: https://www.facebook.com/NyvallForMayor/photos/a.1908839562487943/1970074939697738/?type=3&theater Though Nyvall lost the election to incumbent Henry Braun, it's an interesting concept. If it only takes 4,000 tickets/ game to make the numbers work, that's a pretty low bar to clear considering there were only 6 teams in the AHL that averaged fewer than 4,000 per game last season. Even the Heat drew ~3800 per game for 3 of their 5 years, and regularly sold out (7,000+) when the baby Canucks visited. Don't know what Braun is willing to do, but he admitted in May he's been trying to make a deal with the Canucks:
  11. MacEwen's 12th of the year: Nifty pass from Jasek on Boucher's goal: And Sauce Man scores his first AHL goal: Wouldn't it be something if this guy turns into a Biega for us.
  12. The national tournament doesn't start until Mar. 29th and the Canucks' season ends on Apr. 6th. Hughes would need to start playing for the Canucks on Mar. 18th to play 10 games by the end of the season. Unless Michigan completely falls outside of the top 16 and doesn't even make the national tournament, Hughes won't have enough time to pass that threshold. I don't think Hughes playing for the Comets is an issue. The 10 game threshold is for player playing under a SPC, or standard player contract. Hughes would be playing for the Comets under amateur tryout, or ATO. If you're on a standard NHL contract, you cannot be assigned to an AHL club if you were not on the AHL team's roster as of 3pm on trade deadline. Which is why teams make paper transaction on TDL to assign players to the AHL, then immediately recall them. Players who were not on the AHL roster by 3pm TDL cannot later join the team. TDL is Feb. 25 this season, so unless Hughes quit and turn pro before his NCAA season ends, there's no way that he'll make it onto the Comets' roster in time. Therefore, if he signs an NHL contract, he'd be ineligible to play in the AHL this season. The only way he can play there is if he holds off on an ELC, and as a player without a contract, be a tryout in the AHL. However, that shouldn't count towards his 10 games since an ATO isn't a standard player contract. Yes.
  13. While I think the state of Canucks' prospect pool during the Gillis' era is directly related to how the team has fared in the past few seasons -- we had no one to supplement the Sedins once they slowed down -- Utica's troubles are more just a consequence of being a farm team of a rebuilding club. First, because we were able to pick high, our best prospects don't spend any time in the AHL. Compare that to a club that's picking in the late teens or 20s, almost all of their first rounders are going to start in the AHL. Then, because we have a thin roster, anyone who's good enough to make the NHL will be given every chance to do so. Someone like Goldobin would've been traded like Sprong had he been on a contending team. There's simply no room to let young players figure it out, particularly if they need top 6 minutes to do so. But as a rebuilding team, we both have the room and the incentive to give young players a longer leash. As a follow up to the above, there's also no "overcooking" of prospects. For example, Nyquist spent 3 years in the NCAA, then had his first pro season at 22 years old. He scored 58pt in 56 AHL games and 7pts in 18 NHL games. If he were on the Canucks, he would've been given a full time spot on the big team by the end of the year. Instead, the season after, he played 58 games in the AHL, scoring 60pts, and even after that season, played another 15 games, scoring 21pts, before he made the Red Wings for good. He was 24 by then. Now, Detroit is keeping a 19 year old Rasmussen in their lineup, who has scored 9pts in 28 games. Was a 23 year old Nyquist really less ready for the NHL than Rasmussen is right now? Probably not, but when a team is contending, you only keep a rookie on the roster if they come in and force your hand. Once upon a time, we had a RHD depth of Bieksa, Ehrhoff and Salo. Had we signed Stecher then, he would've spent his entire rookie season in the AHL. Doesn't matter whether he needed that much time -- who would've been sat to give him a chance? Can you imagine AV giving Hutton ice time over Rome back in 2011? But now, we waive Gagner to make room for Motte. Teams that are tops in the AHL generally have good prospects who are second or third year players, along with AHL vets (or fringe NHL players). But for us, some of our first round picks skip the AHL, so we often don't have multiple first round picks on the farm. Then, prospects who are dominating at that level aren't going to be left there for long. In essence, the only guys who stay in Utica are either rookies (who need to adjust) or lower level prospects (who provide limited skill). There's not a single skater in Utica who's a second year AHLer and projects as a top 6 F/ top 4 D in the NHL. In 2014-2015, when the Comets made the finals, Jensen, Gaunce and Shinkaruk spent the whole season on the farm, with Jensen being a sophomore. Then Baertschi joined after the TDL, and even Virtanen played 10 playoff games after his WHL season ended. That's 5 first round picks, with 2 who has multiple years of pro experience. Say what you want about how some of them turned out, but a second year Jensen is going to be better than a first year Lind. This is not necessarily a bad thing for the Canucks. If we needed guys like Baertschi and Granlund to beat a vet for a spot right off the bat, they would've never developed into NHL regulars with us. And while there's generally no harm in overcooking prospects, there's often no utility in doing so either. Had we had the centre depth of Sedin - Kesler - Malhotra in 2014, Horvat would've been sent back for a 4th season in London. Would that have hurt his potential? No. But is that really the best use of his time? And obviously, there are no downsides to getting Pettersson or Hughes. The Comets will only get better when the Canucks become a contending team. Then players like Dahlen, who would be dominant as a second year AHLer, would stay down for an extra year instead of making the Canucks. Then we'd pick #23, and have a rookie like Borgstrom scoring PPG in the AHL, instead of #5, and have a rookie like Pettersson scoring PPG in the NHL.
  14. The Athletic put together a "Future Power Ranking," of how teams will rank in the 2021-2022 season: https://theathletic.com/686629/2018/12/03/future-power-rankings-our-panel-projects-how-all-nhl-teams-will-slot-in-2021-22-season/ It's behind a paywall, but the factors are U25 core/ prospects (this factor is weighted twice), management and coaching, ownership and market, and the salary cap situation. Canucks ranked 6th overall, behind the Leafs, Jets, Avs, Bruins and Sabres. Our U25 core ranked 3rd, but our salary cap situation ranked 22nd -- due to contracts like Eriksson's. But Eriksson, Roussel and Beagle's contracts all expire after 2021-2022, and even Luongo's retained salary hit is done after 2021-2022. The only other contract we'll have on the books is Horvat's, which is obviously a very good deal. Guys like Boeser will be re-signed, but looking forward three years we're in a pretty nice spot. If our core will already be top 3, add in this year's draft, and we could be legitimate contenders in just two more seasons. In other news, some interesting tidbits about Seattle from AHL president Dave Andrews: If Seattle owns its own team, that significantly ups the chance that it'll be located in the Pacific Northwest. The Tacoma Dome just underwent a $30m renovation this past summer... could be a good fit.
  15. Woo started last season with 17pts in 18 games, then went down with an injury for more than 6 weeks. When he came back, he played a more defensive role as the top offensive minutes were given to Josh Brook and Kale Clague. He was always a good skater and passer, now he's getting the opportunity to show it. He could be our new Bieksa in a few years.
  16. @UticaHockeyYou said: Evidence shows that the Comets are not run like a business. I put in numbers because I'm not one to make idle speculations or assumptions. The Canucks do not need to put an entertaining product on ice because ticket revenue is not the reason they own the Comets. The primary purpose of a business is to make money. That is literally the difference between a private business and a nonprofit, or a hobby. This is how the IRS characterize a business (per TurboTax): Canucks as a corporate turn a profit, but a business that does not make money is by definition, not a business. Now that's the NHL side of things. On the AHL side, I'm sure it's a business for Esche, any local management group in AHL cities, and independent AHL owners. Why would Esche pay Canucks an affiliation fee if there's no potential for financial upside for him? But that's got nothing to do with the Canucks. We're not debating what Esche's responsibility to the Comets is. The Canucks are actively looking for locations that would make the AHL losses bigger. It's not even trying to turn a profit. If I'm a billionaire, and I spend $10 million/ year operating a private art gallery that does $1m in revenue, the IRS is going to eventually classify that as a hobby, since the reason I run that art gallery is because I like galleries and have the money. Doesn't matter if I hire a bunch of employees to manage the place and pay for advertising and salespeople. We're talking about Canucks' obligations to the Comets here. The team did not buy the Comets as a financial investment, it does not run the operation for money. If I'm not mistaken, the ticket managers, corporate marketing employees etc., are Esche's people. I'm not arguing that it's a business for him, and if you have a problem with the quality of those services, you certainly have a right to take it up with him.
  17. I get your frustration, but the truth is, the AHL isn't a business. If you look at the numbers, Rangers renewed with Hartford for three years in 2013, and it got a $1.4m/ year affiliation fee, which was then the highest in the league. It now gets $1.6m/ year in its new deal. The Canucks also signed with Utica in 2013, but considering Utica has a smaller arena, was an unproven market, the affiliation fee definitely would've been lower than Hartford's. Let's say it's more like $1m, maybe $1.2m at most. But look at this reporting from May 2014: Now that doesn't include insurance or equipment, or travel costs for 38 road games/ call ups. And just cost of living raises would make the Comets payroll more than $2m now, since this data is 4.5 years old. Esche presumably get all the parking, concession etc, and I'm not sure how much of the ticket revenue he shares. But we're looking at 3,917 seats at 38 home games, and the season tickets go for ~$13-$23 currently, though there are easily more $15 seats than $23 ones. But let's say they average out to $18/ seat, since single game tickets usually sell for more. That would give Utica a total ticket revenue of $2.68m/ year, without accounting for cost, taxes, Esche's share, etc. Yes, there are a few suites, merchandise sales, playoff revenue in some years, but the matter of the fact is, Canucks' cost is likely over $3m, and the only guarantee is the ~$1m affiliation fee. This is nothing against Utica, the majority of AHL teams don't turn a profit. But if an NHL team loses money for 5 years straight with no end in sight, you'll probably see them cut payroll to keep cost down (a la Ottawa), take on debt, or look to sell. To everyone's knowledge, the Canucks have not slashed the Comets' budget or tried to sell. If you owned a store and it doesn't make money for 5 years, would it still be open on the 6th year? Yet the Canucks are looking at West Coast options for the Comets -- something that would make the operation more expensive. The reason there are 31 AHL franchises is precisely because owning a farm team isn't a business. It's a cost of doing business. It might be a bit different for the independently owned teams, but I doubt you'd find a single NHL owner who says they bought an AHL franchise for financial returns. If the purpose of the Comets' existence doesn't have anything to do with making money, then its objective is to accomplish Canucks' objective -- which is to develop the few prospects the organization deems to be important. If in the process, the Comets win a Calder Cup, then great. But that's just a byproduct of achieving the main goal, it's not something the organization aims for in and of itself.
  18. Except plenty do. Every year nearly half the league miss the playoffs -- by definition these prospects failed to carry the load. Prospects pools in the AHL are often rookie-heavy, considering guys who do well end up in the NHL the next season. Which is why huge swings in fortune are common -- one year you're playing hockey in June, the next year you're golfing in April. The thing is, guys who need more time will need time regardless of who's playing on their team. Take someone like Dahlen or Palmu -- they are good, but not elite, skaters. They have good, but not elite, skillset. If they were 6'1", 200lbs, that's fine, but you can't be sub-180lbs and be merely above average. Dahlen is used to being able to play in the dirty areas, but he can't do that against AHL defensemen. He needs to work on his strength and explosiveness, and until he does that, he's not making the NHL. What the Canucks care about is the long term potential of these prospects. If Dahlen is trending towards a 40pt player, but playing with an AHL All-Star made him into a 70pt player, then that AHL vet should get a house in Shaughnessy. But it doesn't really work that way. For example, look at Cal O'Reilly, who's the best centre Utica ever had and took them to the Calder Cup finals in 2014-2015. Canucks prospect wingers on the team at the time: Shinkaurk, Gaunce, Jensen, Grenier, Kenins, Zalewski. Who in this cohort is a better player today because of O'Reilly? Baertschi joined the team in March after getting traded, but he was already an elite AHL player. Heck, who in this group would be a worse player today had the team been kicked out in the first round? Or take Shinkaruk, who had 39pts in 45 games in 2015-2016 with Utica, but scored 35pts in 52 games with Stockton the season after. But in Stockton, his centre was Jankowski, who was easily better than anyone on Utica. The purpose of an AHL team isn't to pad stats, there's no point in signing additional players unless they directly impact a prospect's long term performance. By all accounts from Cull and Johnson, the Canucks rookies are doing what they're supposed to -- putting in work off the ice, learning the pace of the AHL, paying more attention to the details of the game. An extra TJ Hensick might turn a 2-1 loss into a 3-2 win, but he won't turn Gadjovich into Tkachuk.
  19. Here's an update from someone who follows the Comets for a living. Utica Observer-Dispatch's Ben Birnell discusses Juolevi's growth and strengths/ weaknesses to Sportsnet: https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/the-playbook/juolevi-thriving-utica-injury/ He talks Juolevi from 1:30 to 3:50, goes on to Dahlen and Palmu, then Gadjovich, Jasek and Demko later on. Also says he thinks Cull/ Utica is in sync with Green/ Canucks in terms of making sure players play the same style so they're ready for call ups.
  20. This doom and gloom is so over the top. Literally every other early season prediction/ power ranking had Canucks as a bottom 3 team. One of the worst records over the past three seasons and lost the Sedins and Vanek. Then the team gets on a hot streak and sits at the top of the league for a New York minute, and suddenly it's a failure if we're not pushing for playoffs in March? Most of the September discussions were "we're going to get Jack Hughes" vs "the lottery is rigged." The rebuild is going fine. Many of the major pieces are in place -- a PPG #1 centre (Pettersson), a 60-70pt two way centre (Horvat), a 30+ goal sniper (Boeser), a 50pt puck moving D (Hughes), and a #1 goalie (Demko). Sure, Demko and Hughes are not in the NHL yet, but everything points to them fulfilling their potential. Then we have a few good complimentary pieces -- a 40pt winger in Baertschi, possibly a 40pt PWF in Virtanen, maybe a 30-40pt two-way defenseman in Juolevi. We don't quite know what we have with Goldobin and Gaudette, but they're NHL players. Guys like Gudbranson, Hutton and Stecher will still be in their prime in 3 years, and even Tanev and Sutter will still be in their early 30s (if we extend them). And who knows, Tryamkin might come back in 2020. The team could use another blue chip D prospect (preferably RH) and another piece up front, but we'll have a high pick in 2019. Keep in mind the Canucks started the 2015-2016 season genuinely trying to make the playoffs, and the trade of Burrows/ Hansen in 2017 was really the first commitment to a full rebuild. What the Canucks are now is what a lot of rebuilding teams are -- a few great pieces, a few good but inconsistent pieces, and not enough depth to cover for injuries or for when a couple guys go cold. Over the past 13 game stretch (not including tonight's game vs Nashville), we've played without Beagle, Sutter, Tanev, Edler, Nilsson, Boeser, Baertschi, and lost 5 of the past 9 by one goal. Some nights, we were the better team, and have been competing and keeping up. There's nothing broken here. The rookie forwards on the farm are not stalling. They were always projects meant to be complementary pieces at the NHL level. Statistically speaking, players picked between #32 and #56 have a 32% to 39% chance of playing at least 100 games in the NHL (per TSN's data). That means out of Dahlen, Lind and Gadjovich, we should get one player who'll play a couple seasons for the big club. These players have a 9-13% chance of becoming a top 6 F/ top 4 D/ #1 G. Which means we may very well not get a single top 6 forward out of the bunch. Then for players picked between #171 and #186, they have a 14% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL, and a 2% chance of becoming a top 6 F/ top 4 D etc. So for Jasek and Palmu, the deck is really stacked against them. In summary, we have three guys with a 9-13% chance of becoming a top 6 forward, and two guys with a 2% chance of becoming a top 6 forward. If out of these 5 guys we end up with a second line winger and a bottom 6 forward who sticks around for a couple of seasons, we've actually beaten the odds. Take Gadjovich. He has 2pts in his first 14 games, which looks abysmal. But Virtanen put up 7pts in his first 24 games in Utica, and 19pts in 65 games overall. Now Virtanen was picked #6 -- nearly 50 spots ahead of Gadjovich. At 226lbs, he's 17lbs heavier than Gadjovich, which presumably means he's stronger and harder to move for opposing defensemen. At the same time, he's twice the skater that Gadjovich is. So if a top 10 pick who's bigger, faster, and more talented was getting 7pts in his first 24 games (and Virtanen had played in the NHL the previous year), why are we expecting Gadjovich to get into every game and score 0.5 ppg in his first pro season? Or look at Dahlen. He has 14pts in 24 games, or 0.58 ppg. Schroeder scored 28pts in 61 games as a rookie, or 0.46 ppg. Sure, Schroeder was 20 and Dahlen is turning 21, but Schroeder was ranked #5 among NA skaters by Central Scouting in his draft year. He had the highest career point total ever for an American at the WJCs, surpassing Jeremy Roenick. His career assist was the third highest in WJC history. By every metric, he was a better prospect than Dahlen, yet even in his second AHL season, he scored 44pts in 76 games, or just under 0.58 ppg. This is from a first round pick who's played on North American rinks his whole life. These prospects need time. In Virtanen's first years with Vancouver, he played with plugs on the fourth line, and he played with the Sedins on the top line. He wasn't good on either lines, and the Sedins weren't able to accelerate his development or make him a better player. But over time, he's gotten fitter, he's worked on his stickhandling with a coach, and he said this season the game slowed down for him, so he's finally coming into his own. If the Sedins couldn't elevate Virtanen, what makes anyone think an extra Kero on the farm will transform Gadjovich? Goldobin can get into a slump playing with Pettersson, but playing with Gagner will turn Dahlen into Nylander? Just like Green used to call out Baertschi in his first year, just like Goldobin is hot and cold as a rookie, guys like Dahlen are going to hit speed bumps. They need time to get stronger and faster, time to adjust to the competition, time for the game to slow down. Spending extra time at the gym, doing extra skates/ drills, going over tapes -- like Virtanen did with Green -- is development. And at the end of the day, if Palmu is still getting scratched next season, it just means a sixth round pick turned out like... a sixth round pick. Right now, the Canucks have 7 drafted players on the roster (Pettersson, Horvat, Virtanen, Boeser, Gaudette, Edler, Hutton). We'll likely get 3 more -- Hughes, Demko, Juolevi -- in the next 2 years. We should get one player out of the current group in Utica, and one out of prospects outside of AHL (Woo, Lockwood, Madden, Rathbone, DiPietro, Tryamkin, Manukyan, Utunen, Gunnarsson, Thiessen). That's 12 players, and we'll probably get a top 5 prospect this year, which means we might have 13 drafted players on the roster in a couple seasons. And that's not including undrafted free agents like Tanev and Stecher (which still requires scouting and development), and guys like Baertschi, Goldobin, Granlund or Markstrom, who we had a significant role in making into NHL regulars. Not saying everyone will be on the roster at the same time, but that's not a bad record for developing our own talent. Considering we've never had a top 3 pick, and started with a bare cupboard, we're basically right on track with this rebuild.
  21. I don’t understand this renewed outrage over Sam Gagner. It was confirmed back in October that he would get sent back to the Marlies if he were called up then reassigned. The loan is for the whole season, not for 15 games.
  22. From the Province: Looks like Juolevi is already skating again!
×
×
  • Create New...