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

Gaudette Celly

Members
  • Posts

    20,821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Everything posted by Gaudette Celly

  1. Would certainly hope the alleged "rumours" are false, yet so many here fall for them and then actually start thinking they are legit and worth doing, let alone that the Canucks would even consider them. Benning would have to believe Reinhart is the Second Coming for him to deal Horvat, Shinkaruk, or even more plus his pick to get him. Some hack could post "Vancouver offers Sedins and Kesler for 1st overall pick" and people here would be all over it. I realize it comes down to what one believes about their potential, but in the bigger picture for a team seeking to become younger to then cast off its prospects is really nonsensical. Don't know why it's so difficult for some to grasp.
  2. Did Burke trade his previous first-rounders or his best young prospects to get them?
  3. You're again using the same logical fallacy -- declaring that what happens in the past necessarily happens in the future. Not to mention that likely the only way Reinhart goes #1 or even 2 is if Vancouver trades up to get him.
  4. So Shinkaruk does not have "game-changer potential"? And again, it is not "just Shink" -- it is Shinkaruk PLUS the #6 overall pick, plus perhaps even more, for this ONE player with potential. Please stop equivocating to make your point. Put up Reinhart versus Shinkaruk and Nylander, for example.
  5. It won't -- there will always be shiny new toys, with that ultimate of all attributes... POTENTIAL!
  6. Right, so your mind is boggled why all the scouts and scouting agencies do not universally consider Reinhart a can't-miss franchise elite player? Or are you suggesting that he is one of 5 such players in this draft, and that #6 down is like falling off a cliff and will require paying minimally with the #6-ranked NA skater from a stronger draft year to reach that lofty perch? And there it is -- all you have is YOUR belief of a "higher ceiling" for him. In other words, he MAY have a higher ceiling, according to your personal opinion. Nothing at all to do with the REALITY of what they players have proven themselves to be today, just simply speculation and wishful thinking. And you are willing to pay through the nose for your hopes. That borders on blind faith, my friend. lol, but you do?? McKenzie polls many scouts to make his rankings -- apparently you are smarter than the entire collective of them? Please tell us your credentials and why you are not so employed? Are you related to Reinhart? Perhaps his agent? Really starting to wonder...
  7. If you mean me, you are mistaken. I'd like Reinhart, but not at the expense of Shinkaruk+. The team has a dearth of quality prospects as it is, and bundling them up for a "possible" 1C is simply not smart team-building. Again, this idolatry of the #1 pick needs to end, it is like a religion. People are losing the big-picture perspective.
  8. Only to those entranced by the latest dish put out on the buffet. Again, it's flavour-of-the-day myopia. The team is admittedly trying to retool with youth, yet many here openly advocate trading off the youth -- the PRIME youth at that. Do they not listen, pay attention, or even think about what's going on? Would seem not.
  9. Does not justify emptying the cupboards, especially of a top-3 prospect, of which we have none similar, AND of which perfectly fits the way Benning and Linden want the Canucks to play -- fast, upbeat, relentless, attacking, scoring. That is Shinkaruk, and the ONLY prospect like that we have. Simply horrid. Oh, the allure of golden trinkets and magic beans... Of course, but it was basically called irrational to state that Kesler is worth more than the #1/Reinhart. As such, apparently all we'd get for the entire roster is a handful of mid to late-round picks.
  10. Actually yes they are! Many here treat the #1 pick like the Stanley Cup, and give no indication of having an upper spending limit to get it. This isn't about Shinkaruk-for-Reinhart, it is about Shinkaruk-PLUS #6-for-Reinhart. Even without Tanev in there, Shinkaruk + a Nylander/Virtanen/Ehlers/Ritchie is preferable to Reinhart alone. Much of this comes down to perspective of course, because some seem to think Reinhart is the second coming of Gretzky. If Tanev is expecting a substantial raise, he can be replaced with Corrado and reinforced with a Poulliot or Theodore from a Kesler deal. But is Tanev what Florida wants? If they want a young defenceman that's playing now, Tanev, Stanton, and maybe Corrado are the only ones that really qualify. We'll find out soon enough...
  11. "Potential" first line center. The same thing can be had at #6, without surrendering Shinkaruk. Put up a projected first-line can't-miss franchise center then start talking about pawning off other prospects that are still developing -- especially one of the teams few top ones. Even then, that is NOT the direction the team is headed -- they need young talent and more of it, not throwing the few eggs into a single basket that there isn't even a consensus about. Exactly the same as the "rumour" about Horvat -- just nonsensical crap pulled out of thin air, yet the kids on CDC jump all over it like candy. Simply listening to what direction Benning and Linden want to take the team and what Florida needs makes it more than clear.
  12. Funny, that's the same marketing slogan lotteries use. I don't like the projections of either.
  13. ...and yet some are going hog-wild over trading away Shinkaruk and/or Jensen.
  14. *whew* lol It's almost going to be a relief to get past the next three days. Once it's over and Shinkaruk is still in the fold, I think the fog will clear and people will see Benning's done the right thing and the future is still solid and improving.
  15. Glad to see there's some here not blinded by the sheen from the Holy Number One. Granted opinions on Reinhart vary, but this Shinkaruk speculation has certainly made it clear who's approaching this from a spectacle/carnival/golden goose point of view versus a rational and systematic team-building point of view.
  16. ...but it's more fun playing GM with a pack of player cards, trading pieces of cardboard in the playground at recess. Of course anyone can be traded if the deal is right. But if Benning does include Shinkaruk in a deal to trade up as allegedly speculated, then either: 1. He firmly believes Reinhart is a franchise player, and/or has serious reservations over Shinkaruk 2. He wants to bring a local boy #1 is the move of a hockey man, #2 of a businessman/marketer. All evidence points to him being a hockey man first and from what we've discovered he knows about scouting and this draft in particular, that's becoming even more clear. Shinkaruk is a finisher, something we have a dearth of other than perhaps Jensen. If he really wants Reinhart he will use other assets, to the point of it being overpayment then he walks away. Indeed, Nuckster, from a hockey point of view it is completely rational and sensical.
  17. So because there has been in the past, that means someone HAS to be a franchise player? That's a total logical fallacy -- just because something happens in the past is no guarantee it happens in the future, especially when you are talking about completely different sets of players.
  18. I posted exactly what you said, so I don't see how you're confused. You said "Mackinnon>>>Reinhart/Ekblad" then you also said "Wait until Nylanders first season in the NHL, then you can make a comparison. Premature evaluation." You declare that someone cannot compare players who have yet to play in the NHL, but then you go right ahead and do it yourself. Can you not see the duplicity? Aha, so when a player is "projected to be great" you do not trade the pick, even if they play at a position you have depth in. Second, you say Reinhart is "about on par" with what Florida has. Noted. Third, you apparently admit the farm is pretty sad, and with a giggle? Either you don't believe it and believe that Shinaruk is not one of the top prospects because there are so many, or you do believe it's weak but are still willing to pawn him off anyway. Oh but then we get something for Kesler -- yeah, so assets just grow on trees, or you can just acquire them like cash from a bank machine any time you want? Noted again. Aha, so then you are calling Reinhart "elite". According to your previously noted assertions, Florida's other centres are "on par" with Reinhart, so they too are "elite"? But apparently "great" (McDavid) is even better than "elite" so that makes an exception to drafting more of what you already have strength in? I'm not picking on you, but just pointing out that you are not at all being consistent, and are basing much of what you say on false or speculative presuppositions and faulty logic.
  19. And if McDavid were in the draft, he'd still be moving down? Nor Bennett nor Reinhart. Yet CDC is ready to mortgage the farm for him.
  20. Oh, so Ryan Kesler is not even worth just the #1 pick in a weak draft? This idol worship of the #1 pick is seriously messed up stuff. Indeed. Thankfully the Canucks are not a democracy run by CDC. We'd have a team that couldn't compete in the AHL yet have silos full of magic beans.
  21. Canucks gain Kane and Reinhart. Canucks lose Kesler, Shinkaruk, Tanev, 6th overall. More like we limp out of the draft.
  22. What about Reinhart/Ekblad's first season? Trying to have it both ways, again? Thanks for contributing
  23. That wasn't the original point being made. The OP said to trade away Shinkaruk plus the #6 plus another player just to get the #1 pick, when there is no consensus #1 or even consensus top-2. Shinkaruk plus another roster player to move up 4 to 5 spots in a draft where there is not a huge disparity among the top-6? Next year maybe, but this year it's simply worshipping a golden calf that may or may not be made of chocolate. The #1 pick is NOT the Stanley Cup, and believe it or not, the latter is the actual goal of NHL teams. There are no "#1 draft pick trophies" in the display case, nor are there parades for them. Kesler + Tanev + Nylander/Ehlers for Rienhart + Etem + 24th. Really? Kesler > Reinhart Tanev > Etem 6th >>>> 24th Sometimes I think I'm in the wrong place. Is this NHL discussion or Jack and the Beanstalk? Never seen so much gaga over the latest magic beans.
  24. I can see it now -- some writer is going to come out with "rumour of Kesler and a top-4 defenceman + #6 for the #1" and people here are going to start pondering it. "Yeah Kesler's good, but we just gotta get that #1 pick. You gotta take that chance."
×
×
  • Create New...