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

kloubek

Members
  • Posts

    5,665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kloubek

  1. Wasn't this article *just* posted? I agree with what you said though. It's not a popular opinion, but I believe we have a playoff team next season. Make no mistake about it - we are unlikely to compete for the cup, but I expect us to be FAR better than our finish last season suggests.
  2. I think the majority of CDC would suggest we take whatever we can get for him with his *currently* low stock value, and would be happy to get more in return if he has a bounceback season. The fact is that the contract he signed was expected to be reasonable at the start, but as he declined due to age it was generally considered to be too long and to expensive for what we will likely be getting in the later years. Now that we are a full year into it without reaping many rewards, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who felt we should continue holding his contract if there was a way out of it. I, for one, believe that Eriksson WILL have a better season and that his scoring, defensively responsible play, and veteran experience will be beneficial to this team during the transition. I can see why people aren't keen on his contract, but that was the price we had to pay to sign a UFA of his supposed calibre. And if he does end up being tried out with the Sedins again and is successful, it might encourage them to keep playing for another year or two. (For better or worse)
  3. For all those complaining about Eriksson, hindsight is 20/20 they say. I bet if he had scored 60 points for us, very few would be so concerned right now about it. (Perhaps in a few years when his play was expected to regress anyway, but not so much now....) Benning went out and got a guy in the UFA market he thought would help us, and I supported the decision. He had prior chemistry with the Sedins, we didn't have to give up anything to get him, and he just came off his best season in years when we badly needed extra scoring. I thought it was a great signing. And then he had his worst season since being a rookie. Sucks to be us, but things like this happen. I said a few posts ago that he will improve this season. And barring injury, he will. He has shown in the past to be slow to adapt to new teams, and this time appears no different. As long as he is healthy and fully recovered from his injury last season, I expect him to produce at a 2nd line level this coming season, which will help us out a ton. I'm not confident he will hit 63 points like his last year in Boston, but 50 points should be attainable and expected.
  4. I think it was. That guy was impressively obscure. But I just don't see that in Brock. My only question wasn't as to his talent, but a hope he could translate his play to the NHL ice. And from the looks of it, he can. I think it would be unfair to expect him to score at the same pace next season, but even a 20 goal season would be spectacular for his first full season. I actually believe waiver issues or not, Boeser starts and sticks with the Canucks the whole year through.
  5. I agree with your price assessment and the idea that if the salary isn't ideally what Horvat wants that he might be inclined to get a shorter deal as a result to prove himself. However, I am only mixed in agreement that he has only shown only 2nd center abilities. I do realize when he was put against the best competition he didn't excel and could use some work on his consistency, but the fact is that he still managed 52 points while playing with what amounts to bubble 2nd line players who were both below his own skill level. I should also point out that 52 points constitutes a very high level 2nd line center already, and so far his improvement rate per season is by about 10 points. If he could muster 60-62 points next season, that absolutely places him as a 1st line center. And if he can do it with wingers who are really 2nd line players, then imagine what he could do with elite players. In that case, he'd probably be putting up numbers closer to 70-75 points which puts him in average to above average range for all 1st line centers across the NHL. In short, I was one of the ones expecting him to be a high end 2nd line center but I believe now that I was wrong. Give him another year under his belt and give him equally-talented wingers, and I truly believe he actually will be a 1st line center. I think this coming year will be telling if Boeser continues to produce like he showed in his relatively short stint with our team. And if we are lucky enough to have Baertschi improve, then I think we may actually have a legit first line even without Dahlen and Petterson developed. Once they are factored in (assuming the hit their ceiling) then we have almost an entire two 1A lines to work with.
  6. It's been the knock on him from the beginning, and I honestly don't recall back in the day since he's been in the the system for a while, but he looked plenty quick out there last season, imo.
  7. You know, I had this attitude as well and we've seen from the video that Benning DID try to move down slightly. But that was my beef as well....not so much that we picked Pettersson (who looks great in highlights) but that if Benning felt Pettersson was the best fit that he didn't manage to trade down due to the likelihood other players would be selected earlier. But the more I looked into it, the more I realized that there was a decent chance that other GMs probably had Pettersson higher on their lists than the rankings did as well. I think anyone who has watched the tapes of all the top selected players that Pettersson appears to be a bit more dynamic than some of the others who were expected to go before him. Then you say that if we lost Pettersson that there were other higher ranked players available. That's true, but the draft is almost always a crap shoot and there is a reason Benning had Pettersson on his radar. Clearly he felt that Pettersson was the best player for us at our position so anything other than Pettersson actually WOULD be a loss. In the end, I can see the talent that Pettersson has, and I am confident he will put on enough weight to ensure he is not bounced around when on the ice. Only time will tell how good the players drafted this year end up being, and at this time it still appears that Nolan and Nico were likely the best players of the draft, but I'm actually pretty optimistic about the player we got here. It is a bit higher risk play than, say, Glass - but I think the risk is reasonable considering the ceiling that Pettersson may have over a player like Glass. I believe Benning correctly assessed that we didn't need "good" talent, but instead needed ELITE talent, and I believe given who was available that Pettersson gives us the best chance of that. Of course, this thread is about Eriksson. So in order for at least part of my post to remain on topic, mark my words - Eriksson will be much improved next season. I am not sure why he struggled so much but he is a far better player than we saw last season.
  8. 1) Not going to happen. Horvat will be played at minimum 2nd line from here on out. 2) Absolutely we will. I am more optimistic than most but I feel you are more negative than most. I think most of CDC agrees we are 2-3 years out from contending. 3) I get the feeling that Horvat is a stand-up guy, and that he is excited about likely being our future captain. I don't think his ask is going to be terribly unreasonable. I feel he would be willing to commit himself long term, but given his development I expect he will instead look for something that looks more like a bridge contract to ensure he doesn't shaft himself through the prime of his career.
  9. Not sure how I missed those articles, but it sounds promising. If any players are willing to take greatly reduced salaries in order for their team to find success, it is the Sedins. Let's face it - they clearly have more money than they know what to do with at this point. They are obviously nowhere close to their former selves, but are still good hockey players. I'd be thrilled to have them return on a year-to-year basis. If we can retain them while players like Dahlen and Pettersson develop and enter the league, and the Boesers, Granlunds, Baertschis and Horvats continue to improve, it will be excellent for all. There was a time we had the WCE line AND the Sedins. You'd think that's almost a given Stanley Cup, but the twins developed slowly. Now there is a new opportunity to have a different high scoring line(s) and the Sedins once again.
  10. I'm really not concerned about Pettersson's size. He has a good frame, and for whatever reason I'm pretty confident he will do what is required to get his body into a form suitable for playing in the NHL - whatever that may be. I'm actually pretty excited about having him in our system. If you look at his highlights, he clearly has a very high level skill. As long as he can translate that to the NHL game and we can support him with good linemates, I think he has a better-than-not chance of being a solid if not high end 1st line player in the NHL. I sure hope so, because besides Horvat (who is great but is not likely to be an elite scorer) we don't have anybody else in our system who has a likely chance of stepping into a top center role.
  11. ...where do you get this from? Source? Not saying you are wrong - we all knew it was a possibility... I just hadn't heard much of an indication either way.
  12. I think that if we have seen the best of Bo that his worth would be about the 5 to 5.5m mark. But I think we can all agree that we believe he will continue to improve, and that is going to be factored into what he ends up getting. That's why I like bridge deals - less risk for the team, and more opportunity for the player to get what they are worth. Win win. I say he asks for 5 years, 7.5m, and ends up getting 6.5m.
  13. Makes no sense to start Stecher in Utica. 24 points from a rookie is entirely impressive - especially considering nobody expect him to be THAT good. Nobody on our blueline has mobility like he does, so I would be shocked to see him start in Utica. I can, however, see Subban in Utica and in fact given last year I almost expect it.
  14. Well it has always been the case (and always will be) that the ideal is to have a player with size, speed AND size. But those players are hard to come by, so it has to be decided what to give up in order to get the other two. No skill = no scoring. No speed usually = no scoring. No size can be overcome by good balance and toughness. You are right... It changes as to what the most important elements are in a player, but with an effort by the league to make the game faster with less injury, I don't think we will see the game fall back towards the slower, harder hitting style we previously saw. And honestly, I don't think a team that tries to direct themselves as such has a chance at the cup anymore. I know Nashville didn't win, but they are a perfect example of how far a team can get now without really worrying about size at all. With that said, size will always play some role as it is a physical contact sport. Especially in the playoffs when everything is on the line, you want a team that can punish the other and wear them down. This is why at this point in the game, I think it is beneficial to still have a few big guys on a team to make sure that happens. But I can see a point in the future where size completely becomes a distant secondary desire against ability.
  15. Sure he is, but I actually like the pick. I'm pretty sure Calgary is pleased with the risk they took on Gaudreau, and they drafted him far, far ahead of Palmu. In today's NHL, there is more room for little speedy and creative guys like this and with that being the direction the league is headed in, one can only imagine it will be even more the case in 2-3 year's time when Palmu might be ready to transition into the NHL. I'm actually pretty excited to have him in the prospect cupboard and if nothing else he should make Utica more interesting.
  16. Fair. For example - Tanev is entirely a complimentary player as well but he's excellent in that role. Granted, that's on defense which makes that fact a bit easier but the same concept applies, whereby it allows other players to do what they do best. In this case, I can see Virtanen gaining the line then passing off to a playmaker while he then drives to the net and waits for the pass or screens. You're right though.... It is unfortunate that he doesn't look to be a driver but there are never guarantees in drafting and I maintain he can still be an effective player for us - just not quite the same way and level we were hoping for. Man.... Now more than ever not selecting Nylander is coming back to bite us. Imagine: Dahlen Petterson Nylander Baertschi Horvat Boeser Granlund Sutter Eriksson Goldobon Gaunce Dorsett That's one hell of a likely solid forward squad, with Gaudette, Palmu, Lockwood, Lind and Gadjovich further potentials or replacements should development not go as expected. Makes you realize both the forward depth we now have as well as how close we are to having a cup-competing lineup in a 2-3 years.
  17. Ok, so now that is a point that makes sense rather than saying simply that his drive will increase in the nhl. And I agree- we didn't exactly have a top center last season in Utica. I'm not keen on him being a passenger - as you call it - and only believe that contributed rather than being the main reason for his low scoring. But still, it is a very valid point I oddly didn't consider.
  18. I think it is unfair to even try to compare the two. Nylander has years of extra development (which is what we can visually see), and isn't quite the same kind of player. Nylander (strangely) has over 20 points on Pettersson at this point. As mentioned by someone else, wait 5 years before we can make any realistic comparisons. I believe in Pettersson. I was also not too impressed with the pick when it first happened, but after watching highlights and researching Pettersson, I believe he has one of the highest ceilings in the draft. Yes, we will have to wait a couple of years so he can fill out before we can see him on our team but I am actually quite confident he will be an excellent player for us and in the end I'm pretty happy with the pick.
  19. No, Jakes IQ was not good enough to get him drafted 6th overall. His speed and size is what got him drafted 6th overall. If he wasn't the big guy he is, there is no way he gets drafted that high. He was an aspiring stereotypical "power forward", which is what was assessed we needed after generally being manhandled by Boston. I say his IQ is poor because he doesn't read the play well enough to be in the best positions he can be in order to use his skill. He can't seem to find an inside track to drive to the net much of the time because he hasn't got that first jump on the defender. So despite his speed, he often ends up no closer than the hashmarks when he shoots and that isn't where he needs to be. Jake needs to drive to the net and use his size to cause disruption. That's what a power forward does. I will agree that he has had some adversity in his career so far, but that is nothing new or uncommon. Plenty of players have found a way to work through such events. As for the last 10 games of the season being what you consider good play from Jake, I remind you that in the last DOZEN games of the season he managed two goals and one assist. .25 ppg against AHL defenders, in a section of time that you feel he played his BEST hockey of the year. I'm sorry - but that isn't going to cut it. This guy should be scoring minimum double that but ideally triple if he was headed to be the top six player we thought we were drafting. Now, you say he will be more driven to score in the NHL, but don't you think he should be driven to even MAKE it to the NHL, which can only happen if his play improves? I just simply disagree that he will be so driven when in the NHL that he will not only improve his point totals, but do so against far better competition. It doesn't make statistical or logical sense. Oh, and as already pointed out by another user - you say you laugh as people predicting things, yet you did exactly that. The difference is that my prediction came from reason, logic and history, whereas yours came from a "feeling" you have, and perhaps a hesitance to admit that Jake has all but busted from his draft position. Don't get me wrong - I still think he will be an NHL player, but I think he has a 3rd line ceiling at this point.
  20. By who's standard? From what ive seen of him, he would rate a 2 at best. This is the same reason Yakupov never succeeded imo. There is skill there, but anticipating the play and proper positioning are key to exploit those skills.
  21. I hope you are right. With Jake I know his conditioning was in question, but it is his IQ that worries me the most. That's the kind of thing that either you have it or you don't, and I dont think he has it. So regardless of good skating or a decent shot, I just don't see him likely to be top 6 material. But there is still time for him to put it together, so I haven't lost all hope. Yet.
  22. If he was going to put a serious offensive game together, I think he would have done it by now.... at least against AHL defenders. Even that hasn't happened. Jake looks destined to be a 3rd liner to grind out his career. I'm not saying a light bulb might not turn on in his head - I just find it unlikely.
  23. I dont have a problem with the pick. This guy does have strong potential to be an elite player. He obviously must gain weight but I'm nearly positive that will happen. A strong future-looking prospect, and one who is likely to be a good if not great part of a Dahlen duo. I didn't read the whole 19 pages to see if it was mentioned but my only beef is that we didnt move down. It is highly unlikely that he would have gone at this pick to most teams, and imo it would have been worth a gamble to move down a few spots when there were clearly several players available who would be picked first by more teams. For sure there would be interest from other teams. Might have got a 2nd pick out of it.
  24. They aren't far off. I'm certain some of the picks 5-8 will turn out to be excellent players. The scout consensus though is that Patrick and Hischier are slightly above the rest. But yeah, it's usually a crap shoot when drafting and this draft class exemplifies that.
  25. Not for you and I to answer. If we somehow got into the #2 position, then it would be whoever NJ DIDN'T pick. I think both would be good for this club as we really need an elite #1 center replacement, and both these players at least have that potential. I think Hischier would be the more exciting player to watch and has the higher offensive ceiling, but I think that given the fact we are a rather ungritty team to play against that perhaps Patrick would be the better choice. But I also think he has the higher chance for failure/injury issues over Hischier. Regardless of who is selected, I have trust in Benning he will end up with a very good player at the least.
×
×
  • Create New...