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

kanucks25

Members
  • Posts

    10,930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by kanucks25

  1. Dermott showed good upside when he first broke the Leafs roster but his progress has kind of stagnated since then. Might just be a bottom-pairing guy going forward. McCann just turned 25 and has already established himself as a 0.5 ppg two-way center as a base; a team could pencil him in as their 3C for the next 5 years and be content with that. To me that's more valuable than the hope that Dermott becomes a legit top-4 guy.
  2. Not sure if Dicksinson is a 3C on a true contender but he's worth a shot at this price. And even if he's not, he still improves our bottom-6 as we're pretty short on "good defensively but can still play hockey" guys.
  3. lol love the "attitude" narrative some people keep trying to push. Never stop fighting the good fight I guess. Some players are useful but expendable when push comes to shove. Bottom-6 forwards and bottom-half D-men usually fall in this category. A guy like Bonino is a similar player, was important in the Pens back-to-back Cup wins, but has bounced around the league for the same reason. McCann would be the best player in our bottom-6 today.
  4. What teams like ANA, FLA and MIN did was give Vegas X + Y so that Vegas wouldn't take Z. In a few cases, X & Y turned out to be more valuable than Z. What we're talking about here is different. If you're a team that is going to lose X, might as well get something back for X from a 3rd party and instead lose Y which is of lesser value. Let's say: X = 10 Y = 5 R = 8 If you just let Seattle take X, you lose a value of 10. But if you trade X to a 3rd party gaining R back and then lose Y to Seattle, you only lose a value of 7 (10 + 5 - 8 = 7) assuming R is something that does not need to be protected, like a draft pick. But it'll be different for every team. For some teams, X & Y have similar value so it won't make sense to make a trade in which you lose value for one and lose the other to Seattle. And you would also have to be a team that values the pick and/or extra cap space you get from shedding both X & Y over how it weakens your main roster. This would be Colorado's case with the Graves trade.
  5. If they want to get out from Zucker's contract it might make sense to trade McCann and Pettersson (replenish some picks - Hextall is a draft&develop guy) and hope Seattle bites. Would open up a decent amount of cap for them in free agency, as well.
  6. Both McCann and Pettersson would be fine targets. The latter would definitely seal the deal on Edler's departure.
  7. I don't think this necessarily means he's gone. We can't sign him before the expansion draft anyway. I imagine he tests the market and comes back on the cheap if he can't find something he likes.
  8. Is personality not something amateur scouts look at? Especially when it comes to 1st rounders as they are most/very likely to at the very least get a cup of coffee with your NHL team if not have a major impact for many years. Regardless, like I said, it doesn't have to be McCann in particular, just hope we don't have another "protect Granlund" type situation.
  9. Character issues were "leaked" at the time of the trade... I wonder why. Haven't heard much about them since. And if there were, I think the bigger question is why we drafted two 1st rounders with character issues in one draft. And "nothing special" is elite compared to the remaining options in our bottom 6. FWIW we don't necessarily have to target McCann but should be targeting one forward and one D-man that are protection slot worthy in general.
  10. Well you can't force anything but there are players out there that teams can't protect. I imagine said teams are willing to trade a player for an asset instead of losing them for nothing to Seattle (like Graves). This is where we learn what our pro scouting is worth. We have limited cap space and there are a lot of middle-of-the-roster type players floating around. Let's see if Benning can hit on some buy-low candidates. (Yes, I know there are some teams with no good players to lose and there are some teams with several good players that are exposed that aren't going to scramble to trade one because then they'll be down two but that's not the case for every team).
  11. Can't imagine them passing on Lind and taking nothing instead. Hoping we acquire a center and D-man on the cheap that other teams are going to be struggling to protect before the draft. We need to weaponize our protection slots instead of using them to protect 4th liners (or worse).
  12. No doubt that bad defence groups has been Benning's calling card. If last year was an attempt to get better on D, they should probably stop attempting and see how that works out.
  13. It'd be stupid to sell low on Schmidt. He can bounce back and we need more quality D-men, not less.
  14. As per Seravalli, Flames to expose Giordano in expansion. Tanev took his protection spot. lols
  15. Nah this is just the media making stuff up. Or is that only when it's negative Canucks news?
  16. Would love to have him but we probably can't for the same reasons the Leafs can't: cap. I don't see how we build a proper defence if we're adding another ~5M into the top-6.
  17. It happens, just that it's a microcosm of Benning's work here. He's done some good things, but he loves to shoot himself in the foot as well. He'd probably do well if he had a "hey wait a minute" guy in his staff instead of all yes men.
  18. You mean that legal contract he signed that was retroactively made illegal? That was his fault how? Here's your post regarding this only about a year ago, seems like you were singing a different tune then:
  19. I don't mind any of the D-men they suggest we acquire, but all together that defense is atrocious. You'd be relying on Graves - Myers to play as the shutdown pair which has yikes written all over it. We need stabilizers on defence not depth D-men and/or projects. Simply put, it's put up or shut up time for Benning when it comes to composing a competent defence.
×
×
  • Create New...