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

elvis15

Members
  • Posts

    22,285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by elvis15

  1. And since he's the president of the team rather than the GM, I'm not that worried about his hockey front office experience. Absolutely. That's a great time to take a risk on a player due to size issues who still has lots of opportunity skill-wise.
  2. Manneh used his speed well, and you're right, Dean looked good too. What happened to Teibert's man bun though?!
  3. Yup, first goals of the year for Rosales, Waston (which was off the corner). Good game all around, even if there was the downer at the 90th minute. Happy that they won for the game I was able to attend in person.
  4. There are degrees of success or failure. Any time the CHL becomes less successful (which it undoubtedly would without more returning drafted stars) it generates less revenue. If they generate less revenue they can't afford as many teams, roster spots, money spent on facilities, coaching and travelling, etc. As those drop in quality, so does the player's experience and ability to develop comparatively to other leagues. And don't forget for many of these players there isn't as much of an NHL career ahead of them. Add to that their college sponsorships as a result and other benefits and it's not easy to see where that money comes without stars to drive ticket sales. But depth and role players are needed to have a successful team, so star players can also develop. That drop is comparatively worse than any possible effect of Virtanen's choice between the NHL now or another year of junior. You're overstating the impact to his development for one year more than anything I'm saying about the CHL.
  5. Or, OR, the CHL as a development league is more important than giving prospects a one year head start in the pros. Where would players like Virtanen be without it if it collapsed because it couldn't make any money if all the stars left early?
  6. Actually no, the bonus is held against the cap until it is no longer attainable, and it can be deferred to the following season but doesn't have to be. And again, $750K (even $900K) would be less than the qualifying offer so I don't think those numbers are going to be where they end up.
  7. I understand you're trying to make a point, but most of those 'questions' were misdirection at its finest. I will touch on the above one specifically though, since you obviously haven't seen the recent article on Demko (posting in his prospect thread). Demko has been playing with pain for 4 years. Usually surgery is a negative in that there's recovery time and potential to not be as good as new after, but with this surgery he already has more mobility in his hips before he's even completed his recovery to the point of skating again than he had playing all of last year. Seriously, go check it out. Demko is excited to be able to not have to modify his equipment to compensate for the hip issue and be able to play pain free. But Virtanen. Everyone has questions, and this is the place to ask them. That includes his potential vs others we could have taken in his place. We'll all support him, but on a discussion forum we'll definitely also look at all the options and hope we can look back on that draft in hindsight and feel we did as well as we could have.
  8. Speaking of fact checking, $700K is far less than his qualifying offer. Why would he accept that deal?
  9. I'd say so as well. It's more about how you'd react using your decision making and finding plays than it is using what's been drilled into you to become instinctive. EDIT: yeah, I don't even know what the above post was, anyone can have the opinion of one player over another and all you can do is try and voice your own opinion in response. It'd be one thing if he made an argument for the other side, but to say no one can predict what any player will be kinda defeats the purpose of discussion.
  10. But that's just it, have we brought in enough skill to compensate for any size we've lost or are we just smaller? But anyway, isn't this a Baertschi thread?
  11. That's the point. Benning wants to carry 8 D-men on the roster due to the wear and tear of travel and playing in the rougher Western Conference.
  12. I didn't realize it was 4 years of pain for him and just how much his mobility was limited. That's a lot of adjustments to make but thankfully the fix seems a great option.
  13. He'll basically have to show he can outdo Kenins. Similar enough game at this stage: forechecking and aggression with skill. If Virts can match the first two, and do better on the third, then he gets a chance.
  14. I have no problem with a 2-3 year deal for Sven at a reasonable price. I'm not prepared to get into anything over $2.5-3M or 4-5 years, and I don't think he's asking for that level but we don't really know. I'd guess it'd be a 2-3 year deal between $1.2-1.8M and they still want to clear more cap. Depending how that works I'd probably be just fine with the deal, but we'll have to see what comes out.
  15. Where's CapGeek when you need it! 3-4 more years might be a good guess since that'd take him to 25-26. But even then, $2M for 3 years would probably be a good bridge contract, and we'd still have $800K left in cap space. I'm just hoping they aren't going the "5 year, $4M" route. Yes: http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/vancouver-canucks
  16. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=774401
  17. No surprise they're negotiating, but the note about needing to clear cap space is concerning. I hope it's just a mistake of words and they mean something else. We have just under $3M in cap space right now so that would mean they're looking for over $2M (likely then in a deal over several years as they also mentioned 'term wise') and that's a big step from what he's shown so far. Are they trying to lock him up?
  18. That would be a win if we even get a Vlasic-lite out of him. He has that kind of skill set I just haven't seen evidence of it being applied enough on the offensive end to get overly excited. He's got tools to work with though so here's hoping he can translate it to the ice. So Dunn can't learn to play D but Brisebois will learn how to put up offence? They both have areas they aren't that strong, but for me it comes down to what we need most in our prospect pool. Better odds, maybe, but lower ceiling most likely.
  19. I agree with all that, but I really think people need to temper their expectations of him. This is particularly true offensively since he hasn't really produced that much with any team at any level to this point despite having some skills that should translate into assists.
  20. And he could end up being a solid player. Or he could not make it, or only be a depth defenceman. But what's less likely is that he somehow blossoms into a top tier defenceman. We did have riskier but more likely options in that respect available, but I don't have any issue with playing it safer and finding a dependable players as we get deeper in the draft. Where I do have issue is playing it safer earlier on a majority of the time and then not taking many risks in the later rounds as well. I'm just worried we won't find enough truly high end talent that can help all these character guys and leaders to win games post-Sedins. That doesn't really reflect specifically on Brisebois, as he's a reasonable pick, but more on our overall strategy. Let's put this another way. I'm very happy about Cassels and his development. I'm also realistic to understand that doesn't mean he's suddenly a 1st line, elite center. Al it does is alleviate worries about risk and lessens the possibility of him not making the NHL. We still need to find that 1st line center (never mind elite!) post Henrik as it's a stretch for Horvat and McCann has a ways to go before we can realistically think he gets there.
  21. Allen wasn't that skinny. The best I could find was an article from three years after the draft where he was listed at 6'4", 215. He didn't put on 40 pounds between 18 and 21. You contradict yourself, first stating Dunn has more upside and then ending with saying to draft guys with top pairing, all star potential (albeit specifying the 1st round). But then how many first rounders have we had, and how deep in the draft order, and which of those were used on defencemen? As has been said, that sounds like it's so easy everyone must be doing it! You can and should aim to get players with higher upside if they are available - especially if you don't have opportunities to do so in the 1st or even 2nd round. If you want to talk percentages, what would be the percentage of drafting a player who's maybe more sure to make the NHL but not as a top line/pairing player yet still be in the upper levels of their peers for that role? How often can you draft someone (Bolland or Malhotra for example as premier 3rd line centers) that will excel as a depth or role player? How did we get Tanev, or Bieksa, both of who have played excellent supporting roles despite not being elite talents? You can pick for roles later in the draft, but I think the mindset for your first few picks should be to look for BPA and factor in upside as a strong consideration. If you can't develop depth players then they're much more easily available through trade and free agency then the top talent is.
  22. Height does not equal size. If he is tall but skinny he ends up being more like Tanev in that we worry about this ability to stand up to NHL punishment. Leadership and decision making are great too, but he hasn't really shown proven execution of hockey skills for me, not really beyond any other pick we could have made. Where I worry more though is he doesn't have anything approaching elite level. That's absolutely fine if we don't expect him to be a top 1 or 2 defenceman (which we shouldn't) but the connotation a lot of posts around Brisebois have is he has all the tools and will be a steal for us as a sure fire NHL'er. There's still a lot that might not go well for these prospects, even with lower risk. But they're found so late in the draft because they lack the higher end upside (which Dunn has over Brisebois for instance). At some point we should aim a little higher than someone who at best might become a 3-4 D but is more likely to be a 6-8 guy. Maybe he's a steal, and I'm very interested to follow his progress as I am with all our prospects, but I'm just not so excited to think we're finding top end talent with these picks just yet. I'm taking a measured approach until I see something more substantial.
  23. This is true in most every situation. Benning was to Chiarelli in the same way Gilman was to Gillis (where Benning largely handled scouting while Gilman largely handled contracts). But the inverse is true as well, where the GM may have the final call but certainly takes the advice from his management team as a significant piece of any decision. I don't know what the league thinks of Benning's prowess as a scout, but we do know he has lots of experience. How would GMs and Scouting Directors rank Benning for his talent evaluator skills? Brisebois is a choice that was unfamiliar to a lot of people here, even in the heavily discussed pre-draft thread. He does have a good skillset and leadership, but we'll have to wait and see what jumps off the page when he plays and if he really is better than what's suggested by the team he plays with. At some point, we'll need more than just elite character to win hockey games. I wish I could say I felt was confident as you in this pick and others that they'll help us keep this team competitive, particularly post-Sedins. It's a complex thing to pin down on paper. Where I have more concern is the ability for us to get top end talent more so than just an NHL'er. If the players Benning is so good at identifying are mostly bottom 6/bottom pairing players then that's less of a point in his favour that he converts more than others. Those are the kinds of players you can find at a reasonable price through free agency and trade. What's tough to find without having to overpay in free agency or trade is top end players. This particularly applies to top 3/top pairing players, but even top 6 forwards or top 4 defencemen. That's what we haven't solidified in our prospect pool yet, and while we might be able to find a gem or two in free agency or trade (similar to Vrbata, Hamhuis or Ehrhoff - or even Tanev as a prospect) it's going to be hard to replace the level that the Sedins and even Edler bring if that's his measure of success. But again this is a Brisebrois thread, so how does he compare? He does have some upside in PMD-type skills, but hasn't really converted that to offence at any level so far. He has shown enough to earn some invites to international play (Ivan Hlinka and U-17), perhaps in part because he's also responsible in his own end, but are we finding a steal that will impress at a higher level than you'd expect from a 3rd rounder. That'd be a lot to ask from him, even if Benning and Linden both feel confident enough that they would have picked him earlier, but at some point we'll have to find those types of players to have success. This is especially true if we also draft for character and more imposing players when we do have the opportunity at picks further up the draft (Horvat and Virtanen). Brisebois is a bit of an unknown to an extent, so until we start having more to base an opinion on we've probably covered it fairly well in the 9 pages so far. Similar to the Virtanen thread, it's inevitably where the discussion goes early on around just how good a draft pick was this considering other potential options.
  24. Benning happened to compare him to Tanev on his TSN1040 interview this morning, so there you go. 'Someone' eh? That sounds purposefully vague.
  25. Because him playing in the CHL vs staying overseas was the swing vote? In the first set of highlights he did. The other two I didn't see a letter.
×
×
  • Create New...