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

GB5

Members
  • Posts

    7,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GB5

  1. Keep it. You will not get a top ten talent in return...... ever.
  2. Pretty clear you don't like Johnson where it is clear to me he could easily be the bpa available at #9 and a high level talent who I would be happy to have as a Canuck. Agree to disagree I suppose.
  3. Brock is a very strong man. My point being that he has the strength and size to bull through adverse situations as opposed to being a pure finesse player which some seem to think you can't win with. I am saying both can be good in the right situation.
  4. Hopefully guys like Suzuki and Caufield have shown that you can win with lighter forwards but you still need team toughness and a well rounded attack. The Canucks have a lot of heavy forwards with Bo, Podz, Brock, Pearson, Miller etc. At 9 I go with skill here. This means Johnson. He is the player I like but BPA is it depending on if he goes sooner.
  5. I call that the sacrifcial police car. Maybe if they win it all then two cars get pushed over and even more people stand around and film it.
  6. I love the BC connections on the Habs Montreal with Weber and Price, (and Galagher who player for the Giants) and of course Burr... I especially want to see Weber and Price bring the cup back to their home towns, pretty special stuff right their and these are two of my favorites players from the past generation who play the game the way it is meant to be played and have both worn the maple leaf when asked to do so.
  7. So glad the Bruins passed on Barzal when they had three shots at him...... lmao x3
  8. I'm with you on this guy. He was at the game when Burrows slayed the dragon so by my books some of the dragon slayer-ness has most likely moved from one generation to the next. https://www.tsn.ca/b-c-boy-kent-johnson-brings-creative-flair-to-nhl-draft-class-1.1659673
  9. Nice recognition. I would take him after MacTavish, Johnson, Guenther and well well. before a goalie or Lysell. That would put Sillinger in about my 9-11 range depending on who goes where.
  10. Horvath will still be with this team and in his prime well beyond 2 or 3 years. Miller is another story. It was a good move to bring him in and he is a good player but he may be gone in a few years. Had we kept the pick and every other traded pick this exemplifies the need to build from the draft so you core reach their prime together. The nucks need not be trading picks at this juncture. They are not yet on the verge of being the 2011 powerhouse, not even close. Once they get closer is when these moves should occur.
  11. I'd have to wrap my head around this valuation but I do know that mobile physical defensive defesemen are way under rated can get you deep in the playoffs and help win a lot of hockey games. The only think about this proposal is that I have a tendency to think that Woo may become a fixture on the Canucks long term. These big guys seem to take an extra year or two to develop and Woo is well on his way. The young guys on the Canucks need to get better and play more and flirt with the playoffs before making these kinds of moves that will tip the scales. This team is still a couple years off from looking to these types of deals.
  12. What signs? You mean the posts on CDC that over inflate the value of Canuck prospects? I like Rathbone and I appreciate the he plays with courage and toughness for his size and makes great choices witht he puck. I saw other things that concerned me as well. Primarily that teams seemed to take runs at him and how he was not protecting himself and trying to absorb hits on the boards. Hughes doesn't do this, he sees them coming and is quick enough to anticipate what is coming and quickly gets out of the way. With Rathbone I guess I felt he was looking more like a LHD version of Stecher than a Hughes 2.0. Not that either are bad but lets not get ahead of ourselves and try and temper our expectations.
  13. Not bad.... OP gets a gold star in my books for working through this in a logical fashion. We can poke away at player A or player B but I appreciate the effort. I would love to see an NHL GM actually have the guts to try something like this in the current day and age. This kind of thing happened in the pre-cap years byt it seems these guys are a bit restrained when it comes to making wholesale changes.
  14. I appreciate the attempt but certainly no. Lind will be a roster player this year or next and we need to quit trading picks like they were candy. This is the Canucks future we are talking about after all and it is these kinds of assets that are needed to build depth that builds dynasties. Khaira may well be available again on waivers if we even want him at all and Bear is a warrior but is Bear-ly worth a whole lot in my books as he is a bit unproven as a full time NHL'er.
  15. When it comes to players like OEL I still say the Canucks should remain in a holding pattern for now. Leave space to work the young guys into the system and wait about two more years before it is time to start think this type of move and player/contract.
  16. I have'nt heard a price tag for OEL but core players often start at around a first, a roster player and a prospect. This is a price tag that the Canucks cannot and should not be paying a sit would set the rebuild back several years and would be tantamount to Mike Milbury style management witht he Islanders back in the say when he would start acquiri g picks and good players only to get impatient and trade thema way for over the hill players or guys who werre under valued. So far propsosals here mount to the proverbial; "Ballard + Raymond and a second" category. We want to move bug contract like Myers and LE which is understandable but LE has one year left so we can suffer through that. Myers is a big game player who shine sin the playoffs and is a tradable asset that can beleive it or nor actually garner a fair return if shooped around. The Canucl sneed what he brings. If the Canucks want to make a "hockey trade" then we should be looking at the unpopular value for value deals or in other words trading from strength. I see Ratgbone as a solid trade chip in this respect, others seem to over value him as the next coming of Paul Coffey but if we can move a soft puck handling LHD for a more well rounded RHD who maybe runs the risk of scoring less over his career and disappointing those who think the team game is all about personal scoring, then it should be considered a as a hockey trade. Anyway.... long rants for a Sunday morning.... none the less to sum up, we over value or players, prospects, to get something you need to give something, the best players aren't just the highest scoring players..... That should about do it...
  17. That's not the net differnece though is it? Bad contracts moving both ways
  18. Not that he's a bad player but if the Canucks take Lysell at 9 it means that they likely reached and passed on a better player. If they really like Lysell they could trade down but I.would take BPA at 9.
  19. I do think Jake was a much more divisive pick back in the day. Guenther is looking to be more in the can't miss category where some scouts had Jake ranked much lower and Button even had him in the lower part of the second round. I think the big difference being that Virtanen was a man playin among boys as he developed phyically and relyed too much on that aspect of his game and that doesn't bode well in the NHL. For Alf's benefit, Guenther is a different type of player. Yes he is similar in being a great skater with excellent acceleration and plays the wing in the WHL but the similarities really stop there. Guenther is better rounded as scoouts have him as a great playmaker with excellent vision who is strong in the defensive end.
  20. Yes. My comment was meant to be in jest. Much like Alf, both were in their prime in the 80's
  21. Garth Butcher I've been asleep for the last 4 decades so maybe there have been a few others in between.
  22. Maybe it's just me but I keep thinking that Edmonton would be a great for Holtby. Despite Holly's struggles he is still arguably better than the Oil's current personal at G. I would consider letting him go for a late pick or the Turris contract to take Holtby off the books. Still need another short term backup though. In regards to the op.... I don't really see Holtby as a solid trading chip at this point. The Canucks are at a point of weakness with his recent play and contract so it is impossible to expect any kind of reasonable asset in return for him other than to dump his contract on another team.
  23. Yes indeed, GMJB spoke about a talent drop off after what the player the Canucks have ranked as their top 9. I do like the strategy of dropping down a spot or two or three if you can still get your player and grab and extra later round pick in the process. Usually this would entail knowing who the other team wants and being able to bluf them that you are taking that player and see if they will make a move. Lots of gaming goes on at the draft tables....
  24. I felt a bit of a Burrowsish thing on the game winner... It just seemed ftting after the blatent missed call that he game winner would come in front of the dragon slayer himself. Note to GMJB....Can we steal Burr away.... maybe find some kind of advanced position for him please?
  25. Defenseman who can.play defense and be physical and play a well rounded game while doing so. Pretty tall order if you ask me and the Canucks would need more than one of these.
×
×
  • Create New...