-
Posts
6,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Goal:thecup
-
Vey has looked good everywhere he has played even when not at his natural centre position. The old rule was, "you don't lose your spot to injury"; but that seems to have gone out of fashion. So, do you give Burr his spot on the 2nd back? That Higgy-Bonino-Vey line produced! Bump Matthias or Kassian off the 3rd? That line is finally shaping up. Sit Horvat after a fine initial showing? Dress and sit a 13th forward? Well, even though Hansen is playing (his style) very well, he is still not lighting the lamp. Edit: had Vey on 2 lines.
-
If Nylander took it on the chin like Kass did last night, he'd never play in the NHL again.
-
I like the part where he said the coach (Willie) wants him to make the team. New head coach already has the guys believing in him and working hard for him.
-
Don't think Iggy was impressed by Lucic's testicular terrorism this year. He would be absolutely perfect imo. And with him and perhaps a couple more cogs the machine is ready to rumble. Sedins return to form, power play starts scoring, young blood in the lineup, make the playoffs and we're contending.
-
Even if this unconfirmed weight gain is true, it means he has added 10% to his weight this year, and that he is unlikely to add another (almost) 10% more. He is a skinny kid and will be a skinny adult. He probably fudged the weigh-in somehow if he got to 176 in time for the combine. For boxing, the fighters are always trying to show how little they weigh, so it is difficult to cheat. But for fishing derbies for example, a few lead weights in the stomach sometimes go undetected. Not saying he lined his shoes and shorts with lead, but don't want to draft another will o the wisp either. (Will o the wisp: A fairy somewhat like a wisp of smoke that leads you down the wrong path.)
-
I'm with Bob: Ritchie at 6th unless, for example, Dal Colle or Draisaitl falls to us. Ehlers is way too light; think Mason Raymond. Nylander is not even in Bob's Top Ten; why should we go off the board?
-
If Nylander and Ehlers are so good, so good it does not matter that they are wisps, why are they not ranked higher than Reinhart or Bennett? Why are they seldom ranked in the top 5? If we could get Reinhart, then we would pass on Draisaitl, Ritchie, perhaps even Ekblad. Why? Because he is probably good enough to pass on a potential top 6 power forward or big D. The reason you have to use a pick like 6th on a prospect like Ritchie is that he has the complete package; you don't get a shot at a prospect like that very often. The whole size and weight thing has been beaten to death here. The point is that a good skating, skilled prospect with Ritchie's size and weight, strength and toughness is difficult to acquire. The draft is about the cheapest way to get this kind of prospect. If you wait until they are proven, it is going to cost you. When you draft a player like Nylander or Ehlers, they have to become top 6 players, even 1st line players, because if they work out like Schroeder, you can't even get anything in a trade for them. Schroeder has to show or go this year and probably has to perform very well just so we can get anything worthwhile for him. What a waste of time and effort. They are too small to be effective right away, so we will have to wait awhile to see if they can handle the big league. So expect further delay as we wait and wonder if they will ever be good enough to be one of the 2 or 3 lightweights that we can carry. The future is big. Didn't any of you watch the SCF? How many times did you see (one of the most effective small guys ever) St Louis pick himself up and shake off the snow? He was squashed. Deny it all you want. Maybe you can have MSL on your team, maybe even he and Kariya, but you better not have any more than them, at least not in the future (and the draft is all about the future). Sure N & E are getting taller and heavier with every post, how much of this is wishful typing? They will never be considered anything but wispy. So they have to be exceptionally good to stay on the team. Whatever term we want to settle on (because you N&E-ers cannot seem to understand the difference between a tough player and a soft player), say it is "soft", but I know you will argue with that too, how about "not-overly-physical" (nop?), the Canucks already have a number of nops. Who has to go to make room for prospects like N & E? Hank, Dank, Burr, Hansen, Santo, Richardson, Schroeder, Tanev, Weber all play nop already. The only scouting team that matters is the Canucks scouting team. If they decide Nylander (or less likely imo Ehlers) is worth our pick at 6th, then that's great! It means they really do have enough potential to overcome all the reasons to draft a top-end power forward prospect like Ritchie.
-
It's not over. The 2014 - 2015 year has just begun. We're back in it! Some great trades, some great draft picks, prospects camp, the Grind, c'mon man, get happy!
-
This is so wrong, unless you are trolling of course, then it is right on. Nolan, Greene, Carter, Doughty, Clifford, King, Mitchell, et cetera for the refutation. Horrible spelling, grammar, attitude, vulgarity, immaturity, personality, ideas, counter ideas, conclusions, et cetera for the troll. Conclusion: Troll has been successful.
-
If we want a 2nd line centre back in the Kesler trade, we may have to add a centre prospect like Jordan Schroeder to the deal so that the other team isn't just treading water at the position. Kesler is very valuable and I think if we can add assets to the deal, we could come away with something really special. I cannot see JS as our 2nd line centre long-term. If nobody steps up and wants him, I think it would be best to try to showcase him until somebody does; it is too early to just cut him loose. It might not take too long; if he is outperforming all our centre prospects at camp, maybe that's the time to package him up and sort out the team, the Comets, and the rest of the prospect pool. It might not be of any value, but if there is anything to Kesler wanting to play for an American team, maybe JS being American adds something to the deal, I don't know. RK and JS to a team of Kesler's choosing for a very good 2nd line centre. I would prefer we trade Kesler for a defenseman but if they think we need a centre back, maybe we can add JS in and get a better return.
-
Trying to re-quote Morreale's tweet from elvis15's post; not sure if it worked: Mike Morreale @mikemorrealeNHL NHL Draft: The Canucks like local prospects Sam Reinhart, Jake Virtanen. Won't rule out possible trade to move up. http://tinyurl.com/naesq76 Thanks Elvis, This definitely provides food for thought. Is Mike Morreale trying to say that Benning or Linden said they "won't rule out possible trade to move up"? I got the impression that Benning thought it would cost more than it was worth to trade to move up but I cannot remember where I read that. If so, it opens up a lot of possibilities. Florida is a good trading partner for us (JB, TL, et al), but we might not need their 1st overall to get Reinhart. If we are targeting Reinhart, the 2nd overall might be good enough. If Florida, or whoever gets the 1st overall pick wants Ekblad, we could take Reinhart with the 2nd. Also, if we got the first, we may even prefer Ekblad over Reinhart. Linden's comment about the draft being "thin on defensemen" precedes his comments about drafting "good, big, power forwards". So maybe we would be going after Florida's pick to take Ekblad. (By the way, it certainly does not sound like Nylander or Ehlers fit the "big, power forward" criteria to me.) I remember Burke's machinations to land the twins, (at least I partly remember something about them). Did he not at one point trade the first overall pick for the second? This was probably done with the assurance from Atlanta (was it?) that they would not take a twin with the first. That way, he was assured of getting the twins 2nd and 3rd. Anyway, I get the feeling that there may be an opportunity this year to do something similar. For example, we could get the 1st from Florida and trade it to say Edmonton who maybe wants Ekblad. Edmonton has the assets Buffalo would want for the 2nd pick, but cannot guarantee that Ekblad would be there at number two. Then we trade the 3rd plus assets to Buffalo for the 2nd, so that we can draft Reinhart (if that is indeed the prospect they want). So we trade up to 1st, giving up assets; down to 3rd where Edmonton gives us assets; and back up to 2nd giving up assets, to take Reinhart. I don't know (of course) but it keeps rolling around in the back of this old cranium that there may be a profitable way to do this. There may even be a way to do it where we don't give up the 6th to Florida to get the 1st overall. And/or give Buffalo enough assets to get their 2nd without giving them Edmonton's 3rd. Maybe some of the necessary assets come from, for example, trading Kesler plus other assets deemed expendable. Maybe we end up with the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th. We could end up with say, Reinhart, Dal Colle, and Virtanen. Greedy dreaming, I know, but this sure opens up possibilities.
-
Ritchie isn't being considered at 6th because he's a big fat guy with no talent, please stop with this nonsense. He has lots of speed and talent and can physically dominate as well, that is why pro scouts like him, he has the whole package. Size and weight are not the benchmarks of success, but they are two descriptors of the ingredients necessary for a successful power forward. Everyone knows the old maxim, "It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog". Obviously there are players (like Dustin Brown - second smallest King) who bring a lot to the contest without being the biggest players. Size and weight are just some of the indicators that scouts look for and if a player has them, those boxes are checked off. While they are highly skilled, neither Nylander or Ehlers bring size, weight, or "fight". You can ask the rest of the team to look after this type of player as long as you do not have too many of them and only if they are good enough to be elite players. Nylander may be creeping up into the top 6 in a weak draft and Ehlers has moved up as well, but it is unlikely that they are in that very top class or they would be rated there, especially in a weak draft. This is where the risk becomes less acceptable. If they do not end up being top class, we cannot afford to keep them on the team. Ritchie is way less risky because he is much more likely to play somewhere in the lineup even if he does not become a top power forward. I personally am tired of throwing away our top picks hoping someone will make the team. I think we were lucky to be able to dump Hodgson and get such a good return for him. Schroeder we can only hope shows well enough to interest someone else; it is very unlikely he will be a top centre for us. Let's not waste another 2 or 3 years hoping another flyweight will somehow put on 30 pounds and grow a couple inches, and/or magically turn into Pat Kane or Pavel Bure. [And what is with the height and weight discrepancies from a month ago? Nylander and Ehlers sure grew taller and added a lot of "fat" since this thread started, according to some on here. Recently-absent (thank Mod) Absent Canuck had Ehlers at about 6 feet and 195 after the combine, from what? 5-10 162 or something?] I also do not think that Benning will waste the quality of assets required to move up in this draft. I think they will make a good choice at 6 (and it might be Nylander, who knows?) and be satisfied with that. Then they will go on to make very good choices throughout the rest of the draft. Crawford did a good/great job of that last year and Benning can only help us do even better. If Nylander and Ehlers are as good as some here suggest, they may go before our pick at 6 and therefore we can opt for perhaps Dal Colle or Draisaitl. I'm not sold on Bennett, don't know much about him but was extremely disappointed with his strength test results (and we already have an American centre who can't reconcile playing for the Canucks and Team USA). Can't see Ekblad or Reinhart still being available but of course we would take them if they were. Bottom line then is: Ritchie, unless Dal Colle or Draisaitl falls to us.
-
I am not at all surprised that you are unable to understand my post or anything else for that matter. My point is that your posts are full of errors, contradict themselves, and come across like shotgun blasts of stupidity yet you attack others as unintelligent. Quit calling people names and quit typing without thinking if you want to be taken seriously. Content: JS will probably get a very good chance to crack the lineup, especially if/when Kesler is traded. On paper, with Kesler gone, he may be our 2nd line centre but he better perform because there is a good list of centres already gunning for his spot without considering new acquisitions that might yet be realized. And for the umpteenth time, I hope he shows well so we can get something for him in a trade.
-
You go from ridiculous to incomprehensible yet accuse others (including me) of "unintelligent posts". Even ignoring all your errors (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, etc.), your posts are laughable in content, self-contradictory, and suffer from your frenetic ranting. We get it; you want JS to get another chance. He probably will get a very good chance to showcase his skills. I hope he does because his trade value right now is very low.
-
Ritchie's not big enough for you? Unable to completely dominate in the west? He is one of the biggest players in the top 10, if not the biggest/most dominant. And at least he can be a 1st liner or a 4th liner, which I assume means he could be a 2nd or 3rd liner too. Ehlers and Nylander would pretty well have to make the top 6 at least. You wouldn't (would you?), put them on the 3rd or 4th line? In a way, you are right: that is, Ritchie is not going to be able to completely dominate the bigger players in the West. You need a whole team of Ritchie-like players to completely dominate in the West (and the East too; lots of big players there too). But you gotta start somewhere, and using the 2014 6th is better than overspending later trying to trade for a talented power forward after he has proven himself.
-
I did not like picking Schroeder in the first place (too small). Once he was picked though, I think he has worked his butt off to try to make the bigs. He has kept quiet, paid his dues, and suffered injuries trying to become a regular on the Canucks. I like the guy personally but still think he is too small even with his considerable skill set and development. Now is not the time to cut him loose though (unless some team steps up and says they want him before the draft). I am pretty sure we will have to hope that given a proper opportunity this year, he can show enough that we get value in a trade. He is not worth much now but perhaps he can have a good camp and we can get him PP time and O-zone starts to pad his stats. Benning is going to decide which prospects/players are not in the long-term plan and when is the best time to move them. He will also know what we need to get in return to build the team back into a perennial contender. Unfortunately for Jordan, he will most likely not be on that contending team.
-
When the goal is to win The Cup, all decisions, draft or otherwise, are based on how to win the playoffs. I believe the trend is to larger, more physical teams, and LA is a fine example, I think.
-
elvis 15, What did Chicago look like this year? But I get your point. I have always liked big tough hockey players who win the fights and the trophies. Old and old-fashioned, I guess, not gonna change much.
-
The dominant team in this year's Stanley Cup has Dustin Brown as its second-smallest player. Mike Richards is the smallest at 5-11 196. They have 4 players 6-4. Six more are 6-3. Weight of entire roster is between 190 and 230 pounds. Nylander looks like a beauty; but you can only carry so many smaller players. Draft him as asset management, as in buy low sell high, and trade him if he is not that one or two, maybe 3 smaller players good enough to carry. It is not simply size and weight but also speed and skill, and really the courage, tenacity, and prowess to dominate the play. Ritchie is still the best power forward prospect in the draft and we have to get players of his ilk from somewhere.
-
I second this post. I quit responding in this thread because of Absent. I still followed it but no longer put myself up for his attacks. Where I differ from Ossi is that I think Absent should seek professional assistance with his disorder, and should not participate in public forums like this. He has no respect for others, is childish and abusive, and his performance here might just be an unwitting plea for help. theminister seems to have nailed the diagnosis as Dunning-Kruger effect. Thank you "Guru" for leading me to look it up; learn something new everyday. Wikipedia: "Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will: 1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill; 2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others; 3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy". People with mental disabilities are often their own worst enemy, as it were, until they get the help they need. I hope Absent can be helped and that he can move forward and lead a happier life. Until then though, he really needs to get off and stay off.
-
While I usually agree with your good posts, I remember this a little differently. I intensely dislike Keenan and Messier but ironically, Keenan made one of the best trades in Canuck history when he traded our new prez away. We got back Todd Bertuzzi, Bryan McCabe, and the NYI's 3rd round pick which was wisely used to take Jarkko Ruutu. Pretty well the only thing I give those two pieces of excrement any credit for.
-
Bang on Ossi, as usual. +1