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

ilduce39

Members
  • Posts

    11,222
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by ilduce39

  1. One of the writers at the athletic had Danielson as the 6th highest upside in the draft. Just because he has the high floor doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have a high ceiling. He’s a bit of a straight line player but by all accounts can score and uses his wingers when they’re open - despite playing with weaker teammates. Another article called him possibly the sleeper pick of the draft and a sportsnet one I just read called him a projected 2C. 2Cs are 55-70 point two way horses who get traded for 1sts and top prospects when they hit. So many online pundits are trying to make themselves look good by picking the dark horses but in reality a “safe” pick is a very good thing. I’ll be very satisfied with Willander or Simashev as well but assuming no one really drops we could do a lot worse than Danielson.
  2. I hear you! but on the bright side of the 11is in play I’d hope it’s a draft floor deal. IE if Reinbacher or Dvorsky or whoever for some miracle drop to us, it’s off the table.
  3. From what I’ve read, Danielson is to C as Willander and Simashev are to D. Bigger bodied, very mobile, defence-first players with the only thing holding them from being surefire top 10 selections is that their offensive ceilings are questionable. Willander and Danielson are both right handed but Simashev is a true big man at 6’4 compared to 6’2. In fairness to Danielson, his team sucked so he didn’t get to play with elite line mates and if anything that’s hope towards him having another gear offensively.
  4. Danielson’s my horse in this race. He’s gotten stuck with the tired old “high floor so he must have a low ceiling” trope but I think some of that is pure narrative. He has all the tools to be a quality, match up 2C and that’s worth its weight in gold. I think there’s a very good chance someone snaps him up in the top 10 though.
  5. Mock drafts have been all over the place this year, as well. I’d still bet dollars to donuts true c’s and d get taken earlier than wings - so yes. If Simashev’s your guy just take him at 11 if he isn’t already gone.
  6. I actually don’t mind if we’re pivoting to older guys we can sign to 2 year deals (assuming that’s the rate) than newly UFA players like Graves or Soucy where we’ll be locked in for 3-4 years or more. Unless the player is a core piece, flexibility is key.
  7. For me, it’s about re purposing Garland’s 5 mil into 3 C / D than replacing him on the wing. I know some people would like to add size/speed there - and fair enough - but there’s way bigger fish to fry if we’re trading down to offload a genuinely productive player.
  8. Something may open up as players move around but with 3 years of term I can see why no one’s jumping at him given the climate. I said it months ago, if Allvin desperately wants to clear space it needs to be Beauvillier and his 1 year commitment. The focus on Garland, thus far, is either pure stubborn stupidity on his part - OR - he knows people are willing to make a deal but either waiting on price / letting other players move as they get to Garland who might be a team’s 2nd or 3rd option. So far Hayes, Johansen and Hall have all gone for nothing so I’m not expecting a return but Garland is also as or more productive than them 5v5… and teams are in on DeBrincat who costs more and is even smaller than Garland (though admittedly a better offensive threat.) It all adds up to me that eventually we’ll move Garland if we’re that determined but it just might take some time if Allvin isn’t willing to sweeten the pot to clear the salary. And honestly I’m fine with that.
  9. a day out from the draft and I’m really hoping we land Reinbacher/Willander/Dvorsky/Danielson with Reinbacher / Dvorsky very likely off the board and now Willander and Danielson sometimes projected top 10 as well. If they’re all gone I’d take Moore or Simashev I guess but a trade down would probably be nice if available. It’s getting a little nerve wracking.
  10. I hate to say it, but if history serves it’s believable that teams will reach the D and C and leave us a glut of wingers at 11. I guess that has its own benefits but beyond Michkov I’m really hoping it doesn’t play out that way. If it does and teams are still willing to trade up, we absolutely should trade down.
  11. I agree - I’ve been saying for awhile Allvin’s probably waiting until the draft to make his signature move so far. It might not materialize, but that’s where he’ll have the chance. Could be a very conservative offseason if he can’t make something happen tomorrow (which could still be fine.)
  12. The way things have plugged along, if Myers lasts the season maybe he re-signs a little 2x2 contract or something reasonable to be a big man in the 3rd pair. That might be more value than what he’d return at the deadline. Kind of what I was hoping we’d get from Sutter after overpaying him for a 3C role before he got hit by long Covid.
  13. When I try to cobble together a roster for next year there’s some serious holes if we don’t move a winger’s contract either full freight or for a D or 3C. I’m not an NHL GM but it seems pretty plain to me even with the OEL buyout we can’t ice a team without a glaring hole without that kind of move. This type of trade gives the cap space and either a D or some extra capital to either add to our pool OR spend on an acquisition. Whether we can pull it off is another whole bag of potatoes but as much as I love the 11OA if management is full steam ahead they need to pull something like this off.
  14. Burrows for me… I think he’s a nice #7-8 who can bring some spark when he’s in the lineup. I do hope we circle back on Bear for a cheapo 1 year deal to see what he can do at the end of the year. But if we don’t it is what it is.
  15. Not qualifying Bear just makes sense given his injury - no one will be rushing out to sign him. Stinks for Bear but he’s going to have to either wait till he’s healthy or suck it up with a cheap deal - and I mean, getting paid a million bucks to sit half the season on the IR isn’t that bad of a deal. Id be a little surprised if we don’t bring back one of Juulsen or Burrows but I can understand not bringing them both back.
  16. That’s fair - if I were a Habs fan I’d feel the same! Though looks like you may be in store for some late drama!
  17. Raty has NHL-upside as well, not next season but the one after it all goes well. When people whine about our prospects they omit the fact our core are all young / prime players so it’s not like we’re desperately in need of guys to step into the top of the lineup. What we really need from the prospect pool are some cheap, young role players to fill out the bottom 6 and bottom pairing. That could be doable with the names you provided. That does leave a lot of pressure on PA to fill the 3C and top 4 D holes but I think we can all see we aren’t going to be a contender next season. Even finding one of those pieces mid-term would be fairly successful offseason.
  18. Yeah, if Michkov falls all bets are off. You simply need to take him. I’m not as sold in Benson in that regard, but I’ll trust the process if we take him.
  19. Yes, and even as someone who didn’t mind Benning I knew he should have fired him after the disastrous Canadian-division season. It was just time for a fresh take on the roster - just like how Allvin and JR seem to be doing a good job with the pro scouting while still keeping most of Benning’s core intact.
  20. Say what you will about old Thomas D, I think he nails the “Benning Legacy” question in the athletic mailbag today.
  21. I love PLD to the Kings just to spite the cocky Habs fans pencilling him onto their roster. The obnoxiously casual “We’ll take him but not giving anything good up because he’s signing here anyways.” Losers.
×
×
  • Create New...