theo5789

Will be a lucky team to whoever he falls to then.

It's certainly a tough one to gauge. Hughes could very well be an exceptional player, but the draft class just looks very promising this year and many of them are coming out of the US program which either he's bolstering or they're bolstering him or it's just a team full of great players which waters down Hughes's accolades. No matter which level they're playing at, the same few players have been stepping up and there hasn't really been a standalone amongst them. So while Jack Hughes has become the brand name #1 pick, someone like Turcotte may still end up being the better player, so I think this is where the Hischier comparison comes in with the fact that he looks like a player that could be surpassed despite being a very good player anyway.

Anyone can get shut down. Look at Stamkos. The Jets are one of the biggest teams in the league and out first round (albeit it was another decent sized team that knocked them out). A 5'8 Cam Atkinson had 4 points in 4 games en route to sweeping the president's trophy winner. Gaudreau may have been shut down, but so was the majority of the team who is far from being small. How do you say no to a 100 point player who would be someone that would help you get into the playoffs in the first place to give you that chance to win a Cup in the first place (and give someone like Jake to demonstrate what he can bring in the postseason)? I'm not saying Caufield will be a 100 point player for sure, but if he has that potential, that's a pretty good pick for the #10 spot. Of course I would take the 70-80 point guy that can perform in the playoffs as well, but it's not really set that the stature of a player determines this. It's interesting based on what you've said though about Virtanen. I'm not sure if you're a regular Virtanen supporter or not, but back to the whole debate about Virtanen vs Nylander/Ehlers, well Ehlers had 0 points in 6 games this postseason and while Nylander had a more respectable 3 in 6 so far, he hasn't really stood out to suggest that he's been the far better option than someone like Virtanen (but we have yet to see what Jake can do).

I never compared their styles. Pure finishers can be shut down in the playoffs regardless of size. See Stamkos.

This is an interesting take on Caulfield. How many would pass on a 100 point regular season player? For example, I feel like players like Virtanen may come up bigger in the playoffs with his size and speed, but he's not the big time regular season point producer type. I imagine based on the comments over the years here that many would take the Caulfield over Virtanen types. I think right now we are in a greater need for the elite offensive player (or top end dmen) that if Caulfield can become a 100 point type player, we cannot pass up on him. We need someone like him to take us to the playoffs first and hopefully we have the guys that can step up if guys like Caulfield get shutdown. Size isn't the issue to me, but whether he can actually translate his game to the NHL level. It's a very risky pick that could pay off or be a complete bust as he likely won't be able to provide too much beyond pure offense.

If I remember correctly, Kuznetsov had to be convinced to make the jump. Having Ovechkin on the team made this easier (and possible at all?). I'm not sure about Tarasenko, but I will say that St Louis won that 1st round with two major hits. Almost every other player in that 2010 1st round has been moved on from their original drafted team.

I almost feel like the people who over-hype the prospects and the people complaining and being disappointed when they do not achieve unrealistic expectations are one and the same. I like to be optimistic about our players and always hope they strive to achieve the next levels required to make the big league, but I never put lofty expectations on them. For example, Palmu. Palmu was an overage 6th round pick and was a long shot to ever make it, but he had a decent showing in camp which earned him a contract. Now even though he has gone back for more ice time, it's not like he bolted from the organization so he remains property of the Canucks in case he ever finds his game at a higher level. But yet, it is deemed as a major issue in Utica and how they cannot develop. I honestly don't understand how that jump of a conclusion is made. The expectation should be lowered for Palmu (and he is more than welcome to blow those lower expectations out of the water) and this shouldn't be an example if there is even a problem in Utica which I just don't see right now. As for 1st round picks, I can understand some frustrations as every year there are differing opinions about who the BPA is and obviously if/when a player stands out more then it's easy to criticize. However the organization has their own (more thorough) way of scouting and they are looking for people who fit as a Canuck and character seems to be a big factor. The most complained about pick is likely the Juolevi over Tkachuk one. Perhaps the team didn't like his interview or whatever reason so they decided to not take him. Perhaps they did make a mistake. I personally would like to see what Juolevi can do for us before calling it a failed pick. This leads to the next most complained about pick, Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers. You have a local boy with size and speed and had decent junior numbers. Perhaps Nylander didn't have a good interview demonstrating his character (look at his last contract talk). Perhaps the team thought Ehlers was too small or whatever and made a mistake here, but they've reassessed and went with higher end skill later on. At the end of the day, we still have an NHL player in Virtanen that provides elements that this team still needs. I'm not projecting him to be a Bertuzzi (again he's welcome to blow my expectations out of the water), but I think he will be a serviceable player at the very least so I don't see the point in continuing to whine about this either. And after several amazing 1st round picks like Pettersson, Boeser, and Hughes, the whiners will still revert back to these two and can't seem to let it go and wish the best for our guys. Let's say Juolevi doesn't make it (which I doubt), then that's one botched 1st round pick, 2 serviceable picks in Virtanen and McCann (I think Juolevi will at least be in this grouping as well) and 3 home run picks (grand slam with Pettersson). It just doesn't seem like a track record worth complaining about unless you're looking for a reason to complain.

It seems to me like Newhook is more like Jost who's likely going to be a decent 2nd line NHLer (maybe 1st line potential) while Krebs is also that 2nd or very good 3rd liner type. But Krebs has that Horvat factor that can play a ton of minutes in all situations (like a de facto 1st liner). Newhook seems to be more of a boom or bust type guy while Krebs floor is higher IMO. This is all with very limited knowledge of them both, so I could be very off with my evaluation. With that said, I'm leaning towards Krebs right now.

For all the BPA talk, here's a blurb from a Judd Brackett interview: Q: How does a scout watch a game, especially compared to a fan? A: The evolution of a scouting year, what you’re looking for changes. Early in the year, you might be looking at physical attributes, how well they skate, handle the puck, how well they shoot, basic tells. Then it’s situational stuff: where does the coach use them, do they trust them, are they on the ice late when they’re down a goal, those types of scenarios. As the year goes on you have to focus on play away from the puck or work rate or maybe you had an interview or you heard something from a coach that makes you want to look more closely at something that maybe you missed the first time around or one of the other scouts noticed and you should see, too. So, we start in on a broad look at player ability and then focus in on actual mechanics or technique, things that we may have heard that we want a better feel on. We get way more specific as the year goes on, that may even play out as questions like how will this player fare under our coaching staff, or our player development staff. It’s important that we get players who fit our criteria as a Canuck, that they’re more than maybe just the fastest guy on the ice or the most skilled, there are a lot of details that go in to making this list. I know there are scouting lists that are made to the public. But everyone has their own criteria into what makes a BPA. For the average fan, we get stuck really on the first point of "basic tells". Some people have more time to look into players more and some people are paid to do so. Some get some Intel from several scouts and puts out a list. At the end of the day the Canucks have their own list of BPA and it may not agree with any or all of the other lists out there including other NHL teams' lists. I am certain the Canucks will pick the BPA based on what their "criteria as a Canuck" is. Unfortunately it's not a science to predict how 17 year olds will pan out years down the road, so there will be some misses whether it was the wrong pick or just unforseen circumstances (eg injuries) leading to unfortunate results. In the same interview, Brackett talks about how when they do make misses, they continue to follow other players to try to learn what mistakes they've made and re-evaluate their scouting/drafting methods. Also beyond the 1st round, he talked about how the BPA list evolves around who they've and other teams have picked. The one thing that the Canucks seem to emphasize beyond hockey skills in the top half of the draft seems to character whether it's people with good values or players that are driven to push themselves. They seem to try to make some more daring picks late in the draft though and hope for a home run (eg Palmu or Manyukan). The Canucks seem to have put in a lot of time in their scouting and it is very pleasing to see Brackett, Benning and Co being all giddy when they get picks that they themselves are shocked to see have "fallen" and are clearly much higher in their lists whether it matches other projected lists or not.

Who's pumping every player and prospect as generational? And how many people "whine about the team"? It does go both ways, but it would appear one way is much more prominent. If you track back on the conversation, then you can see that it stems from someone suggesting that Utica (or the Canucks organization) is not developing the prospects correctly, but the player himself has explained what he needs to work on and why he possibly had the season he's had. No one is suggesting Lind is generational and he certainly has a lot to his game to work on that gifting him more ice time wasn't going to solve his issue. It's not a surprise that some players jumping from junior level to a pro level will have a longer transition period, so hopefully he has the drive to find another level to his game and proves he belongs. If he doesn't make it, that doesn't mean Utica screwed up (although it's not an impossibility), but generally it's on the player whether the player isn't taking the notes to heart from the ones that are telling them how to make the NHL (for their respective team) or maybe they simply just aren't cut out for it.

The impression I've been getting that it's more about the location that he wants to be in (better lifestyle?) rather than simply looking for a contending team. But I guess if he's having fun there and they're willing to pay him what he wants, then a winning atmosphere would be enticing for him to stay.

Related somewhat to Eliot, I was looking up Sarnia and noticed their leading scorer is Hugo Leufvenius. He's a 6'2 224lb Swedish winger. If we were scouting Eliot, I wonder if the Canucks have scouted him as well and perhaps give him a tryout in prospects camp and possibly consider signing him.

He's had one season of injuries and has bounced back last season playing the full year. The assessment about Motte isn't far off at this point, but not sure about him being a poor man's version. Motte made the team this year from pure effort and kept it most of the season. This is what we want from our players. A team with decent quality depth will need effort budget guys to compliment the top end guys, so there will certainly be value for players like Motte and Lockwood even if he maxes out at Motte. I personally think Lockwood is more like Hansen with slightly better hands (and I think Motte isn't far off either) so solid bottom 6 guys which any team needs. Keep in mind Motte was dealt for a playoff rental (Vanek, who was be top 6 insurance) and this is something we can consider if we do indeed become a playoff team in the near future. So with all that said, I believe he has what it takes to make the NHL which is the sticking point for me about your assessment.

What do you mean by this? This guy goes all out every shift. The issue is durability and I'm assuming it's because of the lack of strength. He's been told to dial it back a bit because he's going to wreck himself. The guy has what it takes to make it, but it's more of a question of if he can sustain a long term career. This is why I think he wants to have the college degree in his back pocket.

You're the 2nd person to suggest a 3 year bridge deal. Is this a problem? He can sign a 7 year "bridge" deal for all I care. I would think a player would want a 1-2 year bridge deal at most then supposedly get paid well after performing. If he wants 3 years at a bridge deal type cap, then you take it and run.

It seems like some people just want something wrong with the team (NHL/AHL/whatever) simply to complain about something.

It was a joke, but if you want me to get into well if you're talking about adversity, forcing the young player to beat out guys ahead of them is also the type of adversity that can drive a player to better themselves. Doing this in a winning environment means you are beating out good competition and also contributing to the environment. If you cannot surpass the guys ahead of you on a weaker team, then you have a lot to work on. Kole Lind played in 51 games out of 76 which is plenty of opportunity to make your mark as a 19 year old. Unfortunately he put up 17 points in those 51 games to not garner him more playing time, but he looked to have improved near the end of the season. He now knows what he needs to work on and he seems to be indicating he needs improvement in exactly what people are seeing.

Finishing your degree, what a horrible thing. There's life after hockey. Lockwood has suffered some injuries that has kept him out for a while. Perhaps that has put into perspective that one could have a very short hockey career (that will certainly pay well, but for how long?). Let's face it, the reality is Lockwood is probably a bottom 6 guy with potential for more, but is no lock to be a star in the league. This really is no different than plucking one of the better college free agents when the time comes. I imagine he likely has some scholarship to his school, so he isn't simply freeloading off his parents and whether he makes it as a hockey player or gets a decent job from his education, I'm sure he will be able to pay them back. One more year in college and then signing at the end of the year to burn a year of ELC anyway isn't going to alter his life path too much. Lockwood needs to strengthen up and he has more time to do so with the less intense schedule that college offers.

Last year Panarin beat his next teammate by 25 points (who happens to be a dman) so clearly he drove that offense from the forwards. This year he's ahead of the next guy by 18, but supposedly a better support cast. Marner upped his offense this season, but Tavares also joined the team who's not shabby himself. So I would certainly choose Panarin over Marner given the circumstances, but it comes down to if Panarin would choose us. I should add that I would consider giving up 4 1sts for Marner as well because we'd be getting him at a much younger age and will get more prime years out of him. Plus he's shown a defensive side of his game as well which is more rare amongst top offensive players.

Risky game to set your team up for an unknown. What if we make the draft day moves and Panarin chooses elsewhere?

If Panarin wants more than 10 million then I'm out. However the thing is we can draft elite players, but they will still command that type of money, so what's the difference by signing the guy for free to that type of money as if you had "drafted" him and he blossomed into an elite player. But instead now, you would have him plus your plethora of current cheap young talent to make a push. When we get to the cap crunch at some point, then we figure things out, but in the meantime, we would continue to draft well (we can still find decent players anywhere in the draft) to have the depth to fill any voids lost if we have to lose a good player or two due the cap restraints. Panarin at say 10 million a season also would put a benchmark for someone like Pettersson. He's proven he can carry an offense in Columbus where before in Chicago one might've said he fed off of Kane. He doesn't relent in the playoffs either as he's basically still a PPG guy, so it's not like he disappears when the going gets tough either. If we are struggling cap-wise, the problem won't likely be Panarin who would appear to be worth every penny as long as he can continue his play that he's brought these past 4 years in the NHL.

This must be the mantra on the walls in Edmonton.

Because we would be so upset if we had a president's cup winning team that had 62 wins in the regular season. Their downfall was because they likely got too cocky and complacent near the end of the season while Columbus had been playing playoff hockey for a month to battle their way in. I believe the point was that we should be in a winning environment meaning the team should strive to want to win and that's what builds character and a stronger overall team mentality rather than simply being demoralized every year in hopes to land a top pick that may or may not even change your fortunes (see Edmonton, Buffalo and maybe even NJ). If you're going to choose one extreme, then perhaps you'd prefer if we went the Ottawa route? Fun times there. If anything, this Tampa experience just goes to show that even if you get destroyed all year by a top end team, once you make the playoffs, it's a new season. It will be far better now at this point to have our guys get to that point and push themselves to take it to another level of the playoffs (and learn from it even if you lose). This is how you progress and develop as a team, plus you won't be withering away at the talent we currently have.

Sign both Panarin and Bobrovsky. Trade Marky+ to Buffalo for Ristolainen. Bring back Tryamkin. If that doesn't win Cups, it'll be entertaining as hell. Pipe dream of course.