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

theo5789

Members
  • Posts

    10,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by theo5789

  1. I believe as long as you've qualified them, then they should.
  2. If we are giving Calgary an opportunity to draft a potential franchise goalie, we better be getting something significant back more than a 2nd rounder. If we trade down to #12 though, Svechkov all the way!
  3. Especially when we acquired Bowey almost for the sole reason to expose him. If we are moving from Schmidt, it'll be for more value than allowing him to be a free pickup in expansion. We have alternate solutions to create cap space than to lose a legit top 4 dman for nothing.
  4. I think if we are moving down from 9th to 23rd, we should be getting more of a known commodity that can help us sooner. Maybe the 23rd, a 2nd rounder and Antti Tuomisto.
  5. You'd think Clark would publicly suggest that any of our goalies are potentially not NHL goalies? Also an NHL backup is technically an "NHL goalie" as well. With that said, I think DiPietro has what it takes as well, but I wouldn't skip on BPA because of it. If one of Benning's other "9 guys" that he likes is available as well because other teams took other players not on our list, then I guess depends on how Benning has them ranked.
  6. Then we see how things play out in 2-3 years time. I'd like to see DiPietro get some NHL time to hopefully boost his value. But if a team is willing to pay a late 1st, I'd take it and run. Or perhaps a team is willing to move a player of positional need for us that is more of a known commodity.
  7. Wouldn't mind Red Savage as well for a potential "3C". Hopefully he's available with our 4th rounder. I think our 3rd round pick may be too high to select him.
  8. I agree, but if he's available at our pick, I think he would be BPA.
  9. I'd agree if there's a willing trade partner, otherwise, I'd be fine picking Benning's 9th guy that he likes also.
  10. There are plenty of examples that are successes of first round goalie picks. All four goalies left in the playoffs are 1st round picks. There's risk for any other positional pick as well to become duds. Wallstedt's ceiling is a #1 goalie, which would be very good value if he reaches that, where the other positions are available could just be middle pair dmen or middle 6 forwards. They may fill more of a "need", but then you're not potentially looking at BPA value.
  11. There's also the chance we pick him and he becomes a franchise goalie. Just like for any position, it can be a hit or a bust pick. We could just as easily pick someone "we want" and that player could be a dud as well.
  12. We aren't drafting based on current needs. We are drafting BPA regardless of position. Benning has stated this and also said he has 9 guys he really likes, so if Wallstedt is on that list and he's there, he may get chosen. As for why we may pick a goalie. It isn't to replace Demko necessarily. We don't know where DiPietro is at in terms of NHL status yet and (knock on wood) something could happen to Demko (he has had two concussions already). If Demko is still at the top of his game when Wallstedt is ready (I expect at least 3 seasons), then we have the option of moving Demko or having Wallstedt as a backup. We have seen teams like NYI with Sorokin and Minnesota with Kaaponen, etc where there will be a transition. Another poster brought up Tampa having Vasilevskiy, which allowed them to move Bishop, which eventually acquired them a RHD in Cernak. So if Wallstedt is the BPA, then you're getting the best value for that pick and can work from a position of strength to fill a position of need (can move DiPietro sooner to fill a need now or make a move down the road when Wallstedt is ready).
  13. Just replying to a scenario presented by another poster
  14. If we didn't take Wallstedt in the first round, then probably Cossa. Although it depends on who else may be available. Rosen would be high on my list for our 2nd if available.
  15. Wallstedt has the highest potential in changing a franchise. Can't say I've followed Edvinsson enough, but from what I hear, it doesn't sound like there's a clear picture of what he may be. Lysell looks decent, but he's certainly my third option of these three. Still would do Svechkov over Edvinsson and Lysell, but probably not ahead of Wallstedt, so given that scenario, I'd take Wallstedt.
  16. I don't think the drop pass will be completely eliminated. Almost every team uses it, but some teams execute it way better using actual speed. As for Rathbone, if they are deadset keeping only 1 dman on the PP then yes I can see an occasional shake up with Rathbone there. But I think it'd be more likely that Hughes wouldn't be pulled off, but rather Rathbone will be put on PP1 whether it's full time or occasionally is to be seen. Will depend if Rathbone gets a full time spot next season.
  17. Vasilevskiy drafted in 2012. Didn't come over for a couple of seasons. Back-up for a couple of seasons behind Bishop, then took over the starter role. Eventually moved Bishop for the main target Cernak, Budaj and a 7th rounder. Clear example of drafting not for need, but BPA, then utilizing that strength to fill a positional need. Thanks for bringing this up.
  18. We may not need one now, but you never know down the line with injuries. Or perhaps we have an abundance and there's a team in need of LHD that can fill a positional need. You'll get a better valued return that way and you'll be acquiring likely a known quantity versus an unknown prospect. Whoever we draft isn't going to step in immediately next season or likely even the season after, so you always go for the BPA regardless of position. “I’m just happy we didn’t lose any spots. There are nine guys we really like and I’m happy about that. And we’ll take the best player regardless of position.” That's a direct quote from Benning, so if we are lucky to have a positional need player that crosses path as the BPA on our list, then success. Otherwise, don't expect us to pick based on a positional need.
  19. I hope Rathbone can be utilized more in all situations than Hughes. Rathbone's got the shot which hopefully puts him on PP1 still as well. If all goes well, OJ will be the main PK guy with 2nd unit PP time and Rathbone will be 2nd unit PK. Looks like good potential for a balanced LD. But yes, Rathbone is going to need to up his defensive game to stand out as Hughes will be given the majority of the offensive looks.
×
×
  • Create New...