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

oldnews

Members
  • Posts

    53,830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by oldnews

  1. Don't I find it concerning that 'Florida reached out to us first to sell Gudbranson`... No - not in the least. That is the type of narrative that people attempt to assign meaning to - when it`s actually meaningless. Doesn`t it concern Florida that we`re willing to shop and move McCann.... As for Dahlen - and your point that he`s a former 2nd round pick and look how good he`s doing....well, that`s precisely my point. The fact he was a prospect and not a pick is utterly irrelevent. The attachment to a pick vs prospect is borderline irrational around here - as is the attempt to pretend that picks would necessarily make this team better than Baertschi, Dahlen, Leipsic, Pouliot, Motte, etc would. That could be the case and so could the converse - and I think in most of those cases the team took very good calculated risks vs mean pick values. In addition - you don`t get to cherry pick who might have been picked with a 2nd. We coulda woulda shoulda had so and so. What we traded was a blank tab - the mean value of that 2nd - not a cherry-picked asset (one Florida themselves didn`t even take). If we`re going to bend reality to suit like that, I`d point out that the Canucks got a 5th round pick in the Gudbranson deal - the one they used to take Gaudette. So, was that a McCann 2nd deal for Gudbranson and a leading scorer in the NCAA, bluechip prospect and Hobey Baker winner.....No - it was a 5th round pick that happened to turn into Gaudette - but was still only the mean value of a 149th overall. As for McCann - they can have him. It was a reasonable price to pay - but tbh, I probably wouldn`t give them Leipsic for him - and don`t think that this team necessarily needs a McCann anywhere near as much as it needs a Gudbranson (and think there is a huge contingent in the hockey world that simply don`t get the value of players like him, or Sutter, or countless other defense-first players. I don`t do `HFboards` (don`t know who you`re referring to or what their gig is) - if I did it might be fun - I`d create a whole lot of haters among Leafs fans in short order - but this place is enough lol.
  2. That's not really a very good question / is general enough to be pointless. Anyone would want more picks. But how do you propose to acquire those? And what assets would you sacrifice in lieu? You need to put it in a context - every time. Would I rather have another 2nd round pick at the expense of not acquiring Gudbranson? No - I wouldn't. In hindsight would I like to cherry pick the deals I don't like and gain a pick as opposed to having acquired a Vey or Baertschi? Each of those would be different discussions of the merit of those deals - the value of a prospective pick vs the value of the young prospect. Would I take a 4th over Pouliot for example? Hell no. Would I rather have a 3rd or 4th round pick (if that were a possibility) than Leipsic or Motte? No, I would not. Not even close. Would I liked to have moved broken-faced, NTC Dan Hamhuis for more than was being offered? Of course. Do I wish Vrbata had a will to play in the playoffs? Wish he was healthy and a target of someone at the deadline? What's the point? But the hypothetical 'would you rather have more picks' is like asking a kid whether they'd like another chocolate bar. However, if you ask them whether they'd rather have a chocolate bar or an ice cream, then you start to engage in weighting the options - and the question begins to have meaning. If you're hindsighting that the team should have traded yesterday's dinner for chocolate bars, I'd say get real and put something into a context. I'm not attached to a particular form of asset value - being blindly fixed on picks doeesn't really carry the default superior 'rething' implications some of you guys perceive.
  3. Leipsic wasn't a pick! When is Bennig gonna learn? When is the re-re gonna begin? Am I doing this #properly?
  4. Still banging that cookie-cutter drumkit? Nothing proves your point better than your "next Blackhawks" / Leafs. Er, they may have spent a couple 2nd round picks on veteran rental centers the past two deadlines, but those were for playoff runz! Who needs pickz when the 'rebuild is done'? Who needs young D prospects when you have that impermeable, ready-to-win blueline? Meh, who needs D when you have that core of young forwards? Inevitable dynasty. Meanwhile those idiots in Boston and that retoolol? Top line with a 73rd overall, a 45th overall and a 25th overall.....no high picks, no elite talent there. So much fail. Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak getting exposed by the Shanaplan.
  5. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2018-draft/2018-nhl-draft-rankings 15/16 sources - some reputable scouting services with a few flaky wannabe non-scout journalists sprinikled in. they update at different times (not post-regular season yet). top left - the mock draft - is pretty much an aggregate of those (with teams in pre-lottery positions).
  6. Meh. What you call 'sugar coating' are the objective outcomes - which you counter with a narrative. It's all relative. If the facts got in the way of a good story - my apologies - just disregard the facts.
  7. I agree........ but when will the rebuild begin? nvmd..... ('za joke).
  8. yes, that is iexactly what happened. McCann faced some of the weakest quality of competition on the team - qoc was 24th strongest on the team - with only a few forwards (ie Etem) and a few replacement players like Grenier, Friesen and Zalewski facing weaker qoc (and these guys played 15 games combined). He had the fourth highest ozone starts among forwards. His principle linemates were Higgins, Vrbata, Hansen, Daniel Sedin. The only guys who got higher ozone starts than McCann were the Sedins and Hansen, who faced the strongest quality of competition on the team alongside Sutter - and they were also three of his most frequently his linemates. Playing with him actually deflated their qualcomp numbers which otherwise were strongest. So, when you integrate the fact that he faced among the weakest competition, had among the highest ozone starts, and played with veteran linemates who typically face strong quality of competition - that is pretty much every ingredient you have in sheltering - where he was deployed, who he was deployed against, and who he was deployed with. Most sheltered player on the team, moreso than the other rookie, Virtanen.
  9. don't be a tool. otherwise you're making sense - but only the same kind of 'bickering' sense I was making
  10. This is the dumbest of logic. The Kings offered a 1st - and therefore Benning must have as well. Laughable grounds on which you make that claim. When has Benning ever dealt a 1st round pick? What has Benning actually said about trading 1st round picks - or top prospects for that matter? You have no idea what Benning offered - you're propping up nonsense based on speculation. The Kings also spent a 1st on Andrej Sekera. What does that say about what Benning would offer? As much as it does about the Lucic story you fabricate - literally nothing. You have literally no idea what form that offer took. If you're going to make assumptions, the far more sound assumption would be to look at the assets the Canucks actually have shopped and dealt and make an ass-umption that the pieces offered come from that pool of assets. The fact you believe you have some substance here just goes to show how little you understand about credibility, accuracy and actual sourcing.
  11. What does any of that have to do with Boeser? You make an absurd leap from working on a trade to assuming he offered the Boeser pick? That's not a source - it's a blind assumption with literally no credibility. You have no idea what the substance of those negotiations were. For all you know he offered Kevin Bieksa - who was actually otb - and Linden Vey. Attempting to link that tweet to Boeser is laughable. You're the one who should give it up - you have nothing there.
  12. lol just post a source, not a claim to have a source. you haven't shown that you know what Benning's thought process was. er, uh so and so said something. just post some actual content.
  13. just quote Benning. you paraphrasing alleged quotes wadr is not a valid source. source what you claim to be talking about.
  14. what a laughable 'source'. 'it's fair to assume a possible' blah blah. Is that supposed to mean something?
  15. You ask a dumb question, you receive a dumb question. Why would you be 'disappointed'?
  16. Precisely what makes you a waste of time to have a 'conversation' with. You're unable to engage in anything but fantasy one-liner narratives. Quote one post that remotely resembles that absurd claim you've made.
  17. You do understand that Boeser is a top 6 forward, right. Fyi, there is no "rule"
  18. Canadian Rugby 2017 - the Canucks have no future top 6 forwards! The Leafs are the next Blackhawks! Gotta have/win lottery pickz to build a team #properly. Canadian Rugby 2018 - still can't engage in hockey talk - in favour of tell-all, one-liner narratives between two, oversimplified, imaginary nominal camps. Er, Boeser at 23 sure showed those 'Loyalists" the failure in not #properlyrebuliding! The Canucks have no future top 6 forwards. The rebuild doesn't begin until the teardown and tank are activated! Er, no lottery wins....the Canucks are still another half decade from having rebuilt! When will the rebuild begin? Er, Leipsic isn't a pick - and just more part of the failure - of the improper method! The rething won't start until we tank and stockplie the pickz! Got any hockey talk Rugby? It sure beats this loaded narrative nonsense.
  19. you do realize the kind of players that could/will be available at 4 and 8? Boqvist, Bouchard = exactly the kinds of RHD this team could ideally add. Nothing to fret about.
  20. I see your point LC - but don't necessarily agree with it. You're referring to the context of what she was speaking about (that he wasn't being combative 'philosophically' with her but affirming what she's getting at) - however the irony there is that if you understood that, the need to correct her is merely semantic then isn't it - and even more petty. The rest of the contex alsot remains - that he is interupting and correcting her regardless, that he's making up a word that no one uses ("we like to say peoplekind") and you assuming it was "facetious" isn't context - it's how you've elected to read his intent. I disagree that your reading is the correct one - I think he just stumbled over himself there, in part because he'd grown impatient with her lengthly preambling - and in part because he feels free and entitled to self-righteously correct her. Different people read it differently - I have no outrage over the point of using non-sexist language - it's the actual context, the manner in which he does it, the fact he's ironically using derpworthy language himself, that is laughable and cringeworthy.
×
×
  • Create New...