-
Posts
16,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by theminister
-
The Edmonton Journal’s Jim Matheson notes Ducks GM Bob Murray has “the deepest pool of young talent in the league.” He believes Murray will revisit his interest in Kesler this summer. Except for Cam Fowler, rookie Hampus Lindholm and promising goalie John Gibson, Matheson claims it’s likely every one of the Ducks young guns is available. Murray also owns the Ottawa Senators’ first-round pick this summer, but Matheson doubts he’ll include that pick in a trade package. Speculation from an Edmonton writer. He's obviously either not very smart or not well connected to Bob Murray.
-
You're looking about it incorrectly. It isn't about on-ice product. He's worth money to them in marketing and fan base growth. They desperately need that. They can be a contender without dealing Etem.
-
I recommend you just get over the idea. It isn't going to happen. Compare how Canuck fans feel about drafting a local boy to how the Ducks fan base is going to feel about a black kid from their backyard playing on their home team. How many kids come out of Cali to the NHL? How many are black? How many play for their local team? Yeah. He'll outsell every jersey on the rest of the roster combined. He'll also open up a new fan base. It was genius drafting on their part. They aren't going to deal him. If the Canucks insist on Etem then the Ducks will shop elsewhere with a trading partner who understands their motivations.
-
He's from the LBC. Snoop Lion is going to be repping that kid BIG time. He'll probably have a clothing line and an upcoming LP ready to drop in no time.
-
What reliable source said Etem was on the table? They wouldn't deal him in a million years. He's worth too much money to that franchise. Hence the reason Murray was trying to put a deal together of draft picks only. Bruce Garrioch? I must be the only one that doesn't believe a word that he writes. Actually, no I'm not. He's basically Eklund. Many posters seem to think that Murray was offering both 1sts this year and the 2015 1st. Not so by reports. He was willing to include two. That wasn't enough for the Canucks.
-
Disagree. Very narrow minded IMHO. There are lots of pieces besides those that could work. Trades don't happen unless common ground can be found so mutual empathy for your trading partner's position is paramount. I would make Pouliot a required piece from Pittsburgh but Etem and Maatta are not. Etem is worth more to Ana than he is to the Canucks so his price exorbitantly high. Ditto for Maatta. There are obviously packages both teams could offer without any of the named prospects that would be fair value for Kesler. Whether we want the deal is another matter.
-
A few things keep popping up that get under my skin. 1) Maatta was never on the table and won't be. 2) Etem was never on the table and won't be. 3) Pouliot was never on the table and might never be. 4) Anaheim did not offer all of their picks in a single deal.
-
First off, that's kind of a ridiculous statement but I think you're aware of that. Compare individual players abilities and attributes not stats. Secondly, I think it's still too early to write off any of those players as potential contributors. In fact, I think all of them have good careers still ahead of them especially Kucherov. Paajarvi still has a lot to show. He was handled poorly which hurt his development IMHO. He'll still find his offensive legs in the NHL. Thirdly, he is heads and tails above Rajala and Larsson.
-
Umm.... no. It means quite a bit.
-
Yup. It's pretty easy to tell who has actually watched him play over YouTube videos.
-
High praise indeed. Thank you very much. Reciprocal, as always. The way I see it is that there are more ways than one to skin a cat. We aren't as badly off as many seem to think. We have many pieces of clay that can be used to re-establish other parts of the organization. I, too, would like to see more sizeable skill in the line-up. i agree with you that it makes sense if you flub on one prospect of that type if two or more pan out. I think that's how you build a foundation, you sink your walls deep. Many people are talking about this being a weak draft but I don't think that others view it the same way I do. This draft is weak on the amount of talent spread through the 3rd round but it isn't weak on the top end. Ekblad=Johnson, Reinhart=RNH, Bennett=Landeskog, Draisaitl=Galchenyuk, Dal Colle=Huberdeau. I can post relative comparisons for every member for the top 15 and I think there are good players throughout 20. Although I think the 2015 draft is better all around, it doesn't mean that the organization can't make big strides for the future this year. Possibly at cut rate prices. By hedging a bet to get a couple of draft picks for 2015 and being able to get quality picks this year, the Canucks can retool the prospect depth chart fairly quickly with minimal damage to the NHL roster. I even think these few tweaks could improve the on-ice result. I don't believe in tanking but I also am firmly of the opinion that you bulls a strong base with constant upward momentum and pressure. I suppose my point is….. we have many options going forward. Now we need a good GM to get on the phone and find pout what is possible.
-
Ana: Kesler Van: 10th overall 2014, 1st round 2015, Sami Vatanen Car: Edler Van: 7th overall 2104, Brock McGinn 6th: Ritchie 7th: Nylander 10th: Fleury Ritchie-Nylander-Jensen Shinkaruk-Horvat-Kassian Gaunce-Cassels-Grenier Fox-Lain-Mallet Fleury-Tanev Vatanen-Corrado Cederholm-Hutton Subban Lack Markstrom Eriksson Cannata Pretty good foundation we would still have two 1sts next year in 2015, meaning two in three straight years.
-
It's what I've been saying consistently this whole thread. I would take Nylander but I expect the Canucks to take Ritchie. And I'm fine with that.
-
Two good teams and still not bad. He was very good versus Russia and scored the shootout winner. Him showing his dominance over the Slovaks is what this tournament is about. He is the real deal. He'll take time but he's an excellent prospect. Top notch.
-
Shocking.
-
I would, if the player we want is gone.
-
Lehkonen was the same age when drafted and exceeded Kapanen's output.
-
I can sympathize with that line of reasoning but there is very little agreement on player place after #5 and through #12. One list may have a player ranked at 6th and other at 11th. This thread is a perfect example of that. There is no guarantee that the player at 6th is more likely a 1st liner than the player at 11th. For example, take the next 8 or 10 ranked players after the top 5.... something like Ritchie, Ehlers, Nylander, Virtanen, Perlini, Kapanen, Virtanen, Fleury and throw in Tuch and McCann for good measure. Now take your preference at 6th, I believe for you it is Virtanen, and pick the last two players you rank of the ones remaining. At 12th and 13th, isn't it better to have those two, say Fleury and Perlini, over Virtanen? Isn't McCann and Tuch better at 14th and 15th than Virtanen? Especially consider that Virtanen could fall to 10th. I would assume that trading down to 7th and 8th would be a no-brainer so aren't we just talking about a matter of degree?
-
So here is a question…. If there were a bunch of draft day dealings and the Canucks were offered two 1st round picks for the 6th overall, what would those picks need to be to consider a trade down worth it? Assume that the top 5 go as expected. For sake of argument, keep the picks as back-to backs. Would the 11th and 12th overall picks be worth it? What about the 13th and 14th? 15th and 16th?
-
Here's the point though…. If you don't have much knowledge of Lehkonen then how can you have so much more of Kapanen? They play on the same team, on the same line often, and Lehkonen has been on the radar a year longer. Surely, if assessments were being based off of more than online scouting reports, of which are of dubious reliability, and short youtube videos then any knowledge of Lehkonen's game should be equally well known. Short video clips don't encompass all of a player's attributes or effect on game play because they cherry pick certain highlights and leave aside what a player does away from the puck and in situations were there is not a goal produced. It also leaves aside the plays they get victimized on. Lehkonen outscored Kapanen based on draft year comparables when playing on the same team, in the same league, against the same aged players. Lehkonen's offensive game was actually much more advanced at this stage than Kapanen's. Kapanen may be a fairly safe bet but most teams don't draft a player with good defense to fall back on at the 6th spot unless they are either the best in the world for their age or are expected to have all world offence as well. I thought there seems the consensus that size didn't matter much? Also that they are playing in a men's league and have room to grow. The same reasoning should apply to both players. Especially considering there is very little difference between Kapanen and Lehkonen. Forget what you read on websites, watch the game play and you will see they are virtually identical in size. Kapanen may be the more complete player. He may have better top end speed. I don't think he has much of an edge, if at all, in any other category. Lehkonen has arguably better passing, shot, stick handling, and hockey sense. Again, refer to the size argument above. Kapanen may be a tier above but not enough to justify the disparity in how you two are ranking him compared to Lehkonen. IMHO the same potential warning flags exist between the two players. Being able to watch them on the same ice allows scouts a clear picture of their attributes versus the same opponents.
-
There must be more than than just that to separate a 55th overall pick and a 6th overall pick in your mind, right? 2013 was a deeper draft but not that much deeper to account for that spread.
-
Ok, here's a question for Plum and SK…. since you two are the biggest Kapanen supporters. How would you compare his skill set, and attributes, to Artturi Lekhonen? What makes Kapanen a much better prospect, or does he? Why?
-
I don't think he is. He's a low risk pick, in a sense, because he is a good two way player. I don't agree with others belief in his upside. I think it's far more likely that he has a harder time breaking out of a checker's role than many of the other top 12 considerations in this draft, and I don't see him as a very high pick. I even think he could slide behind some guys like Tuch and McCann. His skill, while good, is noticeably behind a player like Nylander.
-
You understand that there are people who disagree with assertion? Ritchie is highly skilled. There is no getting away from that fact. Size is not unimportant, any way you slice it. It isn't everything but it's an important thing when added to skill.
-
The play I'm thinking of was after the whistle. It really stuck out to me. It's not often you see a 17 year old do that to an overager.