Grape

Nah. That's really just blatantly assuming. You don't know the kid and his temperament, so you can't just blatantly assume emotions. Everyone carries themselves differently. I think you were expecting him to be upset because NJD got 1st overall, and you're just matching your expectations with his expressions. I know I'm being hypocritical by assuming what you were thinking now , but it's just a guess

Love Baer but he's nowhere close to being a guy that can be a major factor on a cup winning team. I think if he's your most skilled winger then there's a problem. We don't have that much of a dynamic factor on the wing. Right now it's just guys that can shoot the puck like BB and JV, or average 2nd liners like Pearson or Baer. I really want to see play drivers with speed and skill blazing down the wing to match up with our talent at centre ice right now. Boeser is sick but he's not that type of player, Baertschi is a fringe top 6 guy on a competitive team, and Virtanen doesn't have enough skill and "IQ" to be that guy. And it's not like our centre ice is full of playmakers. We have EP who is the best version of that, but Bo is more of a power forward at centre ice and Gaudette is too early to tell. Just my honest opinion. I'd really like to see someone on the wing who can control the puck with speed and take over.

Lol it's funny how people always try to overanalyze these kid's emotions.

It should always be best player available. Just kind of sucks that there's not really a player that I think we necessarily need. We have EP and BB, but then we need a winger for Horvat. Horvat's already kind of a power forward at centre ice, and so I would've liked someone on the wing who is skilled and shifty. Outside of BB and Baer, we really don't have any "skilled" wingers, and that's a problem. I feel like drafting a Boldy of type player is sort of redundant. But again, it should always be BPA, so whoever is there take em.

The Canucks are incredibly thin on the wing. I mean you could name 9 wingers on any team like you just did there. Our second and third best wingers are like Pearson and Roussel. If anyone is a good fit for him in terms of competition it's the Canucks. If he's good enough he'll play, there's not enough sure fire talent ahead of him.

It’s nice to know that OJ isn’t necessarily one to rely on athleticism. A meniscus injury could be really devastating in that area.

I haven't followed prospects this year too much, but just looking at the stats, I would be EXTREMELY skeptical of Byram. ANY time a defenceman scores 26 goals in a season (especially in 67 games), unless the guy is Brent Burns, that total is likely to be incredibly inflated, whether by his own team's dominance or by chance. His plus minus of 33 and just the fact that the Giants were a really good team this year also points to the fact that his production was inflated by quite a bit. I don't want to read too much into it but I find it a bit improbable that he improved his scoring from 27 points last year to 71 this year without the benefit of the Giants becoming a really good team. I would much rather have a guy who scores 26 goals and 71 points with a -33 plus minus, than a guy with the same stats but a +33 plus minus. I know it sounds ridiculous but scoring at that rate on a bad team is so much more impressive. The plus minus is much more of an indicator of the team rather than the individual player, especially a 66 goal goal differential. But again, I HAVE NOT seen Byram whatsoever, and I'm just basing this off of his stats. So if you've seen him and want to invalidate my argument I wouldn't argue haha.

I wouldn’t since I have other ties to him. But I think the unbiased NHL fan who has seen both definitely wouldn’t.

For a 1st/2nd overall pick, that’s probably at least how much the bidding’s gonna take. What are you expecting? I’m not saying it’s worth it. It’s obviously not. But there’s a reason these rumors of trades for the top picks never go through - because of the asking price. Hughes + 2019 first is probably “fair value.” But it’s gonna take more. I just added Horvat and devalued 2019 into 2020. You really think OJ + AG + a medium first will get 1st/2nd like said in the original post I responded to?

I doubt Horvat + Hughes + 2020 1st would get us Kakko, let alone that. It's not gonna be worth it IMO.

No. If we lose in regulation tomorrow we are #8. Anything else we're #9.

Well there ya go.

Mentioned already, but Gaudette was drafted 143 picks after Virtanen. It's hard to be concerned about a 5th round pick when he's made it so far already.

It's not that hard to figure out. Gaudette's a 5th round pick who hasn't even played a year, Virtanen's a 6th overall pick who is in his 4th season.

Yes but even if you're playing to win playing Hughes 13 mins in regulation isn't playing to win. Let's be honest who actually thinks Hughes is walking into the lineup as by far the worst Canucks defenseman and as a result plays by far the least. He's being sheltered for other reasons, not because playing him gives us less of a chance to win.

I've said it before, but fans tend to think in the position of their favourite team and disregard the other team. That's why (Raymond - Ballard - 1st round pick ) was such a popular proposal back in the day - all of those assets had low value to us so obviously the value would add up and get us a high valued superstar right? But when you consider the other team, taking Raymond, Ballard, and a 1st would be laughable. Same thing here, obviously the popular idea is "We have to trade Lockwood for a mid round pick because he'll have no incentive to sign and can freely choose his team DUHHH" Well if you take the other team into perspective, why would they give up a mid round pick for someone who would be in exactly the same position after the trade - free to choose a team as he'd like. I don't think Lockwood really has any trade value on the market for that reason, so might as well try to sign him.

I mean I don't know how you're differentiating between Lockwood the individual asset being not high value, and then the mid-round pick being huge value, when Lockwood probably would get drafted higher than a mid round pick in a redraft. People seem to always value draft picks really high, and then the moment the draft pick turns into a player, the value isn't as high anymore.

As expected. Also expected is the fanbase's perception of him going from "he's an underrated prospect" to "meh we didn't need him really." Let's not assume things too early and be petty. I think he'll still end up signing so let's judge later.

Whoaaa that’s an insult I don’t hear often See I don’t disagree with that at all I was just responding to people saying his production level is insane right now. Which it isn’t, because as you said, it’s expected as a defenseman to be the 5th leading scorer. And so I’m trying to put things into perspective/temper expectations and argue that it’s not necessarily ‘insane’ and instead just really good.

I would say the success the team had for consecutive years causing bad draft position ruined our future along with poor drafting. Even if Gillis drafted well, I’m not sure we wouldn’t have had to “rebuild” eventually given our star players declined pretty quick. Even if he drafted well, we would’ve only been slightly better, and Benning wouldn’t have had the necessary picks to draft guys like Pettersson or Hughes. As a result we may have stayed average for longer. all I’m saying is that with an ageing team, the team didn’t have a future core, and wouldn’t have had a future core anyway with the positions we were in for the draft. The team really didn’t have any future either way. And Gillis’ inept drafting really helped us in the long run

You mentioned the other guys as dominating in college and then mentioned that Lockwood was instead a role player. I think it was fair for me to assume you were talking about college. But of course, if you’re talking about the NHL, that’s fair.

Lockwood is not a role player in college. He’s a first line winger on almost any team.

Honestly it’s less about vision or hockey sense than it is about ability. You only see insane ‘vision’ on display because good players have the ability to skate/stickhandle/power their way into open ice where more time and space is created and therefore easier for them to make a play. Its not that if you put all those players into one instant scenario, that they’re so inconsistent that they will only make a brilliant play once out of ten tries, while Hughes will make it 5 out of 10 tries. It’s that Hughes will get himself into a better position to make plays due to his abilities, which will showcase his ‘vision’ the way other players can’t

Pavel Datsyuk was drafted in like the 6th round, which means all our forward prospects may be better than him?

Gotcha