Grape
-
Posts
3,233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Grape
-
-
1 hour ago, RetroCanuck said:
Gaudette+Juolevi+2020 1st for Kakko
Hughes-Petey-Boeser
Pearson-Horvat-Kakko
I know it wont happen but dare to dream for that top 6 next year.
I doubt Horvat + Hughes + 2020 1st would get us Kakko, let alone that.
It's not gonna be worth it IMO.
-
19 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
So are we officially at #9?
No. If we lose in regulation tomorrow we are #8. Anything else we're #9.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:
Well there ya go.
-
52 minutes ago, dpn1 said:
I find it interesting that AG & JV are both 22 years old and AG stats are about the same as JV when he was 18 years old. I am concerned that AG is not producing enough offensively. Is he strong enough to be a bottom 6 center?
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.
-
38 minutes ago, aGENT said:
I find it more curious how people seem to be willing to be far more patient with AG....
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.
-
26 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:
There's only 1 way to play and that's to win.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CupIsComing said:
Maybe not a big loss in terms of the quality of the individual asset...but even a mid-round pick in return presents huge value to a rebuilding team (that doesn't have nearly enough picks) and shouldn't be discounted.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:
HNIC ( Friedman ) reporting that Lockwood has informed the Canucks that he is doing his Senior year @ U of M..
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.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:
Go get crushed grape.
His stats are great, sure he is the 5th leading scorer on his team, which would be expected for a defence man.
I am not a huge fan of comparisons for prospects which have the tag line
"The next one etc." Folks maybe mistakingly misuse the term.
I see lots of similarities in playing styles, skating, hitting etc... It reminds us of great players or bad players we have seen before. It could be a clue to their abilities or just smoke.
Woo has an abrasive side that reminds people of like Shea Weber, but I am reminded of KB3 with is personality. Woo is not the next of either player. Woo is Woo.
His point totals are a positive indication that he can produce good offence and maybe be able to translate that into an NHL role one day. His physical play, defensive awareness and skating will hopefully translate too.
So far he is looking blue chip to me and I could see him getting a 9 game stint next season. If he could partner well with Hughes or OJ he will be sure to get points. So if we are lucky he could be a comparable player and have a similar role as Hamhuis had for us. With a but more swagger and chippyness to his game. Long way to go before we get see wha Woo will do.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said:
Gillis wrecked the teams future with his poor drafting and destroyed it his last year trying to save his job.
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
-
50 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said:
I never said he was a roleplayer in college. Hes a complementary first line player on most teams in college not a bona fide first line player.
Unless he surprises everyone he will be a role player in the NHL if he even makes it.
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.
-
2 hours ago, CanuckinEdm said:
Boeser, Gaudette, Demko and Hughes were all top end prospects that were dominating College Lockwood however is not hes a roleplayer so hes weighing his options.
Lockwood is not a role player in college. He’s a first line winger on almost any team.
-
2 hours ago, Glug Datt said:
what I don't get, is how I can see flashes of puck moving brilliance from Stetcher, Hutton, even Pouliot & Biega, but there's no consistency.. like it was a total fluke or something.. can't they watch some video and think, yah that's what I need to be doing? is it a confidence thing? or does a player like Hughes somehow see the play unfolding differently or maybe have the ability to make proper adjustments on the fly? just a level up in that skill, plain & simple I guess..
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
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Borvat said:
Weber wasn't a point per game player in the WHL. So, Woo may be even better than Weber.
Pavel Datsyuk was drafted in like the 6th round, which means all our forward prospects may be better than him?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, JamesBlondage said:
I never said I thought Lockwood wanted to be traded or that I thought he should be. Just was responding to your comment that it was a huge risk for any team wanting to acquire him...
Gotcha
-
1
-
-
Not trying to be a party pooper, but even as a PPG player, Woo is the 5th leading scorer on the team, and likely has his stats inflated a bit right now.
For that reason I don't think PPG is too insane for him right now. It's obviously fantastic, but not insane production given the circumstances.
Also for that reason I don't think we should be throwing names like Shea Weber in there haha, let's temper expectations even though he's looking really legit so far.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, JamesBlondage said:
Actually I think the only one I can think of who's rights got traded and then signed with someone else is R.J Umberger....drafted by Vancouver who traded his rights to the NY Rangers, he held out for a year and signed with Philadelphia...
Yeah, Umberger had no interest in Vancouver though. It's a pretty big assumption at this point to think that Lockwood has no interest.
If every player going into their 4th season in college was traded then there would be a higher proportion of players who opt for FA. Could be wrong though.
But at this point any thought of trading Lockwood is definitely premature and most likely has negative value for the reason I pointed out in my first post.
-
Just now, JamesBlondage said:
Most of the time in these situations, the GM of the team selling gives the prospective buyer permission to talk to the player and gauge his interest in signing. 9 times out of 10 when a trade like this happens the player signs within 24 hours of the trade happening....
Of course, but that's only considering if there was no interest from the prospect signing with your team, which isn't the case here.
-
2 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:
If Lockwood decides to go back to Michigan for next year, I'd look to trade him at that point honestly. He would have no incentive to sign with Vancouver when he could just wait a couple of months to sign with whatever team he wants. Might as well try and recoup the 3rd rounder we spent on him.
It's the same thing for the team who trades for him though. If anything it's even worse for the team that would trade for him.
At least he has an incentive to sign with the team that drafted him. If he's traded, he really has no allegiance to any team and will almost certainly test FA.
For that reason his value would be very very low, lower than the potential benefit of signing with us
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, TheRealistOptimist said:
I didn’t mention anything about his decision or what he should do.
My only point was that the other person grossly over exaggerated how much money he would need to spend by going to Utica.
As for the car thing the other poster mentioned him buying one, I’ve spent quite a few years down in the States (mostly in the south) and from what I’ve experienced most people already have a car and often do from high school. Maybe he doesn’t need one when at school in Ann Arbour (I’ve never been) but he probably has one at home then.
Ya I know haha. I was just kinda rambling on after my first point. Wasn’t saying you were wrong.
-
On 3/12/2019 at 2:14 PM, JamesB said:
Obviously I have no idea what decision Lockwood will make about turning pro. But, if I were him, I would stay at Michigan. Here is the reasoning.
1. Will is a good prospect but his chances of becoming an NHL regular are still below 50-50. And Michigan is a very good university. For a guy in that situation, finishing his degree has a lot of value. And many guys (and their parents) just want to finish a degree even if they do play in the NHL.
might sound biased because I go to school here, but the perception around is that UM athletes (football basketball hockey), generally stay a bit longer than guys at other schools as a degree or even a certificate in a certain concentration is really valuable.
However I don’t see it as a big obstacle since high end athletes who have a chance to play in the NFL NBA or NHL generally worry about their athletic career first, and then if academics matters at all, it would get taken care of some other way in the future.
I think the same goes with Lockwood and I don’t recall knowing him as some kind of academic wizard around here who would want his degree.
That being said I do agree with all your other points. Altogether if I were Lockwood I’d stay another year as well. Josh Norris will likely be back and Lockwood won’t have to carry the forwards so his value will go up me thinks.
On 3/13/2019 at 8:50 AM, TheRealistOptimist said:Nice try.
But you have spent way more of his money than need be.
1 - he probably already has a car
2 - he will be getting paid by Utica and therefore that will cover his expenses (food, housing)
3 - I am 99% sure that if players leave school early, then the NHL team they sign with covers the costs of their remaining school years. It’s part of their contracts, when I signed a baseball contract the team covered the cost of my remaining years of school.
You grossly over exaggerated how much he would be spending on all these things. Also he’s American so he gets much larger tax returns than if he were Canadian.
Honestly I’m not sure how the car thing is that relevant, but minimal students own a cars around Ann Arbor so I would be very surprised if Lockwood did.
I also think it’s much more simple than people might think. If Lockwood feels he can advance his career better in Vancouver’s system, he’d do so, if he feels like Michigan is better, he’d choose Michigan. I only ‘know’ him through mutual friends but I think he’s leaning towards going back to school, and I don’t blame him cuz I’d do so as well.
When it’s all said an done it would be pretty devastating to lose a 3rd round pick who is on track to be better than a 3rd round pick, so I’m holding my breath.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, playboi19 said:
Like I said earlier, he’ll likely want to play against the Sens and bff Brady Tkachuk. It’s next Wednesday so that’s a week.
I'm not sure he will by the sounds of it, since he's being re-evaluated in a week.
Personally I don't think his friendship with Tkachuk will have any bearing on whether he plays or not.
-
15 hours ago, Chip Kelly said:
He is a serious kid. Very competitive. He has been bred to be a hockey player from a young age.
Big advantage for him was his dad was the Leafs director of prospect development, ironically when Josh Leivo was his age just starting his pro career in the Leafs organization.
Long lineage of athletes and hockey players in his family tree.
He should have no problem adjusting to the pro lifestyle including training and nutrition.
I think a fair expectation of his play style and points in his first full NHL season will be to another undersized left hand d-man, on the Avalanche, in Samuel Girard.
Both are very elusive skaters that can turn on a dime to avoid checks and make plays.
Both are offensive guys who like to join the rush and get up in the play to support the forwards.
Thinking about it, it's probably the most accurate comparison. Only difference I can think of is that Girard may have a higher motor and better shot, while Hughes is more smooth.
Girard is excellent. However, Hughes should stand out more since he looks to be a step above Girard coming into the NHL.
-
1
-
2019 NHL Entry Draft in Vancouver, BC
in Prospects / Farm Team
Posted · Edited by Grape
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?