Honky Cat Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 With Benning its pretty clear that if none of the consensus top 5 fall he would pick Nick Ritchie. Not necessarily ...Ritchie battles consistency and has injury issues.....The good thing about Benning is his ability to get good players in the later rounds.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I am one who hopes Benning moves us up in the draft to select Sam Bennett. If there is someone who is a strong and skilled two-way character player to be a cornerstone of the future Canucks team; it's this kid. He is who you need against LA, SJ and Anaheim; especially in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 The more I see Ritchie's stock rise at 6th overall the higher a Bennett or Reinhart trade may actually materialize. I still think we just use our picks this year and get ready to try and make the playoffs with Kesler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Not necessarily ...Ritchie battles consistency and has injury issues.....The good thing about Benning is his ability to get good players in the later rounds.. The thing that I would argue against Ritchie with is that we have Kassian already. We gave up alot to get him, and he seems to be developing into the player we want him to be. The question is, do we need another player like him? Even the big tough teams in the West only have one true power forward. The rest of their lineups are filled with fast skilled players who happen to be big; rather than power forwards. It's something you have to consider when molding the future of this team. It has to be a balance of skill and size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dal Colle Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Jim Benning will pick Dal Colle or Draisaitl if available If none of them are available pick Ehlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 The more I think about it, the more I think we need to trade up and go all in. I don't think we're going to be this close to a number 1 pick any time soon with the roster we have, so if we can get into the top 3 somehow, now's the time to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"Bull" Horvat Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Hard to say...what would be interesting will be Gradin's view on him. If Gradin is adamant and we don't pick him (which we fans will never know) I would be pissed. Gradin has been one of our best scouts Last heard from Sekeres with his relations to the Canucks org. Nylander dropped down on the list so maybe they're not so high on him. Wonder what Kapanen's character like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"Bull" Horvat Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I am one who hopes Benning moves us up in the draft to select Sam Bennett. If there is someone who is a strong and skilled two-way character player to be a cornerstone of the future Canucks team; it's this kid. He is who you need against LA, SJ and Anaheim; especially in the playoffs. http://youtu.be/b7azD-KFzbMhttp://youtu.be/b-YrFl4V_schttp://youtu.be/FpofTzgdlRQ Supposedly thin and needs to add quite a bit of muscle. Style is Toews like but I think he'd end up as a Brayden Schenn/Mike Richards type perhaps Vinny Lecavalier. Personally I'd take Reinhart just because I feel Bennett is sorta similar to Horvat. Can't go wrong with either. Edit: dont get me wrong with the thin comment, I think he'd turn out as a great player. Cant remember the name of the coach/trainer but I wished all our prospects would join that training program the same one Stamkos Gaunce & CoHo attend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herberts Vasiljevs Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 The more I think about it, the more I think we need to trade up and go all in. I don't think we're going to be this close to a number 1 pick any time soon with the roster we have, so if we can get into the top 3 somehow, now's the time to do it. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 You (the new gm): Hey, (player X), we don't want you anymore and we want to trade you. Player X: Hmm, well I do have a NTC, and I have no desire to be traded, either for professional or personal reasons. You (the new gm): Yeah, but weren't you listening? We don't want you anymore. Player X: Yeah, I heard you, however, this does not change the fact that I have a NTC and I don't want to leave. You (the new gm): Look, get it through your thick skull, we don't want you anymore. Player X: Yeah, you keep saying that. It still doesn't make me any more interested in being moved. You (the new gm): WE! DON'T! WANT! YOU! ANYMORE!!! Player X: Tell you want, I'll put you on with my agent. I have to get down to the rink. Agent X: Hey, what's going on? You (the new gm): We don't want Player X anymore. Agent X: Hmm, well this presents a bit of a problem then. He isn't interested in being traded. You (the new gm): Doesn't change anything. We still don't want him. Agent X: Well, my client will be reporting for work as usual. You (the new gm): Fine. We'll bench him. We'll let him rot in the pressbox. Agent X: Well, if that's what you want to do. My client is adamant that he will not accept a trade. And if you do put him in the pressbox then that is something you will have to explain to your boss. Just out of curiosity, how are you guys doing for cap space? You (the new gm): I'm all in on this. We don't want your client anymore. He'll eventually blink and then we'll trade him. Agent X: Okay, well I tell you what, I'll send you some numbers/e-mail contacts for people in the NHL head office (legal) and the folks at the NHLPA. I'm also going to go cc your boss about this. A while later... Your phone: Ring ring President of the team: Hi. Just wanted to inform you that we don't want you anymore. regards, G. Lets try a far more realistic one GM - we want to move in another direction, will you provide a list of team? Player; I am sorry to hear that. I dont really want to leave. Lets try to work it out. GM ; ok but are trying to rebuild. Its nothing personal against you. We arent going to be contending anytime soon. Player ; Thats ok. I like it here. I can ride it out. GM ; you may never have a chance to win the cup. If you let us move you , we can put you in a much better situation to win. Player I understand , but my wife /kids love it here. I dont want to go. GM : Ok. I will try to make it work. If not, I would ask you to change your mind. The only other option is waivers, which means we get nothing for you, and you end up in some hell pit. That is a 'lose/lose scenario for both of us. Player: Yes. That would suck. Lets see how it goes and play it by ear. Talk again in 6 months. GM; Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Supposedly thin and needs to add quite a bit of muscle. Style is Toews like but I think he'd end up as a Brayden Schenn/Mike Richards type perhaps Vinny Lecavalier. Personally I'd take Reinhart just because I feel Bennett is sorta similar to Horvat. Can't go wrong with either. He's 180 lbs as a 17 year old according to Eliteprospects.com and manhandles an over-ager in Scott Laughton who is 6'1" and 190 lbs. That's not important though, what is important is the attitude and work ethic to succeed when games get rough; I see that in Bennett but not Reinhart. Reinhart may be more skilled but IMO Bennett's game is more valuable (not to mention Bennett is a sniper where Horvat is more a set-up man). Hopefully he can be as valuable to the team as Mike Richards and Vinny Lecavalier was to theirs; although more consistency would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Sorry, I missed your edit. Ya it wouldn't hurt to see Bennett in the Gary Roberts training program, but only if we draft him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Supposedly thin and needs to add quite a bit of muscle. Style is Toews like but I think he'd end up as a Brayden Schenn/Mike Richards type perhaps Vinny Lecavalier. Personally I'd take Reinhart just because I feel Bennett is sorta similar to Horvat. Can't go wrong with either. Edit: dont get me wrong with the thin comment, I think he'd turn out as a great player. Cant remember the name of the coach/trainer but I wished all our prospects would join that training program the same one Stamkos Gaunce & CoHo attend Gary Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 6th, Stanton, Cassels 2nd overall from Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckster33 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 So I followed your helpful advice: What's the difference between a NTC and a NMC? A no-trade clause means a player cannot be traded without his consent. Consent is not required for waivers for assignment to the minors. A no-move clause means a player cannot be traded, waived for a claim by another team, or assigned to the minors without his consent. This does not protect the player from a buyout. Limited and modified NTCs and NMCs simply mean the player's contract includes specific terms for the clauses, usually allowing the player to specify a no-trade list of undesireable teams or a trade list of desireable teams. If a player waives a clause to accept a trade to a new team, it is rare he will do so without a promise that the acquiring team will continue to honour the clause. Brad Richards, when traded from Tampa Bay to Dallas in 2007-08, is an example of this. However, if the player is traded before a clause has kicked in, that clause is automatically ruled void. It should also be noted that clauses can only cover what would have otherwise been unrestricted free agency years. So how is this in any way different (if at all) from what I wrote? Do you read the stuff you google before you link it? If so, you would then have seen that I pretty much am in line with your link. If you are wanting to be helpful, and I'm certain that this was your intent, then show us where I differ (to any great extent) from what was written on the capgeek page? regards, G. EDIT: I did miss the waiver aspect of the NMC. My bad. yo i wasn't the one you were responding to prior i was being helpful i was teaching you to use your own brain vs asking someone to provide you with all the answers before you did something very simple on your own its called doing research by using google i know mommy and daddy do everything for you so when you have to figure something out on your own you just expect others to do it for you gen y written all over you. hopefully today you learned to research on the interweb! lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I can see the canucks taking Nylander for some reason. Cant wait tell the combine to get his official size and weight. I can see him playing in 3 years time in the Nhl. The Sedins are perfect role models for him. Although id prefer Ritchie or Virtanen Honestly I see Sam Bennett falling to us. 1. Ekbald 2. Reinhart 3. Drasatil 4. Ritchie or Virtanen 5 MDC or Ehlers 6. Bennett If you think Bennett drops out of the top 5. You is cray cray. Or the fact 2 top 5 players might drop, madness, it's outright madness. With Virtanen's injury consensus is he hovers around 9/10 not top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Lets try a far more realistic one GM - we want to move in another direction, will you provide a list of team? Player; I am sorry to hear that. I dont really want to leave. Lets try to work it out. GM ; ok but are trying to rebuild. Its nothing personal against you. We arent going to be contending anytime soon. Player ; Thats ok. I like it here. I can ride it out. GM ; you may never have a chance to win the cup. If you let us move you , we can put you in a much better situation to win. Player I understand , but my wife /kids love it here. I dont want to go. GM : Ok. I will try to make it work. If not, I would ask you to change your mind. The only other option is waivers, which means we get nothing for you, and you end up in some hell pit. That is a 'lose/lose scenario for both of us. Player: Yes. That would suck. Lets see how it goes and play it by ear. Talk again in 6 months. GM; Ok. I accept your version as a more realistic sequence of events. This is still a far cry from, "just tell the player we don't want him anymore". A number of people here appear to assume that things will work out without any kind of effort/time. Or that the player will have no reservations about waiving. And if the GM doesn't get a result which they feel should be as easily achieved as it is in their own minds, then the GM doesn't know what he is doing. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerines Posted May 25, 2014 Author Share Posted May 25, 2014 We would regret picking ritchie. Nylander will be so much better and could be influenced by the sedins. Nylander is the next Giroux. I have a feeling Tallon will get his paws on him somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Nylander is the next Giroux. I have a feeling Tallon will get his paws on him somehow. Nylander is far too great of a risk to be taken in the top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 yo i wasn't the one you were responding to prior i was being helpful i was teaching you to use your own brain vs asking someone to provide you with all the answers before you did something very simple on your own its called doing research by using google i know mommy and daddy do everything for you so when you have to figure something out on your own you just expect others to do it for you gen y written all over you. hopefully today you learned to research on the interweb! lmao 1.) You are correct, chum, you are not the person to whom I was originally responding. I was aware of this when I made my first response to you, but thanks for pointing it out anyways. 2.) To my mind, you were not being "helpful", you were making an attempt at sarcasm. The irony of it is, you were unable to recognize that sarcasm was being used on you in my original reponse (to you), or in my response to that original post to which you have just pointed out that you weren't the guy who wrote it. Once again, thanks for that clarification. Note: I'm not taking any bets from anyone that you are even capable of recognizing the sarcasm being used on you in this response. 3.) You say that you are helping me by suggesting that I do research prior to responding. This is good advice for everyone, and thanks for passing it along. I would also note the irony here in that you obviously did not first do your research by fully reading my post (if you did at all), and then comparing it to what you had found on your link to capgeek (a page with which I, and probably the vast majority of people who post here, are well aware). Had you done your research (at all), you would have noted from reading the capgeek page that I had responded correctly to the other person's post. And you would have (should have) realized that I was being just a bit sarcastic to that person by asking them to explain where I was wrong in my understanding of how NTC's work and requesting that they supply links to pages which countered my position (which I'm pretty sure don't exist). I'd acknowledge part of your post as what could be taken as an attempt at sarcasm on your part ("its called doing research by using google"), however I believe it was merely accidental. Research by using Google is kind of despised in academic circles. 4.) As to the rest of your post, gosh that stuff was devastating. I'll probably never be able to post on the internet again. Ever. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.