wshdrvvn Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 glad he got a goal. that should blunt some pitchforks and douse a few torches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asian player Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, chilliwiggins said: past the mid twentys there isn't any talk of those players, or for that matter much for players with any stats that stand out. You must know some names then. would like to look them up if ya got some names to look at It's early January. Like every other year, the hype is still all about the top end guys. When we start approaching the draft, you will hear more about potential pickups in the later rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 3 hours ago, Boudrias said: It looked like Chelios was ready to chuck Wilson off the bench at times. We always pre-scouted opposing teams in the 'old' days. Wilson strikes me as a pretty arrogant guy. Acidic is the term I believe. There's a reason the ol timer isn't an NHL coach anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 5 hours ago, wshdrvvn said: glad he got a goal. that should blunt some pitchforks and douse a few torches. I don't really think anyone wants to run Boeser out of town. Most people seem positive. For a low first round pick he has done very well as a rookie in the NCAA (maybe the best rookie in the NCAA). He did well to even make the US WJC team as an 18 year-old. And he had a decent tournament at the WJC. He wasn't a star, but not many people expected that. The Canucks have had quite a few low first rounders in recent years: Jensen, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, McCann, and now Boeser. All of them except Jensen look like they might be decent (or better) NHL players. But it would be nice to get another high first rounder. Matthews, Puljujarvi, Laine, Chychrun, and Tkachuk all look good. And maybe we will get the chance to pass on another Nylander in the #6 spot. (And I think I would take the Canadian Gauthier at #6 ahead of Nylander.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messier's_elbow Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Glad he got a goal so he has some confidence going back to college. He needs to work on his skating and acceleration but he's a good prospect and should be a top 6 forward in a few years if he works on his weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 12 hours ago, chilliwiggins said: Ill say this Boeser is playing much better in their final game. All the European teams looked pretty good this year. Consensus was that 2016 was a shallow draft, maybe so, but Ive seen some good players on almost every team, yes some are already drafted, but still. Consensus was that there is not a generational talent like McDavid, Crosby, Gretzky but that it would be a very very deep draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Glad to see Boeser finally scored. Finishes tourney 1-2-3, +2, 2 pim, 12 sog Highlights of Sweden game (including Boeser's goal, deflected point shot) http://www.tsn.ca/world-juniors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Would there be any chance Boeser decides to go pro and not play out 4 full years in College? Maybe 1 more year then go to Utica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 9 hours ago, Yotes said: Would there be any chance Boeser decides to go pro and not play out 4 full years in College? Maybe 1 more year then go to Utica? I have read and heard a fair amount of discussion about the possibility that Boeser might run pro the year after next. He will of course play in college next year as he cannot play in the AHL and it unlikely to be ready to make the Canucks. And he probably wants to stay in college for a couple of years. It would be good to see him turn pro after that, but it probably only makes sense for him if he has a good shot to play on the Canucks. Playing in college has advantages over playing in the AHL (working on a degree for one thing) and it is not like playing in the AHL pays much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, JamesB said: I have read and heard a fair amount of discussion about the possibility that Boeser might run pro the year after next. He will of course play in college next year as he cannot play in the AHL and it unlikely to be ready to make the Canucks. And he probably wants to stay in college for a couple of years. It would be good to see him turn pro after that, but it probably only makes sense for him if he has a good shot to play on the Canucks. Playing in college has advantages over playing in the AHL (working on a degree for one thing) and it is not like playing in the AHL pays much. I too expect him to stay at UND for next season but if he didn't, why couldn't he play in the AHL? I don't think the USHL is part of the NHL-CHL agreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, tyhee said: I too expect him to stay at UND for next season but if he didn't, why couldn't he play in the AHL? I don't think the USHL is part of the NHL-CHL agreement. You are right. I found a good source at this URL: http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2012/8/1/3213217/bruins-nhl-chl-ahl-agreement-CBA-talks-2012 I had formed the incorrect impression that the CHL agreement with the NHL also applied to NCAA players. But that impression was wrong. Boeser could turn pro and play in Utica next year. He would of course lose his NCAA eligibility but, as you suggest, there is no rule that prevents him playing in the AHL. As the source I cite above indicates, there was some controversy over this point in the past, but the issue was resolved. It is always embarrassing to make mistakes, but I am glad I learned something. Thanks for the correction. Edited January 9, 2016 by JamesB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messier's_elbow Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 He's going to play 2 years minimum at UND. He's getting his education as well as playing in a good system. I'd be shocked if he played 3 or more though before going pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Ya this year and next makes perfect sense. Green will likely be gone from Utica by then, but maybe Baumgartner will the the next Utica head coach? Looking forward to boeser at next years WJ's he should have a more prominent role, and I doubt they bring back Ron Wilson as coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Diesel Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 On 1/9/2016 at 2:43 AM, messier's_elbow said: He's going to play 2 years minimum at UND. He's getting his education as well as playing in a good system. I'd be shocked if he played 3 or more though before going pro. It's to Vancouver's benefit that he stays 2-3 years at UND. That way we he arrives he will be more seasoned and for salary cap purposes, he will head into his entry level deal at a later age. Just like Ben Hutton. Correct me if i'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Bert Diesel said: It's to Vancouver's benefit that he stays 2-3 years at UND. That way we he arrives he will be more seasoned and for salary cap purposes, he will head into his entry level deal at a later age. Just like Ben Hutton. Correct me if i'm wrong. Not a fan of that. He'll be 21 and never play a season over 40 games. Then not only does he have to adjust to the nhl skill and size, he'll have to adjust to double the schedule in the same year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Diesel Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: Not a fan of that. He'll be 21 and never play a season over 40 games. Then not only does he have to adjust to the nhl skill and size, he'll have to adjust to double the schedule in the same year. But he would also have more time to train and become more physically mature and with less games; less likely to get injured. See Jake Virtanen and Hunter Shinkaruk. Coming into pro hockey at 22 instead of 20 is not necessarily a drawback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 14 minutes ago, Bert Diesel said: But he would also have more time to train and become more physically mature and with less games; less likely to get injured. See Jake Virtanen and Hunter Shinkaruk. Coming into pro hockey at 22 instead of 20 is not necessarily a drawback. Yes and at 22 they came in with a 60 game season plus playoff and world Jr's in Jake's case. Close to a 82 game season. I'm not sure the exact number of games of the ncaa schedule but I thought it was around 40. If that's the case I (entitled to my own opinion ) would like to see Boeser play in a league with men and a tougher schedule (the American hockey league). There he will have a chance to ease into the grueling pro schedule against men with his future linemates using our system. Not dominating children in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Bert Diesel said: It's to Vancouver's benefit that he stays 2-3 years at UND. That way we he arrives he will be more seasoned and for salary cap purposes, he will head into his entry level deal at a later age. Just like Ben Hutton. Correct me if i'm wrong. 1 hour ago, Gooseberries said: Not a fan of that. He'll be 21 and never play a season over 40 games. Then not only does he have to adjust to the nhl skill and size, he'll have to adjust to double the schedule in the same year. 1 hour ago, Bert Diesel said: But he would also have more time to train and become more physically mature and with less games; less likely to get injured. See Jake Virtanen and Hunter Shinkaruk. Coming into pro hockey at 22 instead of 20 is not necessarily a drawback. As the above posts indicate there are good arguments on both sides. I think it probably depends on the individual. Some guys benefit from the slower developmental pace in college whereas other guys can handle the pro game earlier and eat up the extra work (like Horvat). And I don't think spending the first two post-draft years in college is ever a problem. To me the concern is that a guy who spends 3 years in college might then say -- why not stay one more year, graduate, declare free agency and then sign with whatever team I like. It does not happen too often, but it does happen. I will breathe a sigh of relief if Demko signs this summer and turns pro next year and I would be happy if Boeser signs in the summer after his second year at UND. Guys who sign after their third year are often able to finish up their college degrees in their "free time".(like David Backes. See . http://collegehockeyinc.com/node/1130) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandre Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) On 1/11/2016 at 4:01 PM, JamesB said: As the above posts indicate there are good arguments on both sides. I think it probably depends on the individual. Some guys benefit from the slower developmental pace in college whereas other guys can handle the pro game earlier and eat up the extra work (like Horvat). And I don't think spending the first two post-draft years in college is ever a problem. To me the concern is that a guy who spends 3 years in college might then say -- why not stay one more year, graduate, declare free agency and then sign with whatever team I like. It does not happen too often, but it does happen. I will breathe a sigh of relief if Demko signs this summer and turns pro next year and I would be happy if Boeser signs in the summer after his second year at UND. Guys who sign after their third year are often able to finish up their college degrees in their "free time".(like David Backes. See . http://collegehockeyinc.com/node/1130) You make a good point. I have a feeling Boeser and Demko will be Canucks even if they finish their degree before turning pro. It's just a feeling though. It will be interesting to see when they do sign their first pro contracts. I could be reading too much into things, but there may be other reasons to be interested into when college players turn pro. Turning pro before completing their degree shows confidence that they are ready to turn pro. Maybe Hutton could be an example of this situation? He felt confident about his game and chances as a pro so left college early. Another thing. Hypothetically, say Demko and/or Boeser finished their degrees. They had many suitors for their services. They then sign with the Nucks. I think this would be an indication of strong attachment/loyalty to the Canucks. They could have been free agents and signed with any team after all. Edited January 12, 2016 by Alexandre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post WonderTwinPowers Posted January 12, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted January 12, 2016 On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 0:19 PM, chilliwiggins said: not totally true , I wasn't able to log onto my account for the longest time because my email was corrupted so I wasnt able to post in the message board section but was able to post in the editorials on the canucks home page which I posted many many times regarding the failure of benning to pick the best player at pick 23 at and before draft day. I truelly hope I am completely wrong in what I see from benning since his start as gm . recently I have lightened on his baerschi trade as hes looking good but to me I fear his stuborn nature , appearance of being lesser in smarts compared to other gms that have had dealings with him. Boeser no, he doesn't come across as a canuck type player in a candian market at all. Konecny on the other hand is made of canadiana hockey. Boeser comes across as entitled almost to the point of arrogance. his play was suspect in WJC and you cant deny that, konecny on the other hand on a much lesser team looking to 2016 more so than this year wasn't a true contender in 2015 wjc, looked well rounded in every forward position that he played with grit and determination which we all love. The failure to pick the best player available at 23?... Seriously?... While you have your crystal ball out any powerball numbers? We draft one of the highest scoring NCAA rookies and people complain, he makes a 19 year old tournament and plays first line minutes as an 18 year old and you complain, good God CDC. Benning has done a fantastic job with this team, look at the youth in the lineup last night. If you don't like what he's doing then get out. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now