[Signing] Canucks sign Guillaume Brisebois

[Sean Monahan]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

True, but those NCAA guys are often two to five years older than the 19 year olds in the CHL.  

Not necessarily. You don't think a guy like Boeser would be having success in the CHL? I don't watch enough NCAA hockey to name more than a few but there's a ton of CHL eligible guys who would be just as good if not better in their respective major junior league.

[Alflives]

Just now, Gstank29 said:

Umm no most NCAA guys are 18-19 when they are freshman. 

Yup, which make them 22 to 24 (red shirt) when they grad.  Most CHL guys leave at 20.  Although the original discussion was about which league produced more draft picks: the BCJHL or the CHL.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

Not necessarily. You don't think a guy like Boeser would be having success in the CHL? I don't watch enough NCAA hockey to name more than a few but there's a ton of CHL eligible guys who would be just as good if not better in their respective major junior league.

I agree with you.  But many of those NCAA guys would be too old for the CHL.  Boeser would be great in any league for sure.

[Sean Monahan]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

I agree with you.  But many of those NCAA guys would be too old for the CHL.  Boeser would be great in any league for sure.

Well I'm actually saying exactly the opposite. There's a ton of CHL eligible guys (I.e.: they're 20 or younger) having success in the NCAA who would have as much or more success in the CHL. it's not like all CHL guys move on to play pro hockey either, even unaffiliated hockey. Besides, isn't it more impressive that a kid like Boeser is doing what he's doing against men, rather than piling up points against bottom feeding teams comprised of young kids like Vancouver or Acadie-Bathurst?

[Alflives]

Just now, Wild Sean Monahan said:

Well I'm actually saying exactly the opposite. There's a ton of CHL eligible guys (I.e.: they're 20 or younger) having success in the NCAA who would have as much or more success in the CHL. it's not like all CHL guys move on to play pro hockey either, even unaffiliated hockey. Besides, isn't it more impressive that a kid like Boeser is doing what he's doing against men, rather than piling up points against bottom feeding teams comprised of young kids like Vancouver or Acadie-Bathurst?

Well, when you put it that way, it sure does sound good.  Although, there are some extremely week programs in the NCAA too.  

[Sean Monahan]

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Well, when you put it that way, it sure does sound good.  Although, there are some extremely week programs in the NCAA too.  

Such is the nature of amateur hockey. 

[Hedman]

On 2015-12-13 at 5:23 PM, oldnews said:

Oh judge away Hedman - judging by your "Lol" lead, no doubt it'll be even more informative than duc's effort, 'lol'.

I'm guessing you have about as many opportunities to watch the player over in Sweden as DownUnderC has down in Aussie.  How many games are you going to ordain him to play?

Sorry for late reply, but the fact that you only choose to bash me for using "lol" says it all. Judging by your mentality, you're clearly just a delusional fan who thinks everything our management does is great, and that all our players are great. Laughable.

Edit: Since you also bashed me for being from Sweden, having opinions about a player playing in Canada, can we agree on that you'll never ever have an opinion about a player playing in Europe, Canuck-prospect or not? 

[Hedman]

On 2015-12-15 at 4:04 AM, The Lock said:

Usually, when GMs are picking prospects, they have a list of players they are interested in. They'll generally take the highest one available on that list. If there's a forward and a defender of what they would consider equal worth, then they'd likely look at team needs at that point. Are you saying they should not do things this way? If not, then what do you suggest?

Aside from that, I don't get this negativity towards a 3rd round pick. It's almost as if people like you feel a 3rd round pick should be a guaranteed success when it isn't. We apparently have a bunch of "drafting experts" here who "know more" than Benning, a professional scout. 

You're right. Everything a GM does is obviously the right thing, even when/if he ends up getting fired for his decisions. Accept the fact that people doesn't always agree with the decisions a GM makes.

 

You should also check Bennings draft-record before you praise him as some sort of draft god. He has done a pretty decent job since he took the Canucks job though, but it's been only 2 drafts, and it's way too early to tell if his picks actually makes the NHL.

[The Lock]

On 12/29/2015 at 8:00 AM, Hedman said:

You're right. Everything a GM does is obviously the right thing, even when/if he ends up getting fired for his decisions. Accept the fact that people doesn't always agree with the decisions a GM makes.

 

You should also check Bennings draft-record before you praise him as some sort of draft god. He has done a pretty decent job since he took the Canucks job though, but it's been only 2 drafts, and it's way too early to tell if his picks actually makes the NHL.

Great. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said that everything a GM does is the right thing, so please stop trying to grasp at straws over something I never even said. Perhaps you should accept that fact that there's a better way to provide an argument.

I also did check Benning's draft record, which is why I came to the conclusions that I did. I also never said Benning was a "draft god". I said he knows what he's doing compared with a lot of other people.

I have no clue what you were trying to prove with your post, but thanks for making me laugh at least. lol

[Hedman]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Great. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said that everything a GM does is the right thing, so please stop trying to grasp at straws over something I never even said. Perhaps you should accept that fact that there's a better way to provide an argument.

I also did check Benning's draft record, which is why I came to the conclusions that I did. I also never said Benning was a "draft god". I said he knows what he's doing compared with a lot of other people.

I have no clue what you were trying to prove with your post, but thanks for making me laugh at least. lol

I can't stand people with the "why do you think you know better than our GM"-mentality. Worst argument ever made, a clear indication that you got squat. Draft record since when, joining the Canucks? Look at his draft-record with the Bs and you should get disappointed, unless you're completely blind, but indications tells me you that you might very well be just that.

Didn't really see the point with your post either. Typical fan who thinks he's actually reasonable and smart, but in reality he's not.

[The Lock]

56 minutes ago, Hedman said:

I can't stand people with the "why do you think you know better than our GM"-mentality. Worst argument ever made, a clear indication that you got squat. Draft record since when, joining the Canucks? Look at his draft-record with the Bs and you should get disappointed, unless you're completely blind, but indications tells me you that you might very well be just that.

Didn't really see the point with your post either. Typical fan who thinks he's actually reasonable and smart, but in reality he's not.

So do you think then that you have better credentials, a better know-how, more inside knowledge, and more experience than the GM? Just because you don't like an argument doesn't mean it's a bad argument. If you're going to just attack me and not give reasons why you think my argument's a bad argument, I'm going to assume you have nothing. You haven't even come up with a single point to prove my argument wrong other than your outright attacks. Generally, if you want to prove an argument wrong, you have to provide an argument against it rather than just saying something like "worst argument ever made". lol

Anyway, I'm talking about his draft record when he was in Buffalo and Boston, before the Canucks. Look at Buffalo's drafts back to from 2000 to 2005 when Benning was lead scout. There are a TON of NHL players on that list. If you don't think that's enough proof, then how come Buffalo's draft record started to dwindle a bit when Benning left? His draft record starts before the Canucks albeit indirectly, but his influence during that time is fairly evident.

[Hedman]

28 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So do you think then that you have better credentials, a better know-how, more inside knowledge, and more experience than the GM? Just because you don't like an argument doesn't mean it's a bad argument. If you're going to just attack me and not give reasons why you think my argument's a bad argument, I'm going to assume you have nothing. You haven't even come up with a single point to prove my argument wrong other than your outright attacks. Generally, if you want to prove an argument wrong, you have to provide an argument against it rather than just saying something like "worst argument ever made". lol

Anyway, I'm talking about his draft record when he was in Buffalo and Boston, before the Canucks. Look at Buffalo's drafts back to from 2000 to 2005 when Benning was lead scout. There are a TON of NHL players on that list. If you don't think that's enough proof, then how come Buffalo's draft record started to dwindle a bit when Benning left? His draft record starts before the Canucks albeit indirectly, but his influence during that time is fairly evident.

I don't even know what you want me to prove? Prove that i can be a better GM than Benning? If you're gonna put it like that, you can basically not make a single case about any draft selection ever made, since the GM who made that call had more "inside knowledge" than anyone who didn't.

Let's just say that i don't agree with his Bennings "viewings" fully. He clearly values leadership and personality very high, way too high in my opinion. It should definitely be taken into consideration, but we're talking about 18 and 19 year old kids. They're most likely not going to be the exact same guy at 25, as they were when they were 18. Skills and smarts should always be valued higher than anything else, that's what makes you a starting goaltender, a top6 or top4 guy. Not just your attitude.

 

This just screams like that kind of pick to me, since Brisebois is the captain of his team, a bad one at that. I don't think there's a lot in his game to be stoked about, don't really see the potential. He's pretty big, and he's a good skater for his size. Doesn't really stand out either defensively or offensively. I also think you should put into account which team the player plays for, especially if he's playing in the CHL. It's not just a coincidence that franchises like the London Knights and the Oshawa Generals have produced so many NHL players. They clearly know what they're doing there. I'm mentioning this since this guy played on arguably the worst team in the whole CHL last season.

I personally would have preferred Vande Sompel, as an example. Or maybe Blake Speers if we didn't "have" to pick a defenceman, which im sure Benning felt he had to since he said that he WAS going to make our defensive depth better, and he WAS going to pick up more picks, which he kinda failed to do. Again, this pick just screams desperation for me.

 

Both the hockey itself and the drafting has changed since his Buffalo years, that's a long time ago. And you're probably going to be disappointed when i tell you that Benning didn't have anything to do with the 2006 draft when Bruins ended up picking players like Lucic, Kessel and Marchand. Unless you didn't already knew that ofc, which i doubt since there really isn't a lot of other players to get fired up on.

[The Lock]

11 hours ago, Hedman said:

I don't even know what you want me to prove? Prove that i can be a better GM than Benning? If you're gonna put it like that, you can basically not make a single case about any draft selection ever made, since the GM who made that call had more "inside knowledge" than anyone who didn't.

Let's just say that i don't agree with his Bennings "viewings" fully. He clearly values leadership and personality very high, way too high in my opinion. It should definitely be taken into consideration, but we're talking about 18 and 19 year old kids. They're most likely not going to be the exact same guy at 25, as they were when they were 18. Skills and smarts should always be valued higher than anything else, that's what makes you a starting goaltender, a top6 or top4 guy. Not just your attitude.

 

This just screams like that kind of pick to me, since Brisebois is the captain of his team, a bad one at that. I don't think there's a lot in his game to be stoked about, don't really see the potential. He's pretty big, and he's a good skater for his size. Doesn't really stand out either defensively or offensively. I also think you should put into account which team the player plays for, especially if he's playing in the CHL. It's not just a coincidence that franchises like the London Knights and the Oshawa Generals have produced so many NHL players. They clearly know what they're doing there. I'm mentioning this since this guy played on arguably the worst team in the whole CHL last season.

I personally would have preferred Vande Sompel, as an example. Or maybe Blake Speers if we didn't "have" to pick a defenceman, which im sure Benning felt he had to since he said that he WAS going to make our defensive depth better, and he WAS going to pick up more picks, which he kinda failed to do. Again, this pick just screams desperation for me.

 

Both the hockey itself and the drafting has changed since his Buffalo years, that's a long time ago. And you're probably going to be disappointed when i tell you that Benning didn't have anything to do with the 2006 draft when Bruins ended up picking players like Lucic, Kessel and Marchand. Unless you didn't already knew that ofc, which i doubt since there really isn't a lot of other players to get fired up on.

Hmm, what I want you to prove? Well, I want you to prove how my argument is false. I want you to tell me why you think I'm providing the "worst argument ever made" on GM's tending to know more than fans, as you clearly attacked me with a couple of posts ago and that I clearly stated I wanted you to prove in my previous post.

Some petty disagreement over what you think Benning should do does not prove Benning wrong the least. To be honest, I don't even care if you don't like his "viewing". It doesn't make him wrong. It's merely your opinion on this subject, which I don't agree with anyway. If you want to live in the past of who we drafted, that's your call, but these are the guys that we have. It's your ulcer not mine.

It really sounds to me that you don't like my argument because it goes against you not liking what Benning's doing. Your response is more of a reaction rather than a rationale.

[ohmy]

45 minutes ago, The Lock said:

  11 hours ago, Hedman said:

I don't even know what you want me to prove? Prove that i can be a better GM than Benning? If you're gonna put it like that, you can basically not make a single case about any draft selection ever made, since the GM who made that call had more "inside knowledge" than anyone who didn't.

Let's just say that i don't agree with his Bennings "viewings" fully. He clearly values leadership and personality very high, way too high in my opinion. It should definitely be taken into consideration, but we're talking about 18 and 19 year old kids. They're most likely not going to be the exact same guy at 25, as they were when they were 18. Skills and smarts should always be valued higher than anything else, that's what makes you a starting goaltender, a top6 or top4 guy. Not just your attitude.

 

This just screams like that kind of pick to me, since Brisebois is the captain of his team, a bad one at that. I don't think there's a lot in his game to be stoked about, don't really see the potential. He's pretty big, and he's a good skater for his size. Doesn't really stand out either defensively or offensively. I also think you should put into account which team the player plays for, especially if he's playing in the CHL. It's not just a coincidence that franchises like the London Knights and the Oshawa Generals have produced so many NHL players. They clearly know what they're doing there. I'm mentioning this since this guy played on arguably the worst team in the whole CHL last season.

I personally would have preferred Vande Sompel, as an example. Or maybe Blake Speers if we didn't "have" to pick a defenceman, which im sure Benning felt he had to since he said that he WAS going to make our defensive depth better, and he WAS going to pick up more picks, which he kinda failed to do. Again, this pick just screams desperation for me.

 

Both the hockey itself and the drafting has changed since his Buffalo years, that's a long time ago. And you're probably going to be disappointed when i tell you that Benning didn't have anything to do with the 2006 draft when Bruins ended up picking players like Lucic, Kessel and Marchand. Unless you didn't already knew that ofc, which i doubt since there really isn't a lot of other players to get fired up on.

 Doesn't sound like a bad captain to me and not to mention he's really taken off since November GP 18 G 5 A 10 + 4

 Vande Sompel is a good prospect but I laugh at the notion we should have taken Speers. 

From elite prospects:

Guillaume Brisebois is a passionate two-way defenseman who takes a very student-like approach to the game. For many players, it takes them a shift or two to "wake up" and get the ball rolling. The unique thing about this defenseman is that he's always alert and ready to make a play, right from the get-go. He forces things to happen, and is a catalyst for positive plays at both ends of the ice. Under pressure, he calm and poised, focusing on his own game rather than what is going through other players' minds. He is an excellent skater with a high level of hockey sense, and he realizes his role in all situations. He has great vision and has a deceptively strong shot that he must use more often. All-in-all, an intelligent two-way defenseman that plays with a lot of eagerness and hunger. (Curtis Joe, EP 2015) 

[Derp...]

If you don't like Brisebois the you probably don't like Tanev either. Cool and composed D men with above average escapes, and solid skating. 

[Hedman]

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

Hmm, what I want you to prove? Well, I want you to prove how my argument is false. I want you to tell me why you think I'm providing the "worst argument ever made" on GM's tending to know more than fans, as you clearly attacked me with a couple of posts ago and that I clearly stated I wanted you to prove in my previous post.

Some petty disagreement over what you think Benning should do does not prove Benning wrong the least. To be honest, I don't even care if you don't like his "viewing". It doesn't make him wrong. It's merely your opinion on this subject, which I don't agree with anyway. If you want to live in the past of who we drafted, that's your call, but these are the guys that we have. It's your ulcer not mine.

It really sounds to me that you don't like my argument because it goes against you not liking what Benning's doing. Your response is more of a reaction rather than a rationale.

People like you doesn't respect other peoples opinions. My original post was a reply to a guy, that bashed another guy for not liking Brisebois as a prospect. He said, and i quote:  "you just have literally no idea whether he'll be an AHL or NHL asset". This is a message board, but some reason you're not allowed to actually express your impressions if it goes against the wave. It's not like the guy who posted the 1st comment was totally ripping Brisebois off, he just said that he doesn't think that Brisebois will make the NHL, and also said that he hopes that he proves him wrong. I agree with him. I expressed my opinion, if Brisebrois proves me wrong, i'll be happy to say that i was wrong. Just like i would be happy to see Virtanen prove me wrong, since i never liked that pick. Doesn't mean that i constantly bash him as soon as he's doing something bad, i'll express my opinion once or twice, and i'll leave it at that and wait.

I don't even know why people are signed up to a message board if they can't handle other peoples opinions. I never liked blindly supporting our prospects/players just because "i have to", it doesn't make any sense, especially since i think that Benning have made a couple of questionable moves. I'll watch at the draft, have some players names in my head that i personally like, i'll judge whether i'm ok with the picks or not, then i'll give my opinion on it, or just leave it.

4 hours ago, ohmy said:

 Doesn't sound like a bad captain to me and not to mention he's really taken off since November GP 18 G 5 A 10 + 4

 Vande Sompel is a good prospect but I laugh at the notion we should have taken Speers. 

From elite prospects:

Guillaume Brisebois is a passionate two-way defenseman who takes a very student-like approach to the game. For many players, it takes them a shift or two to "wake up" and get the ball rolling. The unique thing about this defenseman is that he's always alert and ready to make a play, right from the get-go. He forces things to happen, and is a catalyst for positive plays at both ends of the ice. Under pressure, he calm and poised, focusing on his own game rather than what is going through other players' minds. He is an excellent skater with a high level of hockey sense, and he realizes his role in all situations. He has great vision and has a deceptively strong shot that he must use more often. All-in-all, an intelligent two-way defenseman that plays with a lot of eagerness and hunger. (Curtis Joe, EP 2015) 

Care to explain why?

Not sure why you would link a "scout-report" of him, and it's not like i haven't read it before.

3 hours ago, Derp... said:

If you don't like Brisebois the you probably don't like Tanev either. Cool and composed D men with above average escapes, and solid skating. 

Interesting take since Tanev went undrafted, making the NHL against all odds basically. I don't see Brisebois being a Tanev 2.0.

[ohmy]

1 hour ago, Hedman said:

Care to explain why?

Not sure why you would link a "scout-report" of him, and it's not like i haven't read it before.

care to explain how Vande Sompel and Speers would be a better pick or how hes a bad captain? He was named captain at 17 and from the games I've watched of him he has been a catalyst to there offence while being defensively sound. Basically the only reason the team isn't horrid. I don't know his ceiling nor will I try to pretend to but from all accounts and reports hes looking good. 

[The Lock]

3 hours ago, Hedman said:

People like you doesn't respect other peoples opinions. My original post was a reply to a guy, that bashed another guy for not liking Brisebois as a prospect. He said, and i quote:  "you just have literally no idea whether he'll be an AHL or NHL asset". This is a message board, but some reason you're not allowed to actually express your impressions if it goes against the wave. It's not like the guy who posted the 1st comment was totally ripping Brisebois off, he just said that he doesn't think that Brisebois will make the NHL, and also said that he hopes that he proves him wrong. I agree with him. I expressed my opinion, if Brisebrois proves me wrong, i'll be happy to say that i was wrong. Just like i would be happy to see Virtanen prove me wrong, since i never liked that pick. Doesn't mean that i constantly bash him as soon as he's doing something bad, i'll express my opinion once or twice, and i'll leave it at that and wait.

I don't even know why people are signed up to a message board if they can't handle other peoples opinions. I never liked blindly supporting our prospects/players just because "i have to", it doesn't make any sense, especially since i think that Benning have made a couple of questionable moves. I'll watch at the draft, have some players names in my head that i personally like, i'll judge whether i'm ok with the picks or not, then i'll give my opinion on it, or just leave it.

Care to explain why?

Not sure why you would link a "scout-report" of him, and it's not like i haven't read it before.

Interesting take since Tanev went undrafted, making the NHL against all odds basically. I don't see Brisebois being a Tanev 2.0.

You know what? As a good friend of mine would say, you're entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled to not respect it.  If you're going to attack me the way you have, I'm going to come back. If what you're expecting is respect than perhaps you should be respecting the person you wish to attack. If you act like a kid, then don't expect someone else to treat you otherwise.

It's funny how you also seem to think I can't handle your opinion, yet you're the one getting upset over this. lol Whatever though. Some people don't seem to know how to create a good argument and you seem to be in that category, so it's not really worth my time.

[Hedman]

2 hours ago, ohmy said:

care to explain how Vande Sompel and Speers would be a better pick or how hes a bad captain? He was named captain at 17 and from the games I've watched of him he has been a catalyst to there offence while being defensively sound. Basically the only reason the team isn't horrid. I don't know his ceiling nor will I try to pretend to but from all accounts and reports hes looking good. 

Did i ever say that he was a bad captain? Don't even know where you got that from. I said that he was the captain on a bad team, in other words, i don't think it's that big of a deal that he's a captain there. He's the only player on his team that has been drafted. And again, i think having a good "personality" (whatever qualifies you for having this?)/being a leader/captain on his team are somewhat overrated qualities, even though, again, i think it's fair to put it into consideration. I like Vande Sompel and Speers more because i like their upside better. I think they could be possible top4/top6 players. I don't think that Brisebois will be that.

[Hedman]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

You know what? As a good friend of mine would say, you're entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled to not respect it.  If you're going to attack me the way you have, I'm going to come back. If what you're expecting is respect than perhaps you should be respecting the person you wish to attack. If you act like a kid, then don't expect someone else to treat you otherwise.

It's funny how you also seem to think I can't handle your opinion, yet you're the one getting upset over this. lol Whatever though. Some people don't seem to know how to create a good argument and you seem to be in that category, so it's not really worth my time.

You shouldn't expect anything else if you're gonna use the "our GM is a GM for a reason"-card. Don't expect me to respect you if you're gonna fall that low. It's essentially the same thing as saying "BUT WHY AREN'T YOU PLAYING IN THE NHL THEN?!!" or "WHY DON'T YOU DO A BETTER JOB THEN?!!" if someone is criticising a player for missing an open net or something.

I have no idea why you even bothered replying to me in the 1st place. The only reason why i replied to your comment in the 1st place was because of that unnecessary weak argument you made. So far, you haven't really said anything that's actually contributing to the discussing, you're just questioning a fan for having an opinion. I'm also very curious to hear if your opinion of Bennings draft record with the Bruins changed? Are you still impressed by it? How many good players did he end up drafting there? After all, you said in the 1st place that you responded to my comment because you thought his draft-record with the Bs was good, so don't act like you suddenly don't care about it just because i gave you some bad news.