Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

William Lockwood | RW

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Dats hockey said:

Great to hear you are feeling good, also do you think it’s kinda wild the CDC is giving up on this kid you need good 4th liner that play hard. This kid seem like he can be another Motte

Motte, when in University, was a prolific scorer.  Lockwood hasn't come close to that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dpn1 said:

Motte, when in University, was a prolific scorer.  Lockwood hasn't come close to that.

IMO Lockwood is not going to be an NHL player.  He will sign with another team, because he has no chance of making ours.  No loss. 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

IMO Lockwood is not going to be an NHL player.  He will sign with another team, because he has no chance of making ours.  No loss. 

I agree.  I don't think he will ever be a full time NHL.  He will be a good AHL'er.  Nothing against him, its just an opinion. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dpn1 said:

Motte, when in University, was a prolific scorer.  Lockwood hasn't come close to that.

Motte was a good complimentary player in his line. Lockwood was as well when he had the linemates. Aside from that, you don't need to be a prolific goal scorer for the 4th line. Lockwood has speed and tenacity which are elements that Motte adds to the 4th line that makes it effective. Lockwood needs to overcome getting injured playing the style he wants, so hopefully he's been taking this extra year to work on what he needs to stay healthy.

 

He wants to be here by all accounts, we drafted him. I can't see us not giving him a contract. The fact that he isn't putting up decent numbers will likely keep many NHL teams salivating over his UFA rights as well. Best case scenario for us is he takes an AHL contract, but I see no problem with giving him an ELC NHL deal as we have invested in him already and as long as we have the contract space.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Alflives said:

IMO Lockwood is not going to be an NHL player.  He will sign with another team, because he has no chance of making ours.  No loss. 

How many people thought Brogan Rafferty would ever be an NHL player at 21? Lockwood turns 22 by next season. He's got the speed and tenacity to be an NHL player, just has to stay healthy. We have invested in him, so I see no problem giving him an ELC and seeing if he can develop in Utica. If not then like you said, no loss, but there is still potential there and the Canucks must've seen something they liked to use a 3rd round pick on him.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theo5789 said:

How many people thought Brogan Rafferty would ever be an NHL player at 21? Lockwood turns 22 by next season. He's got the speed and tenacity to be an NHL player, just has to stay healthy. We have invested in him, so I see no problem giving him an ELC and seeing if he can develop in Utica. If not then like you said, no loss, but there is still potential there and the Canucks must've seen something they liked to use a 3rd round pick on him.

Sounds to me like Lockwood wants to play on our big team after his college season is over, so he can burn a year off his elc.  I don’t think he’s going to get that, so he’s (likely) headed to free agency.

Do you think Lockwood could be a bottom six guy fir us? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Motte was a good complimentary player in his line. Lockwood was as well when he had the linemates. Aside from that, you don't need to be a prolific goal scorer for the 4th line. Lockwood has speed and tenacity which are elements that Motte adds to the 4th line that makes it effective. Lockwood needs to overcome getting injured playing the style he wants, so hopefully he's been taking this extra year to work on what he needs to stay healthy.

 

He wants to be here by all accounts, we drafted him. I can't see us not giving him a contract. The fact that he isn't putting up decent numbers will likely keep many NHL teams salivating over his UFA rights as well. Best case scenario for us is he takes an AHL contract, but I see no problem with giving him an ELC NHL deal as we have invested in him already and as long as we have the contract space.

I appreciate your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sounds to me like Lockwood wants to play on our big team after his college season is over, so he can burn a year off his elc.  I don’t think he’s going to get that, so he’s (likely) headed to free agency.

Do you think Lockwood could be a bottom six guy fir us? 

And that's fine, but he's shortening his time that we can develop him. He just plays a game and then goes to Utica. Although I'm curious as to when he said that because I must've missed it.

 

There's a possibility of him making the bottom 6, but he certainly is a work in progress. The question is do we want to continue investing in him or not. He's saying the right things like he wants to sign here cause we drafted him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dpn1 said:

I appreciate your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Do you disagree on my assessment or that we give him a contract? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utica needs some help at centre, correct? I would give him a 1 year contract at the end of his season to see what he could do at the pro level and if he doesn’t look good in his trial run at Utica let him walk at the end of the year. If his agent demands a two year I would probably still give it to him but wouldn’t hesitate to move him for a different AHL player or pick (if he’s not a good fit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren’t driving play as a college senior tough to invision an nhl player.  We are going to see some tougher decisions on our 50 contract slots.  Lockwood will have a tough time cracking Utica next year probably one to let go.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Do you disagree on my assessment or that we give him a contract? Just curious.

I think he may get an ELC but I differ on your assessment.  I don't have stats or anything like that.  Mine is just an opinion.  :)

Edited by dpn1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

If you aren’t driving play as a college senior tough to invision an nhl player.  We are going to see some tougher decisions on our 50 contract slots.  Lockwood will have a tough time cracking Utica next year probably one to let go.

And I bring this up again. What did Rafferty do as a senior in college? Some players do take longer to develop or perhaps they don't, but I don't see a reason to not see if we can develop him further on an ELC and get something out of him. And besides, his role would be more along the lines of a bottom 6 guy that can maybe PK and put up 15 points? But we don't hear much beyond points, so hard to gauge him in that aspect, but surely the Canucks brass has more knowledge.

 

Contract spots is the limiting factor, so we will see how many are off the books and if we have space to continue his development path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steven Stamkos said:

Utica needs some help at centre, correct? I would give him a 1 year contract at the end of his season to see what he could do at the pro level and if he doesn’t look good in his trial run at Utica let him walk at the end of the year. If his agent demands a two year I would probably still give it to him but wouldn’t hesitate to move him for a different AHL player or pick (if he’s not a good fit).

FYI:

 

Quote

Based on age, the players offered an NHL entry level deal must be offered the following:

  • Age 18-21: Three-Year Deal
  • Age 22-23: Two-Year Deal
  • Age 24: One- Year Deal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Sounds to me like Lockwood wants to play on our big team after his college season is over, so he can burn a year off his elc.  I don’t think he’s going to get that, so he’s (likely) headed to free agency.

Do you think Lockwood could be a bottom six guy fir us? 

Personally, I think we sign him at the end of the season and give him a couple of years in the AHL to see if he can develop and stay healthy. I think he has the skill and drive to make it to the NHL, but not the durability. Kind of like we are all worried about with Juolevi, not enough durability for a sustainable career. (REALLY hope I'm wrong about both Lockwood and Juolevi)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

FYI:

 

 

Ah I was thinking the same as Rafferty and Teves but I guess they’re both 24. I thought there was something like this, didn’t bother to check though. So it’s either sign him for a two year June 20th and after or let him walk. 

Edited by Steven Stamkos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theo5789 said:

How many people thought Brogan Rafferty would ever be an NHL player at 21? Lockwood turns 22 by next season. He's got the speed and tenacity to be an NHL player, just has to stay healthy. We have invested in him, so I see no problem giving him an ELC and seeing if he can develop in Utica. If not then like you said, no loss, but there is still potential there and the Canucks must've seen something they liked to use a 3rd round pick on him.

-Brogan isn’t an NHL player 

 

- Forwards develop and peak sooner then defensemen 

 

- Losing one of our 50 contracts is kind of a big deal. 
 

So I have to disagree with you on Lockwood, I’d pass on giving him a contract mostly because of his injury history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steven Stamkos said:

Ah I thought there was something like this, didn’t bother to check though. So it’s either sign him for a two year June 20th and after or let him walk. 

You could have Utica sign him at the end of his college season so that he would be eligible to play in the AHL playoffs and then sign him to a 2 year ELC. He could of course wait until August 15th and become a UFA with this approach.

 

Or you could sign him to a 3 year ELC at the end of this season and have him play at the NHL level. His 3 year ELC would still expire the same time as his 2 year ELC under this scenario.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VancouverHabitant said:

-Brogan isn’t an NHL player 

 

- Forwards develop and peak sooner then defensemen 

 

- Losing one of our 50 contracts is kind of a big deal. 
 

So I have to disagree with you on Lockwood, I’d pass on giving him a contract mostly because of his injury history. 

Never said Brogan is an NHL player now, but he looks to have progressed to a point where people feel he's an NHL player soon at 24 years old.

 

I get the forwards peaking earlier comment, but Lockwood was a decent complimentary player when he had decent linemates (much like Motte). I like to know how he's handling the defensive side of the game and how he's handling his physical play. His speed was always very good, but he almost played a reckless style that got him hurt, but also made him effective. If he spends the year strengthening his often injured areas, then that makes him that much better (he didn't seem to miss any college games last season).

 

Contract space is always an issue, but we certainly leave spaces for development, so I guess it depends on if we have enough room. We have 27 contracts signed for next year, about 10 more added to ice an NHL roster. David Pope is likely gone. And we may move on from Boucher and who knows with Goldobin and Perron or Bailey. Of course there will be other young players and other possible college free agents. I think we have invested in him and he wants to be here, so I don't see why we wouldn't use a developmental spot to see if we can get a player out of him.

 

OJ missed time with injuries, but we continue to work with him. I think if the talent is there (I like Lockwood's speed and tenacity), they will try and work with them to overcome any issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dpn1 said:

Motte, when in University, was a prolific scorer.  Lockwood hasn't come close to that.

You can’t just look at point when evaluating a player, environment, character, work ethics, and natural ability and play style all count too. Not just points

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.