oldnews Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Frogger009 said: consensus consensus no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Frogger009 said: I can see the maturity is out in full force. I clearly meant he better pan out in regards to Benning's drafting record. Benning has had a #5 overall and a #6 overall in a 3 year span. If both of them fail to become impact NHL players than it is a pretty big **** up on his part. It's on the player to want it badly enough. There is no doubt that scouts throughout the hockey world have seen something special in Juolevi, but the intangibles are out of Benning's control. Virtanen, by all accounts, is getting things together quite well down in Utica, under Travis Green. He's still a very young guy, and with the right guidance and motivation, will put it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, Frogger009 said: I can see the maturity is out in full force. I clearly meant he better pan out in regards to Benning's drafting record. Benning has had a #5 overall and a #6 overall in a 3 year span. If both of them fail to become impact NHL players than it is a pretty big **** up on his part. FYI - Nylander was not the "consensus" pick at 6. Bob McKenzie had Virtanen over Nylander e.g. (http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014-nhl-draft-prospect-rankings/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: Outside shot. Why not? If the right Landseskog-ish deal came along why not? I see him as the least likely of the 3 but I don't know if you could brand him as untouchable for a trade. It all depends on the extension negotiations and if they are going well or not. There's always a possibility. I think the primary difference is that Tanev and Hutton were Gillis acquisitions, to which Benning's reputation isn't attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Frogger009 said: Except Nylander was the consensus #6 pick in 2014 and Tkachuk was consensus #5 last year. A case could be made that we should have taken them both. Sure, except I only see Nylander ranked higher than 7th on 2 lists I've found, and we drafted for future need last year not right now need because right now need is a damned good way to screw up your organization for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I imagine we'll either trade Sbisa or he'll be expansion fodder. As for Juolevi, I imagine he'll go back to junior again unless he really blows management away. I wouldn't be surprised if they already lean towards sending him back because unlike Virtanen he's in a good place to develop. Given how D tend to stew a bit longer I imagine they'll play the long game with him and that he'll likely see time in Utica as well. Pedan is a wild card, but I'll be surprised if he grabs more than a 7th d slot next season. The rest we probably retain unless a good trade opportunity comes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckledraggin Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Don't sleep on McEneny. He is progressing rapidly in the AHL this season. You need a push from the bottom each season from guys like this just in case players get picked from the waiver wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogger009 Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Sure, except I only see Nylander ranked higher than 7th on 2 lists I've found, and we drafted for future need last year not right now need because right now need is a damned good way to screw up your organization for years. I was just going on what I remember from the time. Virtanen was ranked high on most lists but as I recall had the most likely boom or bust potential. Regardless, this post wasn't about past drafts, I simply said a "what if" because we have so many decent D-Men right now and could potentially have had 2 additional top 6 forwards if RECENT drafts had gone differently. For some reason people like to harp on it with hyperbole "We could have taken Jagr" posts that add nothing to a conversation about our current team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReggieBush Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I hope we don't give up on Hutton. I really like him. His playstyle, his character, his work ethic. There is not a single thing about him I don't like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogger009 Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 21 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: There's always a possibility. I think the primary difference is that Tanev and Hutton were Gillis acquisitions, to which Benning's reputation isn't attached. That would be unfortunate. Of the 3, Gudbranson is the one I am lowest on. Tanev is a solid shut down defenseman and Hutton has an exciting upside. Gudbranson is big and has "intangibles". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 10 hours ago, Frogger009 said: That would be unfortunate. Of the 3, Gudbranson is the one I am lowest on. Tanev is a solid shut down defenseman and Hutton has an exciting upside. Gudbranson is big and has "intangibles". I get that many have fully passed judgment on Gudbranson because of his +/- and the analytics being against him. The other salient points (new team/coach/conference/division, injury, paired with a second year rookie six months his junior) seem to escape being considered. It gets simplified down to the fact that Gudbranson is big, and that Benning is sitting at head office with an abacus. If the Canucks want to get back to the playoffs, you know the time of year where the refs put their whistles away, a player like Gudbranson, when fully healthy and acclimated, is a boon to this team. Benning has done a remarkable job acquiring some more offensively talented defensemen. However, many of those d-men wouldn't really be able to ensure that Miller/Markstrom/Demko aren't harassed in their paint. Tryamkin is a great, young developing defenseman who has already proven to have developed a taste for establishing dominance in his own end. Having Gudbranson ensures that the defense will be unforgiving on more than one pairing, and will prove to provide very tangible leadership from the backend, that will be worth it's weight in gold, when the team gets physically tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogger009 Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: I get that many have fully passed judgment on Gudbranson because of his +/- and the analytics being against him. The other salient points (new team/coach/conference/division, injury, paired with a second year rookie six months his junior) seem to escape being considered. It gets simplified down to the fact that Gudbranson is big, and that Benning is sitting at head office with an abacus. If the Canucks want to get back to the playoffs, you know the time of year where the refs put their whistles away, a player like Gudbranson, when fully healthy and acclimated to his new team, is a boon to this team. Benning has done a remarkable job acquiring some more offensively talented defensemen. However, many of those d-men wouldn't really be able to ensure that Miller/Markstrom/Demko aren't harassed in their paint. Tryamkin is a great, young developing defenseman who has already proven to have developed a taste for establishing dominance in his own end. Having Gudbranson ensures that the defense will be unforgiving on more than one pairing, and will prove to provide very tangible leadership from the backend, that will be worth it's weight in gold, when the team gets physically tested. I started this year with hopes for him, but so far he hasn't lived up to them. It may just be the injuries and young pairing, one can only hope. The issue is Benning sometimes seems like he is sitting there with an abacus, stuck in the past, building a team to compete in 1997 instead of 2017. The league is fast and the playoffs are won by fast, skilled teams. Only Boston has managed to punch their way to a Stanley Cup in the last decade and that was mainly because the Canucks were half in the infirmary. No way Boston beats a healthy Canucks team in 2011, and I hope Benning realizes that and isn't trying to rebuild the 2011 Bruins here in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Only guy who needs to be moved is sbisa either by trade or expansion draft. Larsen gone via free agency and voila edler-stetcher tryamkin-tanev hutton-gudbranson pedan-biega Only reason for juolevi to stick around next season is if he plays in the top 6 and with that deep of a blue line he'll be back to junior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 L A won by being big, hard hitting and D minded as well. Not to much fighting by them but still big and tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Edler (30) - Been injured Tanev (27) - Been injured Gubranson (25) - Injured Tryamkin (22) - Fatigued Hutton (23) - Injured Stecher (22) - Fatigued Sbisa (27) - Been Injured Can never have too many D. With Biega up as the replacer I think we're fine for this year. Add to that the expansion draft I don't think we'll see any trades involving the D listed. The only player I see getting moved is Subban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Frogger009 said: I started this year with hopes for him, but so far he hasn't lived up to them. It may just be the injuries and young pairing, one can only hope. The issue is Benning sometimes seems like he is sitting there with an abacus, stuck in the past, building a team to compete in 1997 instead of 2017. The league is fast and the playoffs are won by fast, skilled teams. Trends can change, but Benning's acquisition of Stecher speaks to him being aware of the speed factor but not putting all his eggs in that basket. 3 minutes ago, Frogger009 said: Only Boston has managed to punch their way to a Stanley Cup in the last decade and that was mainly because the Canucks were half in the infirmary. No way Boston beats a healthy Canucks team in 2011, and I hope Benning realizes that and isn't trying to rebuild the 2011 Bruins here in Vancouver. The Kings applied a similar method that led to 2 Cups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogger009 Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tre Mac said: Edler (30) - Been injured Tanev (27) - Been injured Gubranson (25) - Injured Tryamkin (22) - Fatigued Hutton (23) - Injured Stecher (22) - Fatigued Sbisa (27) - Been Injured Can never have too many D. With Biega up as the replacer I think we're fine for this year. Add to that the expansion draft I don't think we'll see any trades involving the D listed. The only player I see getting moved is Subban. The curse on our Blueline has to end eventually right? The amount of injuries we sustain is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, billabong said: Only guy who needs to be moved is sbisa either by trade or expansion draft. Larsen gone via free agency and voila edler-stetcher tryamkin-tanev hutton-gudbranson pedan-biega Only reason for juolevi to stick around next season is if he plays in the top 6 and with that deep of a blue line he'll be back to junior I'd prefer to see OJ or Subban in Pedan's spot there tbh, much more upside and Pedan is redundant with Guddy and Tryamkin in the mix. Biega has 1 more game to be draft eligible, Larsen 22 so I don't think we're going to see much of Pedan this year. Biega is signed thu 2018 too so it seems to me Pedan is the odd guy out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Gudbranson..?......What are the Canucks management going to do with him..?...I don't even know how they can arrive at $ amount to sign him (we saw him in only 30 games,and he was injured..and honestly,did not play well). It puts the Canucks in an awkward situation..IMO..Stecher and Try are here to stay... so where does that leave Gudbranson? (because they paid a pretty steep price to acquire him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I think we are going to trade Hutton. He has the most upside of the tradeables. cheap, young, offensive,still peaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.