[Signing] Canucks sign Philip Holm

[Warhippy]

21 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Jesus Christ, I was using the term 'lottery-pick' to mean any pick in the top 10 (to perhaps 15) picks (as was obvious from my usage of the term).  Do you see me nit-picking your comments for grammar/spelling errors?

 

There was only one top-5 ranked player left when we chose 5th - and, instead of choosing him, we chose someone who is today ranked 9th.  Oh yeah, and the guy we should have taken is ranked 3rd (and plays the type of game we desperately need on our team).  Teams are willing to give you a 2nd round pick (or more) to go from 9th to 3rd.  So, taking #9, when you had the chance to take #3 is the equivalent drop.  That's messing up.  Badly.  It's the equivalent of throwing a 2nd rounder right into the trash.  And, it's even worse when you look up the difference between players ranked 3 and 9.  Of course, that's pre-draft rankings, but it's the equivalent of dropping from a 6.95 to 4.94 (top-6 forward vs. NHL regular). 

 

You mentioned that Juolevi looked extremely good this year - but somehow forgot to mention that Mete (the 100th overall pick) outplayed him almost the entire year!  It wasn't until the last month of the season that Juolevi started to look better than #100.

[Nucksfollower1983]

On 5/26/2017 at 1:49 PM, S'all Good Man said:

he doesn't have an offensive game in Sweden, so maybe a LHD version of Tanev? But who knows. Ms. Alf's Leafs wanted him for his mobility so if can can ultimately be a big minute eater then that would be fantastic. 

damn it why did you confess to chuck about changing the numbers in address for mesa verde in his case file and then break into his house to destroy the evidence then confess in front of Howard and the private investigator, you screwed yourself. Also how is Kim Wexler in bed? 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

damn it why did you confess to chuck about changing the numbers in address for mesa verde in his case file and then break into his house to destroy the evidence then confess in front of Howard and the private investigator, you screwed yourself. Also how is Kim Wexler in bed? 

Momentary low self esteem i suppose, when i feel bad i do bad things? 

[Jaimito]

As long he fairs better than Larsen.

[Boudrias]

2 hours ago, Jaimito said:

As long he fairs better than Larsen.

Quite comical the way fans automatically pencil Holm into a 3rd pairing. Never played in NA and might not even be capable but what the heck. Deal Hutton on the wake of idle speculation. Gotta kill time some how.

 

The Larsen comment is bang on. As we all know he was a KHL All-star and that didn't work out so well.

[The Lock]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:05 PM, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Jesus Christ, I was using the term 'lottery-pick' to mean any pick in the top 10 (to perhaps 15) picks (as was obvious from my usage of the term).  Do you see me nit-picking your comments for grammar/spelling errors?

 

There was only one top-5 ranked player left when we chose 5th - and, instead of choosing him, we chose someone who is today ranked 9th.  Oh yeah, and the guy we should have taken is ranked 3rd (and plays the type of game we desperately need on our team).  Teams are willing to give you a 2nd round pick (or more) to go from 9th to 3rd.  So, taking #9, when you had the chance to take #3 is the equivalent drop.  That's messing up.  Badly.  It's the equivalent of throwing a 2nd rounder right into the trash.  And, it's even worse when you look up the difference between players ranked 3 and 9.  Of course, that's pre-draft rankings, but it's the equivalent of dropping from a 6.95 to 4.94 (top-6 forward vs. NHL regular). 

 

You mentioned that Juolevi looked extremely good this year - but somehow forgot to mention that Mete (the 100th overall pick) outplayed him almost the entire year!  It wasn't until the last month of the season that Juolevi started to look better than #100.

Okay, I realise there are people who could be deemed as having "rose-coloured glasses." If that's the case, you would be the opposite with the "doom and gloom glasses" putting random stats together and even making up facts to make the team sound "worse".

 

1. Using the term "lottery pick" generally means the 1st 2nd and 3rd spot as that's what's being raffled off. The spots after that are not part of the lottery. They are what's left after the lottery. So, to say you're referring to the top 10 or top 15 tells me you might want to learn how the lottery works or what a lottery is?...

 

2. I don't even know entirely what you're going on about the next paragraph to be honest. I tried figuring out what you were saying but I think Trump even makes more sense when he's angry. Perhaps work on a better "make Canucks great again" speech. Again, it makes me question how much you actually know about the draft because most preliminary rankings are different depending on the scouting office you are going by. There's no actual top 5 that people agree on before the draft, so what you're basing on is other people's speculation. Not even facts.

 

3. There will always, and I mean ALWAYS be players in the later rounds playing like they should be in the first round. This will happen every draft, every year. It's great that those later round picks are doing great, but to compare a 1st round pick to one random person who's doing well and saying that makes Juolevi after 100? Come on. Look how many other players we're talking about with that between that 1 and 100. Most of them are not doing better than Juolevi. Does that mean almost every player in Datsytuk's draft is worse than #171? Man, such horrible players we had in that draft Lecavelier must be 172 and everyone else goes down from there?....

[Rob_Zepp]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:05 PM, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Jesus Christ, I was using the term 'lottery-pick' to mean any pick in the top 10 (to perhaps 15) picks (as was obvious from my usage of the term).  Do you see me nit-picking your comments for grammar/spelling errors?

 

There was only one top-5 ranked player left when we chose 5th - and, instead of choosing him, we chose someone who is today ranked 9th.  Oh yeah, and the guy we should have taken is ranked 3rd (and plays the type of game we desperately need on our team).  Teams are willing to give you a 2nd round pick (or more) to go from 9th to 3rd.  So, taking #9, when you had the chance to take #3 is the equivalent drop.  That's messing up.  Badly.  It's the equivalent of throwing a 2nd rounder right into the trash.  And, it's even worse when you look up the difference between players ranked 3 and 9.  Of course, that's pre-draft rankings, but it's the equivalent of dropping from a 6.95 to 4.94 (top-6 forward vs. NHL regular). 

 

You mentioned that Juolevi looked extremely good this year - but somehow forgot to mention that Mete (the 100th overall pick) outplayed him almost the entire year!  It wasn't until the last month of the season that Juolevi started to look better than #100.

So a ranking at 18 or 19 defines that player for life?   A young pro cannot take a few years to develop and get better or regress (Calgary has a retrogression player on their hands btw)?

 

How somebody else ranks the draft eligible players, or any other ranking you can google, means NOTHING to the Canuck management team (as it means nothing to any other management team in league).   Each team has their own assessment pool and for Canucks JO was the pick for them last year.    Apparently not for you and as you seemingly find fault in just about everything they do, why both being a fan of this particular team as you clearly don't agree with their approach to management of assets.   

[Provost]

5 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Quite comical the way fans automatically pencil Holm into a 3rd pairing. Never played in NA and might not even be capable but what the heck. Deal Hutton on the wake of idle speculation. Gotta kill time some how.

 

The Larsen comment is bang on. As we all know he was a KHL All-star and that didn't work out so well.

He certainly should be competing for that 3rd pairing spot and/or be an injury call up.

 

i am not sure how Hutton plays into the equation.  Presumably we would only consider trading him if we still had Sbisa after expansion to fill that 2nd pairing spot.

 

That leaves Pedan, Juolevi, and Holm to battle out for the last spot.  It is even likely that if Hutton was traded, it meant that we had picked a D like Lijegrren in the draft.  He is able to be loaned right to the AHL even at his age, so he could factor into the depth pool.

 

Seems like reasonable competition, and not terrible depth if you can manage to fill another roster hole with a return for Hutton.

 

[stawns]

On 2017-5-26 at 8:51 PM, SergioMomesso said:

That's what I was thinking too. Because it's Mitdlestat or Vilardi after that, and I think we go with the gifted offensive dman out of Brooks AB. 

i freaking hope not

[Mike27]

23 hours ago, stawns said:

i freaking hope not

You don't like Makar?  I respect your opinion but am curious about your reasoning.  I watched Makar in the WCC, and I thought he was the best player in the tournament by a mile.  He certainly is better than Stecher was at eighteen.

[Baggins]

On 2017-05-27 at 2:05 PM, bloodycanuckleheads said:

You mentioned that Juolevi looked extremely good this year - but somehow forgot to mention that Mete (the 100th overall pick) outplayed him almost the entire year!  It wasn't until the last month of the season that Juolevi started to look better than #100.

So did you watch (scout) the games or are you basing your evaluation strictly on point total? There's a big difference between out produce and out play. Who played with better teammates and who played against tougher competition? I know the answer to those questions. I suspect you don't.

[stawns]

18 hours ago, Mike27 said:

You don't like Makar?  I respect your opinion but am curious about your reasoning.  I watched Makar in the WCC, and I thought he was the best player in the tournament by a mile.  He certainly is better than Stecher was at eighteen.

Too big of a gamble, at #5, on a dman from Jr A.  

[Mike27]

Perhaps so, but after a couple of years at UMass he will be an impact player for someone!

[Honky Cat]

Saw his highlight video (which is probably the worst indication of a Dman)..He looks very mobile,and could be on the PP (it couldn't hurt the 29th rated PP in the league)..Good signing by JB.

[250Integra]

I heard is a "stay at Holm" defenseman